There are many grey areas when not using a 'formal' rating system (eg: college degree). But the formal system is rigged in that it isn't available to everyone -

There are many grey areas when not using a 'formal' rating system (eg: college degree). But the formal system is rigged in that it isn't available to everyone - and is heavily biased towards those with the right pedigree or luck. Not to say nobody gets into college through hard work, just that it's skewed. I feel most people are able to identify a good guitarist whether or not they like the music the guitarist plays. Even when the guitarist only plays with 1 string [0]. >For the first day of class, I sent around a questionnaire, asking students to rate themselves as beginning, intermediate, or advanced. I blame your questionnaire for not defining the levels of play or being granular enough (1-10 scale). With those options I would assume "beginner" means "doesn't know how a knight can move across the board or the difference between a rook and a bishop", a 1 on a 10 scale. For example, I'm a "novice" chess player for sure - but not a "beginner" (some people may use these terms interchangeably), a 2 or 3 on a 10 scale. Assuming the students in the club knew the rules of Chess - it's not a surprise nobody answered "beginner"! [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8H-67ILaqc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8H-67ILaqc