In his column on Friday Marc Yasuda '98 responded to my previous column, concerning how '98s are going to get short-changed in the awarding of honors when they graduate because of the new distributive requirements for their class. What was fascinating about Yasuda's response was how he attacked me for being a "grade grubber" -- someone who cares too much about their GPA and not enough about learning. Mr. Yasuda's main point was really that grades don't matter, and one shouldn't be concerned with them.
Having gone to UC at Santa Cruz, where written evaluations are given out instead of grades, I can appreciate the beauty of a scholastic system not based on the 4.0 scale. It would be an interesting debate to compare the merits of the two systems, and to discuss which one produces an atmosphere conducive to higher learning. Yet, Yasuda did not attack me on those grounds. If he would have, I might well have agreed with him that the removal of grades at Dartmouth would create a better atmosphere.
What he did say was that I care too much about my GPA and not enough about learning. Unfortunately, this critique has nothing to do with my article, which was an attack on the Administration for not dealing with the Class of 1998 fairly. The difference is between attacking a system (grades) and the application of the system.
Yet the accusation of caring too much about grades, and not enough about learning is always made by someone who probably has done really well at Dartmouth and has little to worry about. As for me, in terms of GPA, I've pretty much taken the standard Darmtouth route: I did fairly well Freshman Fall, then rather poorly the rest of freshman year, then worked hard sophmore year to get back to a decent position. This seems to be the track record of many people here.
Honestly, there has been a correlation between the courses that I got a high grade in and those I learned in. And in those that I did not learn much I usually received a lower grade. However, that correlation is a pretty weak one, especially when one factors in the amount of effort and time put into a course compared to the grade received.
What it boils down to, to take this discussion to a deeper level, is that there are really two things that one takes away from a course; knowledge and a grade. The first is by far more important; I'd rather learn a lot and recieve a "C" than learn nothing and get an "A." However, the goal is really to maximize both what you learn and your grade. In order to do this, you must both take the course and play the system.
The system is what I was attacking in my first article. I agree with Yasuda that it is rather ridiculous that some random percentage of students get such and such honor. However, given this system, one can either fight it, or play by it. I'd love to get a dedicated, organized bunch of students together to fight our grading system at Dartmouth, but that just isn't going to happen. Students don't really care enough about academic grading issues to organize. In fact, students don't seem to care about that much nowadays.
So that leaves playing by the system. All that I wanted in my last column was to try to make the Administration play their system fairly. Of course they won't; I mean they have pretty much set the school up to cheat students and then try to look good to their parents. Hence the schools spends thousands of dollars to make the green look nice, but installs expensive washing and drying machines, allows the phone company to lie and cheat students and charges $20 to store a school provided bed that you don't want for the term.
My column last week was just another example of the Administration manipulating their system for their own benefit and not caring about the affect on the student body. It frightens me to see that whenever these issues are brought up there are students who will, in a reactionary and poorly thought out manner, yell "Shut up and get back to your studying. Stop caring about the system, just live by it."
I guess this is why we live two years past 1994.
