This article assumes grading and categorizations leads to non-mediocre results. And yet, to use the article's own example, Steve Jobs took classes at Reed colle

This article assumes grading and categorizations leads to non-mediocre results. And yet, to use the article's own example, Steve Jobs took classes at Reed college without actually being enrolled, losing the opportunity to even get a "loosey-goosey grade-point average" but was considered "exceptional". Being graded doesn't "manifest merit". These kind of articles tend to vacillate between two extremes. Either academia is killing creativity and producing unthinking drones who live for grades, or schools are too lax with their grading to produce exceptional students. Mediocre is synonymous with average, which logically speaking, a school will be more likely to produce regardless of its grading policy (aptitude being a moving target). Simply put, exceptional people/circumstances that produce exceptional results are exceptional because they are not the average, so expecting a non-average result from an education system servicing large populations is unlikely in any scenario. Improvements in education require specific solutions to specific problems, arguing more grades/categories are necessary in order to produce some vague idea of merit isn’t a relevant assertion.