Students who excel easily: Do grades really tell you who you will become?

The worrying thing is that high scores don't answer the question of what the students can actually do.

Through reasoning and application, the teacher can recognize the level of understanding. However, assigning those expressions a score of 8, 9, or 10 to each student is not as simple as grading papers with a defined answer key.

Scores are needed to record results, assess course completion, or determine eligibility for exams. However, an exam only tests the knowledge and skills required by the question, focusing only on what needs to be remembered, and the maximum score is also limited. Grading down to quarters of a point may not necessarily be more accurate, especially when the grader struggles to clearly explain the difference between a 9 and a 10.

The issue becomes even more thought-provoking when, at the Higher Education Conference on October 1st in Ho Chi Minh City, Minister of Education and Training Hoang Minh Son raised the question of why, in many universities, including large ones, students can quite easily achieve excellent grades; he also called for stricter testing and evaluation to ensure challenging, fair, and substantive results.

Regarding grade inflation, the worrying thing isn't the large number of excellent students. If the standards are high and students truly meet them, that's a good sign. The real concern is when grades are very high but don't reflect what the students are actually capable of.

Photo: Thanh Nam

"Genuine learning" must therefore go hand in hand with "genuine evaluation." For university lecturers, grading is not only a professional right but also a guarantee: what abilities does the exam measure, and what criteria are used to award 8, 9, or 10? Inflating grades might make the transcript look better, but it will obscure competence and diminish the value of the degree.

Reading the Virginia vocational skills assessment system, I noticed a five-level scale, ranging from "unable to perform" to "with supervision," "with little supervision," "independently," and "able to teach." To be assessed as "able to teach," learners must thoroughly understand, master, and be able to explain and guide others to perform the task. The assessor's assessment is objective; learners know where they still need to improve.

In high school, when grades and rankings become the main concern for students, parents, and schools, learning tends to be heavily focused on "exams." Students concentrate on practicing exam formats and answering according to templates, rarely pursuing questions that develop independent thinking. The pursuit of rankings can overshadow the joy of discovery .

Pressure to achieve high grades can also lead students to study superficially, copy, and hide what they don't understand. If practice errors are also counted towards the final grade, students may be hesitant to try new methods. If adults are lenient with raising grades, children may understand that a good result is more important than honesty.

Grading to support learning

In his book *How to Grade for Learning* (2018 ), author Ken O'Connor gives the example of a student learning to swim who initially fails but becomes proficient by the end of the course. If the average grade were taken over the entire course, the student might still be rated as failing. The results should reflect a consistent level of performance, supported by new evidence. Learners must practice, make mistakes, and correct them; initial low grades should not mask what they have learned later.

Two papers that both received a score of 7 might have weaknesses in different areas: one might lack evidence, while the other's reasoning might be flawed. Returning the paper with a score alone doesn't help students understand what needs improvement. Teachers need to clearly point out the weaknesses, allow students to revise their work, and discuss how to correct them. Through this process, students learn to identify and overcome their shortcomings.

Written tests also need to be supplemented with other forms of assessment. Oral examinations help students explain their choices; practical exercises demonstrate that they can do what they have written. Group projects and internships provide additional evidence of work ability. In the age of AI, there is an even greater need for tasks that require learners to present their thinking, defend their products, and demonstrate their own capabilities.

Working together also reveals who keeps their word, who admits to unfinished tasks, and who knows how to listen and help others when they encounter difficulties.

Good professional skills alone are not enough; diligence and politeness cannot compensate for a lack of knowledge and skills. A comprehensive assessment must clarify each aspect, avoiding lumping everything together and failing to identify the learner's true strengths and weaknesses.

Character development needs to be assessed through various situations and the process of self-improvement. One mistake is not enough to define a person. Teachers need to listen, give students explanations, and provide opportunities for change. To achieve this, there needs to be sufficient time, appropriate class sizes, and less formal reporting. Adding assessment methods that only increase assignments and forms will only make it harder for students to understand.

The focus shouldn't be on high or low scores, but on who the student will become.

At the working session reviewing one year of implementing Resolution 71-NQ/TW dated August 25th, General Secretary and President To Lam emphasized that the ultimate goal is "to educate the kind of people we want to be." The focus should not be on high or low scores, or rankings, but on who the learners will become: whether they are capable, honest, and responsible to themselves and others.

Scores are necessary, but they don't fully define a person. The important thing isn't to try to lower scores, but to raise the standards, make the measurements more accurate, and ensure that each score is backed by genuine competence.