The Philosophy of Grading
The Philosophy of Grading
In reading Charlotte Mason and now Neil Postman’s Technopoly, the concept of grading has been critically addressed several times. Isn’t it strange that we assign numbers or letters to measure “intelligence” or “quality of thought,” as in school grades or IQ tests? Where do these measurements come from? Is this a truly reliable method of measuring a person’s mind? Can these things actually be measured? What are the consequences? These questions have stirred my mind quite a bit!
Here is an interesting passage from Mr. Postman’s book. I found it very thought-provoking.
“...I should like to give only one example of how technology creates new conceptions of what is real and, in the process, undermines older conceptions. I refer to the seemingly harmless practice of assigning marks or grades to the answers students give on examinations. The procedure seems so natural to most of us that we are hardly aware of its significance. We may even find it difficult to imagine that the number or letter is a tool or, if you will, a technology; still less that, when we use such a technology to judge someone’s behavior, we have done something peculiar. In point of fact, the first instance of grading students’ papers occurred at Cambridge University in 1792 at the suggestion of a tutor named William Farish. No one knows much about William Farish; not more than a handful have ever heard of him. And yet his idea that a quantitative value should be assigned to human thought was a major step toward constructing a mathematical concept of reality. If a number can be given to the quality of a thought, then a number can be given to the qualities of mercy, love, hate, beauty, creativity, intelligence, even sanity itself. When Galileo said that the language of nature is written in mathematics, he did not mean to include human feeling or accomplishment or insight. But most of us are now inclined to make these inclusions. Our psychologists, sociologists, and educators find it quite impossible to do their work without numbers. They believe that without numbers they cannot acquire or express authentic knowledge.” He continues later in the chapter: “...to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Without being too literal, we may extend the truism: To a man with a pencil, everything looks like a list. To a man with a camera, everything looks like an image. To a man with a computer, everything looks like data. And to a man with a grade sheet, everything looks like a number.”
Excerpt: Neil Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, Chapter One: “The Judgment of Thamus,” pages 12-14.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008