University degrees are meant to be the one piece of evidence that can actually prove your abilities to someone who does not know you; an employer. So why do universities fudge the facts and portray you as someone you are not?

Dr. John Woodward (Smartboysbadgrades.com) says that "[g]rades ... are often not accurate measures of what students know," and that "[i]n theory grades could be one of the best indicators of student learning, if certain conditions were met. However, in practice, teachers include many factors that are often not related to what students know when grading those students."

Some examples of this are rewarding or punishing students via their grades, opinion-based grading (such as for essay-based assessments), and in some cases blatant student dislike on the teacher's part.

Smartboysbadgrades.com [PDF] document an example of a mathematics teacher at Piedmont Technical College in South Carolina, US, who allows a young African American man to sit a final exam two weeks late. The man ends up acing the exam with a result of 97. "Most faculty are horrified by this story and indicate they would have failed the student" preventing him from completing college (Smartboysbadgrades.com).

In 2007, "nearly 22,000 pupils in England, Wales and Northern Ireland had the grades on their GCSE and A-level papers changed after they queried their results" (Timesonline.co.uk).

Ofqual (the regulators of qualifications, exams, and tests in England) committed to "carrying out a "health check" of the assessment system to iron out as many of the irregularities as possible", but this angered some examiners "who suggested that they could undermine public confidence" (Timesonline.co.uk).

How could that undermine public confidence? I would think that an investigation into the quality of the education system would only serve to ENHANCE public confidence? This examiners' response screams, "leave us alone, we will not be able to punish the students we do not like if we are being watched!"

Last year saw an unforeseen health issue effect the submission of one of my final assignments. I had received a High Distinction (above 80%) for all prior assessments in that subject. The teacher offered me an extension to take the time I needed without it effecting my results. When the course co-ordinator heard of this extension, he ordered the teacher to give me a Pass (50%) once I had completed the final assignment. The teacher told me that my final piece was, again, of High Distinction quality but he was only "allowed" to give me a Pass. All future employers see is a 50% grade. There is no note next to it saying "High Distinction quality work penalised only due to late submission". No, the grade simply implies that my ability in the subject matter is of a poor quality, which is in fact, incorrect.

A friend of mine studying an online course at an Australian university said his teacher advised that those students who "offer help to other students" could expect a nice little reward at grading time.

It is cases like these that are causing public confidence in tertiary education to wither, not the investigation and assessment of outside bodies. In fact, students are screaming for a more regulated grading system.

Grading needs to be exempt of all outside influences; examinations should have right or wrong answers only, and grades should be uneffected by punishment or rewards. Grading should reflect ABILITY, not attitude or behaviour!