Grades...suck.

One thing that really bugs me is that, in many classes, undergraduate TAs decide the future of aspiring professionals. Based on their own criteria of excellence, they grade a student’s performance and, unfortunately, grades decide graduate level acceptance. Grades are an arbitrary standard of knowledge and, besides, the system itself is quite flawed. There are set increments of 4.0, 3.7, 3.4, 3.0... however these levels have sub categories of percentages. There is no high A-. One hundredth of a percent off an A is still an A-, the same A- that is one-hundredth a percent off a B+. Too many times, I have missed a higher grade by just a few points. Tests are also just an arbitrary measurement of what a person knows. Some people are bad test takers. Others, who know that they will rely on the vast amount of information available for immediate reviewing in the real world, can't recall 4 months of intense cramming for a single comprehensive midterm. That, compounded with the ultimate grade, tells the world how ready you are to be in its professional spheres. On one bogus American Heritage assignment about enforcing the honor code, I got 59% for taking a moderate stance to a complex issue instead of creating a "capital punishment for a minor offense" methodology. I was pragmatic and, therefore, rejected by unfair and biased standards. The really unfair thing about some of these TAs in that type of academia is that many will go on to be teachers in that field. Many of their future students will be turned off completely to the subject matter because of their unfair grading. Isn't learning and enjoying to learn more important than aspiring to some arbitrary standard?