Like a lot of the pathologies in higher education, there's a lot of bleed from one problem/question and its answers (like grades) into others. So first, what a

Like a lot of the pathologies in higher education, there's a lot of bleed from one problem/question and its answers (like grades) into others. So first, what are grades even for? They give students and teachers feedback, they set goals and they enforce a certain amount of discipline, pacing, something to enforce practice. Basically, teaching tools. If I try to think of something analogous, a periodic fitness test as part of a fitness program might be it. Once grades exist, they pick up all sorts of other uses inside the system. Admissions of various sorts. Hiring. Proof. Measures of competence. Comparison. When this is the actual goal, the grading and testing looks different. GMAT is designed around this "secondary" use. I think if you roll back the history of how high schools or universities picked up all the habits and structures they have now, grades weren't as central as they are now. Matriculation was the main marker and that's a binary. Anyway…. I think this kind of focus on grades, grade inflation, deflation and such is more about the fact that most of us were at one time or another concerned with our grades. Any unfairness annoys us and when different generations, places or subjects "have it easy" we get annoyed. I don't think it matters much though. The main reason for grades is the first part, the teaching tool. Hopefully that becomes the focus. Better grading where better is "helps the student more." That probably means tracking and giving feedback progress, reacting to deficits, controlling the pace and stuff like that. I hope grading gets completely hijacked by the technology assisted pedagogy.