I get it. Going to an Ivy League school in the '00s... everyone got As. This made grading BS. Employers just wanted to know that you had "at least a 3.0" and

I get it. Going to an Ivy League school in the '00s... everyone got As. This made grading BS. Employers just wanted to know that you had "at least a 3.0" and you parents just wanted to know that you weren't failing out. And the hyper-inflated grades I received from my expensive elitist school ensured I wouldn't hit issues. But... totally true, grates "are demotivating, they don’t actually measure learning and they increase students’ stress." The moment you introduce grading, you introduce ways to game it. Now look, the long standing joke for schools that don't grade, "I got a Pineapple in Underwater-Basket-Weaving-and-Thermo-Gender-Dynanics!" But yeah, so what if you get a Pineapple as long as you learned something? That spark of a desire to learn more is really what I want to see in anyone, and I don't know how to measure that. In most schools, it seems like getting good grades is just an act of subservience. "Yes, Professor! I gave up my weekends to do 3x 'extra credit' assignments, and I washed your dog and dusted the erasers!" Oof... not really the qualities I want to hire for a leadership position. Not unless I wanted a bunch of Yes Men. Seems like it should be on the interviewer to determine if you're any good at what you do, not rely on some arbitrary metric when hiring you. (And a lot of states are "right to work" so it's not like they don't know how to fire someone if they don't work out.) I'm all for abolishing grades in university classes. Just probably need some sort of standardized test at the end to say, "Yes, you know 85% what you should as a History Major..." And... that opens up a whole other can of worms. Oof. There's no great solution, but look I get that grades suck.