4EveraBear said:
It goes back to the theory everyone should get a trophy just because you showed up.
That's actually not even close to what is happening here if you look at the data. You aren't graded for showing up. You are graded pass/fail based on your demonstration of learning. Just showing up only gets you the latter.
There are two types of students. Type 1 is externally motivated. Based on the posts so far on this thread, I would say most of you were externally motivated students. The grade is the trophy. The higher the grade. The better the trophy. The better the degree, the smarter you are. My doctorate degree means I am smarter than anyone posting on this board without one because I have a bigger trophy than those of you who don't. The traditional grading system favors this student, but it creates a problem. You become so focused on the number (grade), you might not actually be retaining anything you learned. How many of you studied really hard for a test, took the test, and then dumped the knowledge because you didn't need it anymore? Hey, me too. I collected my trophy in college algebra and have never used it again. I can't even help my own kids with their math homework. So, did I actually learn something, or did I learn to play the game and make it look like I won/I am smart?
Type 2 is intrinsically motivated. This is a student who isn't necessarily interested in the trophy to prove they learned. This student is more interested in task mastery, critical thinking, and collaboration (three of the top soft skills current employers say they value most). These students are building deep, transferrable knowledge and that can't always be done in the time compressed semester we call learning. What pass fail grading is actually doing is replacing the scale system of grades and reinforcing intrinsic motivation, prompting students to ask more questions and engage in deeper learning behaviors in their classes.
So which student learned more and is the better student? At the risk of impersonating Bill Clinton, that depends on what you mean by more and better. If test scores are how more is defined, research shows that both systems achieve similar results. Current studies have found no statistically significant difference in average scores or overall pass rates between the old grading cohorts and the new pass/fail cohorts. If there is not a statistical difference, how can you claim things were watered down and not as good in the pass fail system?
If you define better and more as which type of student has more
long-term retention of the content and psychological well-being, studies (Chamberlin et al., 2018, Undergraduate STEM Tracking 2024, The Gradeless Paradox 2025, and others) strongly favor pass/fail grading as the better system for measuring what was actually learned.