Every educational system has assessment at its core which is very fundamental to gauge and enhance the learning outcomes. The primary purpose is to see how much knowledge, skills and competencies students are able to achieve during the course of their study. Evaluations give students constructive criticism by informing them about what they do well and what they have to work on. It helps teachers who want to improve their teaching methods or alignment of courses with educational objectives. Without an effective evaluation system in place, one will find it very difficult to instil a sense of responsibility within the boundaries of any institution leading to the culture of excellence and continuous improvement being lost. Again, the evaluation method itself affects the effectiveness of the assessment. Grading practices determine, among other things, how students perform, they motivate students and there is fairness among different practices. Generally, there are three basic types of grading system which are used in most countries:
1. Absolute Grading Model: Usually pupils are advised of their grade based purely on some established standard irrespective of what has occurred in the particular class. For example, a 90%97% may equal an A; 80%89% would be the grade of a B, and so on. It is simple, concise, and easily understood by students. Nevertheless, it would be unfair if one exam was considered extremely hard, while another one easy.
2. Relative Grading Model: Grades of the students are evaluated concerning their colleagues. The best grade becomes the standard, with others assigned according to the frequency distribution of scores, usually following a bell-shaped curve. This method captures the differences in difficulty among examinations but could create an unhealthy competition and stress among students.
3. Narrative Grading Model: This model provides a complete impression of how well each student performed, rather than assigning numerical grades or letters. It emphasizes qualitative assessment, indicating strengths and opportunities for improvement. This model is more personalized, but it becomes cumbersome when used over large class sizes or standardized assessment.
Increasingly, the relative grading system is firmly established worldwide in institutions, prompting
debate on its advantages and disadvantages. Progressive elaboration of the Relative Grading System. Relative grading gives its meaning by comparing a student’s performance to that of their classmates. An approach contrasts absolute grading, where a certain grade is given according to set minima, with the so-called relative grading, where points awarded may go up or down based on how all students have performed. For example, in doing comparisons, a maximum score of 85
might somehow be set as qualifying grade A, even though this is, under normal conditions, an arbitrary yardstick assumed to be above 90 marks. This is essentially the grading method taken on by colleges to equalize marks by standardizing variations in exam difficulties, clarity in questions, or the comparative ability of cohorts. The aim is equity in recognizing success in anticipation of peers, while at work will also balance the competitive spirit in the classroom. Thus, the technique works to eliminate drastic variation in student evaluation by accommodating variations in academic evaluations in more advanced institutions and thus is highly favoured in many institutional settings. But still, its consequences on student motivation and clarity of ratings have generated questions regarding its usefulness when compared to absolute grading.
Relative Grading: Equity and Flexibility
Relative grading confers adaptability, that is, the outcome may swiftly be changed without changing the standards. Relative grading benefits from taking into consideration student’s different performances, and diffuses variances caused by challenging examinations or unequal grading criteria. Thus, high-achieving students are guaranteed equitable recognition, allowing them to have a chance at a high score in case absolute scores appear low. For example, in a very difficult exam where the class average is at 60, relative grading can allow the distribution to be skewed towards allocating greater points for scores within this framework. At the same time, it injects pupils with competition with their classmates and possibly instilling a culture of excellence in them. The strategy also hinders grade inflation by maintaining a consistent ratio of students in each grade category. In addition, from an administrative point of view, the scalability benefits the university, precisely for assessment in large groups. With clear implementation, relative grading can foster a meritocratic and equitable academic environment.
Stresses, Competition, and the Inequities
While relative grading has its advantages, it certainly poses great challenges. A big criticism against it is that it promotes undue competition among the pupils. Because marks are given based on performance with respect to peers, slight changes in scoring can have a huge difference in outcomes. This might induce extra stress, as children tend to focus more on being better than their peers rather than authentic learning. The method might also seem unfair in small classes or homogeneous groups, where small differences in performance can throw the grades quite off. Students also find the idea strange because the grades depend on how the whole cohort does. In addition, in highly competitive areas, relative grading adds to collaboration and teamwork – thus discouraging peer learning. Such issues point to the very fact that colleges do have to implement this system with due diligence, keeping the process transparent and fair.
Implementation across the globe: Procedures and Regulations
Globally, universities apply various methodologies for the implementation of relative grading. Many universities employ a bell-curve distribution to guarantee that a given percentage of students earns grades. For instance, 10% may receive A’s, this depending on the general performance, followed by 20% getting B’s, and so forth. Such practice is rather common in large lecture courses, where absolute grading may lead to inequality. Some of the institutions, however, apply a modified approach by allowing a bit of discretion to the faculty, such that the grading curve can be adjusted to class sizes as well as the nature of the subject. In smaller groups, relative grading can attain a greater level of refinement and fairness-it does not hold thus strongly to the absolute percentages. The policies promote transparency by stating grading criteria to students ahead of time. The faculty often becomes instrumental in bringing the grading practices into alignment with learning objectives, blending the flexibility of the system with the demand for equity.
Achieving Balance in Assessment Approaches
The relative grading system has pros and cons, justification and flexibility, yet at the same time it raises questions about stress and fairness. Hence, its success will largely depend on how it is implemented. Universities must strike a balance between worthy merit and a nurturing educational environment.
The clarity of grading criteria and performance indicators should help reduce anxieties and misconceptions felt by students. Exploring hybrid models that incorporate the advantages of both relative and absolute grading might offer a solution forward. As well, schools should focus on fostering collaborative learning while promoting healthy competition to evince undue stresses. The grading system that is selected must fit with general educational aims, namely the development of skills, critical assessment, and fairness. As universities evolve, assessment methodologies must also, on one hand, adapt to help improve academic integrity while promoting student wellness on the other hand.
Dr. Alisha Verma is an Assistant Professor of Law at Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
