A

tion and serious— elabor—

(biases) r to se- avouring ject wh-

The moral: such possible side—effects of University education - scars and com- plexes - can certainly pro— vide a powerful potential source of motivation. The world is also full of peop— le "who carry permanent ps- ychological scars from the— ir youthful experiences? & Whose effectiveness as adu- lts was made more rather than less.

."Rats and men come to love the things for which they suffer". There is empirical evidence supporting this generalization. One may say therefore, that learning which is associated with’ such "suffering" as is due

to exams and high expectat- ions (creating high anxiety etc.) may come to be lOVed for its own sake. Such a

noble end certainly justif-

ies a little bit of "suffe- ring". . Moreover, this over—concee

rn with suffering psycholo— gical scars, etc., only re— veals a philosophy of man as a delicate creature. Th— is low regard for the stuff of which humans are made is certainly not justified by historical or empirical ev— idence. Such evidence clea— rly suggests that humans are not brittle and will not break (some will — but they will in any case) so easily — not with exams and grades. It is far more hea- lthy and realistic to work with a philosophy in which our all too human students are seen as made of sterner stuff willing to face seve— re challenges within the structure of the University system.

Do unto others as you wou— ld have them do unto you. The author then goes on to disagree with Drucker's ve—

f ry realistic view that the

"cooling out" process is indispensable given the co— mplexity and competitive nature of society. Grades are used for educational purposes within the Univer— sity. Outside it, if pros— pective employers would use them for their purposes (at ‘their'risk), that's their business. Moreover, I fail to see what is so "disorga- nizing" or "aleniating" or "punative" about such use Of grades by agencies other

: than the University. Whate-

ver Sorokin says, just what evidence is there that it

"mishapes the minds and di- storts the souls of those whom it touches"? At least, grant to organizations what you would grant the indiVi— dual organism — the free pursuit of its own good.

A carrot a day keeps the_ W After a bri- ef detour, the author makes another attempt to get down -to brass tacks — and-this

~

THE CADRE, TUES., NOV.

time he realizes 'the impo- ‘

rtance of being ernest'. Examinations and grades, he believes, are rationalized by professors as a "carrot & stick (somehow sounds be— tter the other way) device to reward achievement in the learningrprocess and to

coerce (watch it!) underac— hievers to do better". Let me clarify how this "device" constitutes the very step in the learning process wh— ich the author is unwilling to step on. The "stick" is what psychologists call a

"drive" (provided in this case by exams) and "carrots" are what they call "incent— iVes", (expectancy of rewa— rd, provided in this case by grades). Drive and ince- ntive together constitute the two sides of the coin that we call "motivation". Now, I do believe, that a drive to aquire information or learn (some call it a "curiosity drive”, I call it a "drive to organize") is an essential property of all organisms with a nervo— us system and increases in direct porportion to its complexity. I even publish— ed a paper on this about 7 years ago and pursued this thesis in my doctoral work and found some evidence for it. However, a decade of University teaching has br— ought disillusionment with it. I am finding it extrem— ely difficult to hold on to my hypothesis(by the way, this is an instance of a genuine hypothesis since I am willing to let experien— ce refute me!). No wonder, some who had been in Unive- rsity teaching much longer had thought I was wrong!

Now, if the drive is eith- er non—existant or has been lost on the way in school, then there is nothing mora- lly wrong in creating it by setting up, what one comme- ntator called, "a framework of expectations". High per- formance can be expected only within such a context of high expectations: where examinations are seen as barriers to be overcome or as dhallenges.to be met. In such a context, one learns not only the subject matter but also the value of adeq- uate preparation in meeting challenges and overcoming barriers. Only in this sen- se can higher education be said to constitute 'a prep- aration for life'.

Grades (carrots) can cont- ribute their share to moti— vation by serving as feed— back indiCes of one's degr— ee of competence. It is not too easy to deny, therefore, that a few carrots per sem- ester are fairly rich moti— vational health foods and contribute to the student's general well-being and self law (“.11 nflfln .

27, 1973 Page 9

Furthermore, there is cer—

~ tainly nothing immoral abo-

ut motivating (not "coerci— ng" now) underachievers to perform better. We know qu- ite well from personal exp- erience (as well as from empirical evidence) that a sense of achievement is, in fact, what ultimately prov- ides an individual with fe— elings of mastery and self— fulfillment. When we know that achievement is such an important ingredient in the development of self-esteem, what can be undesireable about motivating underachi- evers? To be educated is an achievement.

Grades again — but now th- ey speak louder than words. At this point, let me reit- erate — the function of a University is not to fix the value or worth of a pe- rson. However, one has to agree that grades have alw- ays aquired this property of worth and do become gen- eralized to the whole pers- on. But this is a matter of social attitudes towards grades and the individual merely absorbs and reflects these attitudes in judging himself. Let us then try to take care of this problem at the roots and educate the student and the society at large (which is partly what I meant when I said the baby could do with a good wash). Grades should befvalue free and this is not a contradiction in ter- ms as it might appear at

'first sight. The assumption

that"grades are degrading" (which the author has made elsewhere) begs the questi— on since it shows that we have already swallowed the notion that grades in fact establish the worth of a student. Since there are individual differences in the types of competence a person can have, grades cannot reflect the worth of a person — only his compet— ence in certain types of tasks. Varying the words (but not the spirit) of one commentator we could say - individuals can be excelle— nt and equal too. The auth— or's view that "grades are degrading", therefore brin- gs out an interesting cont— radiction. According to his own View, grades do not re— flect information of any value. Granting the correc- tness of this assumption,it is clearly contradictory to maintain that grades are nevertheless degrading. The‘function of grades is an informative one — both for the individual and the prospective employer — ref— lecting the individual's level of competence in a dicipline (and hence their "worth" only for a certain type of work). What other method can one suggest by