In a generous, extended review of my recent book Exploring Academic Ethics,[1] Michael Goldman fairly summarizes my view that a grade should represent an expert’s judgment of the quality of a student’s work in a specific course, unaffected by considerations of gender, race, nationality, physical appearance, dress, personality, attitudes, innate capacities, or previous academic record. He goes on, however, to suggest that my account overlooks the possibility of grading based on “intellectual progress.” He offers this example: “A native French speaker might attain perfect scores on all examinations in an introductory French course, but has learned absolutely nothing, whereas a beginner may not score quite as well but has learned much. Should they receive the same grade?”[2]
I believe they should, but the question raises provocative issues. To begin with, why is a native French speaker enrolled in an introductory college French course? Foreign language is an area where placement at an appropriate level should be a prerequisite for registration. That student should have been directed to a more advanced course. But Goldman’s case can be rendered more plausible by supposing that one student in an introductory French class has a talent for foreign languages while another does not, forcing the latter to work far harder to perform as well as the former. Should both receive the same grade?
When I was in elementary school, report cards included one grade for mastery and another for effort. In that way, the two categories were treated as distinct while attention was given to both. That approach is unlikely to appeal at the college level, but a professor can recognize a student’s effort by offering encouraging words or, if appropriate, by including praise in a letter of recommendation. Confusing effort with achievement, however, is inappropriate. A student doesn’t gain mastery of the essentials of symbolic logic merely by trying hard. Such effort is commendable, but should not be confused with proficiency.
A grade answers only one question: To what extent did the student display mastery of the knowledge or skills relevant to the course? If a grade is used to try to convey any other information, that attempt will fail, and the grade will lose all meaning.
Suppose, for example, that I see on a student’s transcript an A in the history of ancient philosophy. I presume, therefore, that the student did excellent work in that area of study. But if the grade didn’t reflect such achievement but, instead, was supposed to indicate that the student tried hard, came to class regularly, arrived on time, visited during office hours, displayed increased interest as the course progressed, or offered a moving story about a challenging upbringing, then the grade no longer has any clear significance.
Encouraging a student may be warranted, but a grade should not be awarded for that purpose. The point was emphasized in a student’s letter to New York University’s legendary professor of philosophy Bob Gurland. She wrote, “On my first exam, I got a B+. You added the remark, “But I liked your paper anyway.” And I believed you. I appreciated your distinguishing between my test score and your encouragement that my ideas and writing had value.”[3]
In sum, a grade is not a measure of a person but of a person’s level of achievement in a particular course. The student who receives a C in introductory philosophy is not a C person with a C personality or C moral character, but one whose results in introductory philosophy were acceptable but in no way distinguished. Perhaps the student will do much better in later courses and even excel in philosophy, but this first effort was not highly successful. If an instructor uses grades for purposes other than describing the level of achievement, then grades will become unreliable and convey no useful information.
[1]Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2024.
[2] Teaching Philosophy, 48:2, 2025, 300-305.
[3] Ann Conti, “A True Blessing,” in Bronx Socrates: Portrait of a Legendary Teacher, ed. Steven M. Cahn (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2024), 12.
Steven M. Cahn
Steven M. Cahn is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. Among the books he has authored are Professors as Teachers (2022), Exploring Academic Ethics (2024), From Student to Scholar: A Candid Guide to Becoming a Professor, Second Edition (2024), Religion Within Reason, Second Edition (2025), and the recently published Pathways Through Academia (2025).
