In her recent piece, “Grading Is Broken,” in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Beth McMurtrie captures the growing frustration among faculty with grading practices. She notes how modern teaching, accelerated by the pandemic, has led to a proliferation of assignments, participation points, and quizzes, leaving professors wondering whether they are grading for mastery, effort, or mere completion. The article raises an important question: How can grading be meaningful, transparent, and fair?

I have been thinking about this question for years. After decades of teaching and researching pedagogy, I’ve seen grading trends come and go: ungrading, standards-based grading, labor-based grading. Each promises equity and deeper learning. But in practice, these approaches often create more confusion than clarity.

Despite the buzz, traditional grading remains the norm, especially at research-intensive universities and those aspiring to join their ranks. Institutional priorities still revolve around research output rather than teaching innovation. “Do no harm” continues to guide classroom practices, and hiring full-time instructors has helped maintain stability. The revolution some predict is not sweeping through STEM fields or elite institutions anytime soon.

Assessments themselves are not the problem. Busywork is. In my classes, I use a mix of three midterms, one final exam, two projects, and weekly online quizzes. These quizzes are short, algorithmic, and drawn from a question bank. Students can retake them as often as they want. They are formative, not punitive, and contribute only a small part to the overall grade. Homework? I assign textbook problems but don’t grade them. Students still complete them because exam questions, which make up 75 percent of the grade, are based on these problems. This approach eliminates busywork while preserving accountability. Students know what matters, and they rise to the challenge.

Alternative grading systems sound appealing, but they often fall short. Standards-based grading makes grading overly complicated, and most students avoid it. Ungrading gives teachers too much control, which can be stressful for students if the professor is biased or egotistical. Labor-based grading frequently devolves into grading for completion or effort, undermining rigor. When advocates compare these methods to traditional grading, their research often uses flawed instruments with no standard final exams or concept inventories and compares interventions to low-standard conventional classes. It is like comparing oxycodone with aspirin for extreme pain relief: seductive but misleading.

Between 2013 and 2024, I conducted extensive research on flipped classrooms. My conclusion? No definitive evidence that they outperform a blended approach, a lecture style with active learning. While they may help in some contexts, the hype far exceeds the data. Absence of evidence does not mean something does not work, but media coverage of trendsetters perpetuates pedagogy without proof, and that is harmful.

Grading should be meaningful, transparent, and fair, but that does not require abandoning rigor or chasing trends. Thoughtful design, transparency, and consistency matter more than the latest fad. Assessments are not the problem. Busywork is. As educators, we owe it to our students to resist the allure of unproven methods and focus on what truly supports learning. Evidence, not ideology, should guide our choices.