But I gotta ask, when did we start giving students grade point averages above 4.0? I've seen it before - I know that college entrance to the good schools recognizes those students who achieve greater than the maximum grade.
I admit: I'm confused.
It's like the athlete who claims to give 110%. What? How is that possible? How can one give more than the maximum?
I know, it's the middle-age thing creeping in again, the old, "They sure didn't have that when I was a kid." But honestly, they didn't. Because there was a standard in school - 4.0 - and you either met it or you didn't. Your effort was compared to a set, measurable, objective standard.
Instead, we've removed the objective standard so that all measurement is now subjective. The student can never know they've measured up, because they could always go higher. Their score only matters in comparison to others. A 4.0 is meaningless if others receive a 4.1. And the 4.1 fades in comparison to the 4.2, and so on.
Here's my beef with this. First, it's unrealistic. In the marketplace, these students are going to be surprised that employers and customers have measureable, objective standards. Second, it creates a constant state of stress, the pressure to always do better. There's no chance to sabbath - to rest - saying, "I've measured up." Third, it renders the measurement meaningless. For example, the student who scores 3.5 (a respectable grade in former times) now knows that the score is a joke, even if they've done all the required work.
Here's the real carry-over. It's a mirror of what's happened culturally. Just as the objective standard has been removed in academics - that is, there is no rule by which to be compared - any objective moral standard has also been removed. Our post-modern culture tries to deny any external measurement of morality, replacing it with a comparison approach.
That means I no longer view my behavior as right or wrong, just as better or worse than others. You cheated on your boss? Well, you're not that bad, because your co-worker cheated AND lied about it. And they're not that bad, because the boss cheated too, and lied, and got caught, and... you get my point.
But there is an objective standard, and God will call us to account on a final day. Hebrews 9:24 reminds us that "each person is destined to die once and after that comes judgment." And Jesus warned us that "the Son of Man will come with his angels in the glory of his Father and will judge all people according to their deeds" (Matthew 16:27).
I've given my life to proclaiming the grace of God, that through faith God has made a way to free us from the consequences of our sinful deeds. That's the good news, and if morality was simply a matter of comparison, there would be no need for grace, save for the very worst in the world. No, we all need grace, because we all fall short of God's perfect standard.
No, none of us will achieve perfection in this life. And all of us will fail on some level. Let's be thankful for grace, but be careful not give in to the lie of comparative morality.
If I understand correctly a 4.0 GPA is an average A mark. A 100% will get you over the 4.0 GPA. Teachers now give bonus marks to help kids who are struggling to pass, but if you do everything, get it all correct AND do the bonus marks you go over 100%. Sara got 120% in Math 10 by being an overachiever and James got 110% in computers because he ended up teaching the class. I agree a perfect mark always was and should be 100% Period.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that pop culture has largely embraced moral relativism, but I disagree that the judgment of a supreme being is necessary to resolve the problem.
ReplyDeleteIdeas are viral. Philosophy spreads through people over time, like diseases and the antibodies that prevent disease. Currently, many people subscribe to the findings of David Hume, a Scottish philosophic rock star who famously debunked ethics and prescriptive judgments as having no rational basis.
Hume was in error, because he did not distinguish between apparent goods (the pursuit of which lead to hedonism and subjectivity) and real goods (which lead to the fulfillment of our general human potential over generations).
With an understanding of that distinction, and the continued study of man to separate real from apparent goods, I believe our culture will become immune to moral relativism through the antibodies of rational thought and philosophic argument.
The American philosopher Mortimer J. Adler is a good writer on this subject.
-Dwight
A philosopher I'm not nor ever will be, Dwight, but wasn't that the nugget of the Enlightenment, that with the right thought & technology, we could be free of the bounds of morality and law? Which of course all came crashing in as we dropped bombs on each other in the first half of the 20th Century.
ReplyDeleteThe distinction between goods (apparent & real) seems very subjective to me. It's like a man with a knife - the surgeon makes it good, the stalker not so much.
I still think we need an external, objective standard set by an Other beyond ourselves.
Subjective comparison is wearying; mind you, living to an objective standard is burdensome. Thus the Christian message of grace. The objective standard is satisfied, but done so by the very being who created the standard.
thanks for your thoughts. Brian.
A+ is the new A. Really? What if kids are just smarter? If every student meets expectations, do we really have to hand out Fs?
ReplyDeleteI understand that you are using the story about schools and grade inflation to illustrate your point about relative morality, but I have to comment about the former since you brought it up.
I think what you have to understand is the basic shift in ideas about the function of grading. The change actually started when you were in school, Brian, and good ol' SD 34 like so many other districts adopted a view of evaluation as a way to benefit the whole child. A certain private institution we remember as our alma mater whose teachers routinely graded students on the bell curve was not so progressive. The old view of evaluation was that grades were a way to pigeon-hole students, sort them into categories for life, and line them up with the suitable kind of people with whom they should associate; an academic meritocracy, if you will. Groups like the Fraser Institute and most newspapers still see it that way and actively seek to rank and sort the kids of our province so that the "right" children go to the "right" schools. It's medieval.
The broader function of grading in progressive education is to provide feedback to enhance learning. Proper evaluation informs teaching and improves learning. To say that because there are suddenly A+s now means that measurable standards have gone the way of the gestetner machine is not true. More than ever, students are evaluated against specific, measurable objectives even if that means there are more than one way to reach those objectives or that those objectives are negotiated with students or that the objectives have changed since you went to school.
As a matter of fact, according to a colleague of mine from your system, California has gone to extremes to enforce a strict regimen of learning standards for schools with accountability at three levels of admistration: school, district, and state. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but it's kind of opposite to what you are saying.
Just as I disagree with your view of a sliding scale of GPA, I don't think society has watered down morality. It's just that mores and social standards have changed. For example, you can't get away with berating your wife or making racist slurs or homophobic comments. You can't smoke in public, kick your dog, or pat your secretary on the bum. That's good. Twenty years ago, straight, white, men did those things all the time and it was socially acceptable.
And its not just social mores that get you into trouble. Your legal system has gone viral. I'm sure you've heard this one: USA has 5 percent of the world's population and 25 percent of the world's prisoners! If your country cares so little about following the rules, why are 2.3 million Americans in jail? It kind of proves the point that a high emphasis on doing what is right and punishing the wrong doesn't necessarily compel people to behave.