It is widely known that the United States’ education system is subpar compared to other countries, both in terms of content and, most importantly, methodology. The Grade Point Average system is the most commonly used grading system across the U.S., and though many traditionalists argue against the implementation of an alternative grading system that caters to individual students’ needs, others propose that in a country with rapidly declining literacy rates, the only solution left is to fix what’s broken. However, no one can seem to agree on what aspect of our current education system is the issue, not to mention what scholastic reform would look like. Though I don’t claim to offer any solutions to this issue, my recent experiences with contract grading got me thinking about what constitutes a truly exceptional educational system and what that means in the first place. What is the end-all be-all of education, specifically in America? If the goal of education is to encourage critical thinking, creativity and economic stability, then how can our government collaborate with organizations, teachers and students themselves to create a grading system that escapes the fairly restrictive traditional grading system while still prioritizing educational rigor? Though these are questions that do not have simple answers, they are nonetheless important to ask, especially considering the ever-changing arena of American politics, not to mention the technological developments that fundamentally change our relationship to education, namely artificial intelligence. I believe that exposure to different systems of education encourages critical thinking and maximizes academic potential. 

My first introduction to contract grading was during this semester in a humanities class. To paraphrase my professor’s explanation: contract grading entails using a “contract” with specific expectations tied to each letter grade. For example, an A+ grade would be attained by putting in the most effort possible: consistent participation, no absences and no late assignments. By this logic, it follows that lower grades correspond to lower degrees of participation. In other words, contract grading depends entirely on effort, not on quality of the work, as opposed to regular grading where your grade is a reflection of your alignment with the given rubric. 

While I appreciate the opportunity to utilize a less common system of grading, I often find myself left directionless after my essay gets turned in grade-less but rife with feedback. While this might seem strange — after all, getting writing feedback is wonderful and receiving grades are often less wonderful — I discovered that for me personally, number and letter grades are quite helpful when gauging how much I need to improve. That being said, the feedback in this class has been more detailed and individualized than any humanities class I’ve ever taken, which I deeply appreciate. Even when taking that into consideration, however, my main contention maintains its legitimacy: Grades are truly instrumental in classes for me and many other students, and they help us understand how we need to alter our study habits. 

Taking the gradeless, feedback-heavy nature of contract grading into consideration, I do wonder how it might fare in a non-humanities class. For example, I’m currently taking two science, technology, engineering, and mathematics classes that are very grade-heavy. Would I feel the same about contract grading if it was utilized in a class that I’m weaker in? Probably not. That being said, contract grading seems to only apply to humanities-oriented classes. Though the idea of a gradeless STEM class sounds blissful, one wonders if it would even be appropriate considering the disparate nature of humanities versus STEM fields. STEM requires particular and measurable results that can easily be labeled as correct or incorrect — a quality that the humanities does not share. 

Contract grading, at least implicitly, rests on the ethos that mastery of a subject cannot be forced. If a student has no passion for writing, for example, it might be illogical to expect them to come to a writing class prepared to approach it with excitement and maximum preparedness. Some may argue with this claim and point out that the optional nature of higher education means that students should prepare to come to each class with great passion, but that’s beyond the purview of this article. To return to my original point, I think that the fundamental idea of contract grading has value. Though this approach hasn’t been catastrophic so far, I do wonder if contract grading has more benefits than drawbacks. Assuming a student has a set goal and time commitment for the class, tying grades to degrees of participation automatically caters to the individual rather than to accepted norms, a fact which bumps contract grading a few points up in my book.

I wonder why a happy compromise can’t be established between these two forms of grading: letter/percent grades and contract grading. Surely it doesn’t have to be one or the other — more individualized student approaches with more relaxed grading expectations while still maintaining a productively strict classroom seems like the place where the two can meet. It is, of course, easier to write about these prospects than to actually enact change; all the same, conversations and debates surrounding the systems we use to educate youth around the country are absolutely crucial to increasing literacy rates around the country. Principles of anti-intellectualism have begun to prevail in pop culture — the phrase “it’s not that deep” has found its home in teenagers’ social vocabulary around the globe. Governmental officials are more capable than ever of obfuscating pertinent information from citizens and college matriculation rates are dropping. The lack of a passion for education among the youth will only encourage these symptoms of a crumbling democracy.  Many scholars warn that this will in turn cause educational backsliding. I might not like contract grading in this instance, but the very fact that I have an opportunity to experience it speaks to an American libertarian sentiment of free thinking, individual liberty and education for all. American liberty is in danger of slipping from our hands. Keeping our hold on it lies in activism — both current and future. If part of our fate lies in the youth, it is of the utmost importance to encourage constant educational reform, debate and conversation. In short: when push comes to shove, the use of contract grading is a sign that conversations surrounding education are happening. Whether it’s used by itself or in combination with other forms of grading is irrelevant here; the very fact that we have the option to try it is indicative of the fundamental American values of free thinking and liberty — two values that are more precious than ever before.