In this blog post, we examine whether relative grading in colleges is a fair assessment method that promotes learning, or a system that drives students into unnecessary competition and undermines the essence of higher education.
In 2015, Yeom Jae-ho, then President of Korea University, announced the introduction of the so-called “Three-No Policy.” This policy called for the elimination of attendance records, relative grading, and proctored exams. Among these changes, the abolition of relative grading was a demand that had been raised by a significant number of professors and students, if not the majority. However, this policy drew reactions questioning whether it was too radical, along with widespread concerns about whether students would study properly without relative grading. In particular, regarding absolute grading, concerns were raised that it could lead to “grading inflation” and that companies might have to evaluate students based on grades of questionable reliability. So, does this mean that, as these concerns suggest, absolute grading is practically unfeasible and relative grading must continue? Currently, Korea University does not evaluate all courses using a single method but instead employs both absolute and relative grading depending on the course. For general courses where relative grading is applied, the system allocates no more than 35% of grades to an “A,” no more than 70% cumulatively to “B” grades, and at least 30% to “C” grades or lower. Therefore, the current system differs from the widely publicized, one-size-fits-all “3:4:3” ratio described in the past. However, it is still worth considering the concern that relative grading may push students toward a competitive mindset, making it difficult for them to remain committed to learning and inquiry—the very essence of higher education.
Looking at how relative grading is implemented, the current standards for general courses at Korea University stipulate that A+ and A grades must be awarded to no more than 35% of students, B+ and B grades to no more than 70% combined, and C+, C, D+, D, and F grades to at least 30%. Of course, the specific criteria vary depending on the course and assessment method, and professors are granted discretion in grading. However, the biggest problem with relative grading is that even if all students attend classes diligently and perform well, some may receive relatively low grades due to the fixed percentage limits. Many people have previously expressed concern about these drawbacks of relative grading. A survey conducted by the Korea University Newspaper at the time, which surveyed 175 Korea University professors, revealed that 60.7% agreed with the statement, “It is possible to receive a relatively low grade even after studying hard.” Students, too, have likely experienced at least once receiving a lower grade than expected despite diligent attendance, submitting well-written reports, and performing well on exams. The reason is that there are many students in this situation. In order to meet a certain quota, situations arise where even minor differences must be used as the basis for evaluation. We need to consider whether this is truly a fair evaluation.
What many people point out about relative grading is that “it’s not that relative grading is right, but rather that it’s an unavoidable choice. ‘It is necessary to foster a sense of competition among students.’ However, can we confidently say that a competitive spirit arises solely from evaluation, and that such competition actually aids learning? The problem is that the academic drive generated by relative grading can be misdirected. This concern was also highlighted in a past EBS DocuPrime program on education, which examined the study habits of high-achieving students at Seoul National University. Contrary to the expectation that students with high grades would share self-directed, critical, and creative learning attitudes, the study revealed that they often studied by recording lectures and memorizing the lecture notes verbatim. In fact, during one lecture, a professor remarked: “Even if you’ve written a good answer, when I grade the papers, there are always a few students who’ve copied the lecture content word for word, without a single mistake. I can’t give a B to those students, can I? Please understand that even if you’ve written a well-crafted answer based on your own thoughts, your grade might be lower than you expect.” As the professor’s remarks suggest, in a relative grading system, students feel compelled to take the safe route in order to earn a good grade. This is because, in a situation where answers that simply reproduce the lecture content verbatim receive high marks—no matter how hard students study—students may choose to faithfully reproduce the professor’s opinions and lecture content rather than trying to persuade the professor with their own ideas.
Proponents of relative grading argue that it is a mechanism for maintaining the reliability of evaluation. However, it is questionable whether relative grading always guarantees a reliable evaluation. This is because universities have a system called “retaking a course.” Contrary to its original purpose, retaking a course is sometimes used as a means to boost one’s GPA. Since it is difficult to earn a high grade under a relative grading system without putting in considerable effort, students may take a course a second time to familiarize themselves with the professor’s exam-setting and grading methods, the factors considered in grading, and the characteristics of the course. After enhancing their understanding through repeated study, they may then earn a higher grade. It is worth considering how accurately such strategically obtained grades truly reflect a student’s actual academic ability. It is also difficult to say that grades earned by seeking out so-called “easy courses”—that is, courses that award high grades with minimal academic workload—are unconditionally trustworthy. Of course, I am not arguing that absolute grading is a panacea for this trend. However, relative grading may tend to encourage this phenomenon.
I believe the solution lies in guaranteeing professors sufficient autonomy in grading. Whether it’s a student who focused on the course and diligently prepared answers, a student who presented innovative ideas, or a student who, despite initially poor grades, showed steady improvement through consistent effort—all should receive evaluations commensurate with their efforts and achievements. Furthermore, the professor, who understands the course best, should be able to reasonably determine the criteria for evaluating each individual student. Rather than evaluating learning solely based on attending class, submitting assignments that meet the required length, and regurgitating learned material as if it were the “correct” answer, I believe that asking questions, expressing one’s own thoughts, and taking on new challenges are also values that should be prioritized in higher education. While it cannot be concluded that relative grading is a flawed system in all cases, universities need to continue exploring what kind of assessment method allows students to focus on their own learning and growth rather than on each other’s grades.
