How does DOC do grades?

Below is the most recent articulation of the alternative grading system we are implementing at UCSD’s Dimensions of Culture Program. We’ve been engaged in this work for the past three years; to structurally change the program’s grading system is the most powerful demonstration of our commitment to antiracist pedagogy. I hope this helps students and instructors imagine that a different classroom ecology is possible. 

Let’s start with the truth. Grades suck. Grades suck for students to receive. Grades suck for teachers to give. So much seems to depend on grades: whether one graduates, whether one gets into the profession one desires, whether one maintains financial aid status, and so on and so on. There is so much pressure when it comes to grades because we know there are very real consequences to grades that affect students’ lives; and grades, for better and for worse, are regarded as the objective measure of a student’s ability. 

Grades, however, are just arbitrary symbols that society has agreed upon to represent the qualities of a student: an “A” student is excellent, a “B” student is proficient, a “C” student is competent, a “D” student is deficient, and an “F” student is failing. But are they really? Grades as symbols place all of the responsibility for a student’s performance entirely on the individual student; grades as symbols obscure all the other factors that play into how well any student does in school. 

At DOC, we study extensively those critical factors that can shape how well a student does in school and beyond. Larger social systems of power – like racism, sexism, homophobia, capitalism, ableism, and xenophobia – have always exerted influence over the lives of individuals, and we saw that dramatically during the height of the pandemic. We saw how big the divide was between students who did and students who did not have access to resources because of their social and class privileges. How could a student do as well as their peers in remote classes without the same level of access to high speed quality internet and reliable technology? Or a student who had to care for siblings or elders who were sick? Or a student trying to access remote classes from a drastically different time zone? In response to these obvious challenges, schools and universities (UCSD included) altered their grading policies, recognizing that grades during the pandemic couldn’t accurately and objectively reflect the quality of a student. 

The real truth though is that grades suck because they have always been arbitrary. They have never been objectively fair. There have always been students who no matter how smart they are, or dedicated they are, will always face obstacles to an “A” because of how systems of power intersect to disadvantage BIPOC, immigrant, queer, femme, neurodiverse, differently abled, and working-class communities. For these students, the challenges of the pandemic weren’t an exception, they ruled their daily lives. So, at DOC, we work hard to do grades differently. 

First, DOC recognizes that the type of writing expected of you at this university – what we call standardized academic English – is just one way to communicate. It’s not the only way or the most important way or even the most relevant way in a student’s life. It’s an expectation of higher education, an expectation with a racist, classist, and sexist history. (We’ll talk more about this in the first week of DOC 1.) Moreover, the reality is that with the emergence of ChatGPT, anyone with access to generative AI can produce writing in standardized academic English. Therefore, at DOC, our grading doesn’t depend on how closely a paper resembles an ideal or perfect academic paper in standardized English. Instead, DOC grading centers engagement, reflection, and practice. 

At the height of the pandemic, many of us experienced the opposite of engagement. We were literally socially isolating and just trying to manage our individual lives. At DOC, to demonstrate engagement means to be fully present to and active in the learning and teaching happening around you. Because engagement is so important, a large number of points in our course are awarded for engaging with lectures and discussion. As long as you are present in body and mind in classes, respect academic integrity, make reasonable attempts to respond fully to the prompts given for lecture engagement questions, and follow TA guidance to prepare and participate in sections, you will earn 42 points for engagement out of the 100 total possible points for the course. If you are working on assignments for other classes or doing anything else not related to the activities your TA or lecturers have designed, you will not receive section or lecture points for that day. 

In high school, many of us wrote essays on topics that honestly had nothing to do with our daily lives, or we would just write what we thought our teachers wanted to hear and not what we really thought. Repeating the professor or the textbook ultimately won’t help us grow as thinkers or ethical human beings. DOC grading values critical reflection. Assigned metacognitive reflections are spaces for exploration, where you can make sense of DOC courses from your own perspective. Take a risk and express your thoughts. As long as students respect academic integrity, respond to the prompt, submit on time to the correct Canvas link, in a readable file, and in correct APA format, they will receive full points. 

Lastly, DOC grading prioritizes practice. In DOC, we have to practice reading and writing in standardized academic English because that’s the requirement for graduation. We use Harris’s “Coming to Terms” to help us practice critical reading, while AXES paragraphs and APA format help us learn to write at the college level. But to be able to produce a piece of writing in polished academic English in the first try takes a lot of privileges that many students just don’t have; so in DOC 1 the grades for our Coming to Terms journal assignments are determined by practicing revision. 

To receive full points on a Coming to Terms journal assignment, journals need to use the AXES structure where indicated, be formatted correctly according to APA, meet the word count, respect academic integrity, be submitted on time to the correct Canvas link, and in a readable file. TAs will grade journals by assigning 1 point for following proper APA citation, format, and word count. They will then assign up to 4 points to indicate when the journal responds to all aspects of the prompt. Each journal is worth 5 points total, and every student will revise every journal for an additional 3 points. Each journal must be completed in full and submitted on time (or with a late pass) in order to be eligible for credit and revision. For students who missed points on their first submission, this is their chance to recoup those points. For students who didn’t miss points, they will still submit a revision based on their TA’s feedback because writing is not perfection, it's a process. There will even be one “last chance” at revision at the end of the quarter. Any single journal that was previously submitted and revised and still didn’t receive full points can be submitted one last time in finals week to receive full credit. 

Ultimately, we have altered the grading system in our courses so that every student has the chance to be an “A” student as long as the student embraces the spirit of the program – the spirit of the Lumumba Zapata demands, when student activists used academic English to imagine a radically different university in service of an equitable society. To transform society takes engagement, reflection, and practice, and thus these are the values at the heart of DOC’s grading system.