Susan Blum, a professor of anthropology at the University of Notre Dame and author of Ungrading: Why Rating Students Undermines Learning and What to Do Instead, is the author of Ungrading: Why Rating Students Undermines Learning. PhD in Anthropology, at the University of Michigan, she has spent much of her career engaged in the study of education, learning and motivational processes among students. Merging that with her background in anthropology, the study of human behavior and learning patterns, Blum’s argument on the ill effects of traditional systems of grading is by no means surprising. But while she knows a lot about education-related issues, education psychology or pedagogy in general are not her areas of specialty, which justifies that she does not have such strong stand on the direct cognitive consequences of grading. However, considering her experience in higher education and her research on how students learn, she is a very credible voice in this debate on grading and motivation.

Blum’s way of seeing things emphasize intrinsic rather than extrinsic motivation as well as experiential learning rather than traditional academic assessment. According to her, this engenders students to get skewed on grades and consequently are no longer able to focus on learning in a meaningful manner, which is what she’s pointing to; this position fits in squarely with a progressive education theory that sees learning as something best done without external rewards, i.e. through grades. But her strong belief in this may make her message vague, such that she doesn’t consider the advantages of traditional grading. She effectively critiques the system, but does not recognize that at least some students do very well in a system of graded instruction that provides motivation and feedback on progress.

Blum also has features of visible bias towards traditional grading systems, because she says that students are ‘fixated on grades, rather than seeing them as a means to an end’ and that the system encourages a culture of ‘piling up points and winning at any price.’ However, all these statements are basically one sided. It does not take into account the fact that grades can also be a feedback and in this way help students to measure their progress, set academic goals. This may be an indication that she is biased in favor of alternative assessment methods, since she has not acknowledged the benefits of grading. Her stance is correct; however, a better balanced discussion would increase her credibility and carry her arguments further.

Blum also makes a few assumptions about students and the education system. She shares the presumption that grades affect motivation negatively and affects all students positively. Learnt, however, may require students to structure their work and experience clear grading criteria. She also he assumes that professors and educators would abandon grading entirely for some of her proposed alternative methods. Her ideas are thought provoking and may not be practical to all educational institutions. Because the assumptions are based on little or no consideration of the complexities of implementing an ungrading system in different learning environments, they might make her argument less believable.

Overall, Blum’s argument gains momentum from such a strong credibility, but such a cave to her bias and assumption leads slightly to her argument to dissolve. She’s a well respected scholar and anthropologist and educator from strong background in student learning so she knows her stuff. Despite all that, her one-sided dislike for traditional grading and the lack of empirical data to prove all the claims she makes weakens the persuasiveness of her argument. She would have made her claim more convincing if she had provided a more balanced discussion that takes into consideration the benefits of grading as well as its drawbacks.