> My point is that using attendance as some sort of measure of "merit" No, I'm not proposing it be a measure of merit. Or a "measure" of anything. It's an ince

> My point is that using attendance as some sort of measure of "merit" No, I'm not proposing it be a measure of merit. Or a "measure" of anything. It's an incentive to attend classes, nothing more. > or just don’t see the value in attending. This is the oddest and also most interesting remark. If they don't see value in attending then why are they on the course? And, if they don't see value then they are free to exercise the right not to come and to forgo the financial reward too, and surely nothing is lost? I think buried behind some arguments here (perhaps not yours specifically) is the idea that we ought to simply make degrees something you pay for - by enrolling you get the certificate and the courses are non-assessed. In that case performance, attendance and participation become a different orthogonal quality prospects. It's a proposal that has quite some support amongst my colleagues and which I've argued for here[1] [1] https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/fear-zombie-student-apocalypse https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/fear-zombie-stud...