Introduction
Grades are used to evaluate students. Thus, it is important that they accurately reflect their achievement and that all students’ work is marked consistently. College professors do not always have enough time for an accurate and fair assessment. Unhappy students may protest in ways that make teaching harder. Some teachers believe students’ and teachers’ concentration on grading inhibits true learning. The question raised in this case is, “Should the professor read and grade each essay, or should he give everyone an A?”
Using Rawlsian Justice
Under Rawlsian Justice, there are two alternative answers depending on the condition and duties of the professor. Firstly, the most just answer is that he should read each essay and grade it according to each student’s performance. This is the best way since it is fair, and it would reward each student according to their hard work. The other method is rewarding everyone with the same grade even though it is not the most accurate. If the professor has an unavoidable fixed schedule, he would consider giving everyone an A despite the amount of hard work placed by individual students.
The first alternative is not distributively just because the professor is supposed to read each essay and grade it individually and does not provide the same outcome for the people involved. The second alternative is distributively just because the professor will not read and grade according to each student’s performance, but he will award everyone the same top grade. The first alternative is not compensatorily just because it will not provide an advantage to those who fail for different reasons. It is only advantageous to those who did their work perfectly. The second alternative is compensatorily just since it gives those at a disadvantage a considerable benefit, increasing the likelihood that they will eventually compete on an even playing field.
The first alternative is retributive. This is proven by the cost of compensating those disadvantaged and not accruing to those who caused the inequality. The second alternative is also retributive since the cost of compensating those who are disadvantaged does not occur to those who are advantaged. Finally, the first alternative is procedurally just because it uses the same rules for everyone involved. The second alternative is also procedurally just as it uses the same rule for the people involved.
Retributive, procedural, compensatory, and distributive justice are in Rawlsian order. The second option is retributive justice. Moral rights argue that writers have the right to be credited for their work to protect authors from having their works misattributed. They have the right to prevent their works from being used to disparage or damage their reputation. The first option is fair, so it does not violate morality. The second option delivers a bogus grade, violating attribution and it also undermines integrity since grading is not honest.
Using Kantian Deontology
The question raised in this case is, “Should the professor read and grade each essay, or should he give everyone an A?” Two possible responses to the question above are based on the professor’s current situation and responsibilities. The fairest solution is for them to read each essay and assign grades based on how well each student did. This is the ideal option since it is equitable and would give each student recognition for their effort. In contrast, giving everyone a passing grade is another option. Although not ideal, this approach could be effective if the professor’s timetable is rigid and cannot be changed regardless of how much effort each student put into the course.
For the second alternative, some people have a stake in the outcome. Those who gain from the outcome may not have any right to claim, but those who lose have several moral rights. They would claim the right to fairness and the right to integrity because the grading is not awarded according to their efforts. I would want the rights since they create room for fairness and encourage hard work among students. The duties required of the people in charge are to consider everyone and their rights. They would consider being in the position of those who put in more hard work but ended up having a loss, although they are graded the same. This is considered a loss because there could not be much competition, and they could be more advantageous on the playing field. If the duties were irreversible and were placed on me, I would have accepted the duty. If it were for everyone on earth, I would have done the same since everyone deserves to be served with fairness.
Considering the right to integrity creates room for honesty, the people involved should implement this right because honesty is the key. If I were in their position, I would have accepted the duty because everyone deserves to be awarded according to the effort they placed. I would do the same to everyone on earth because it is my duty as a leader to show integrity to everyone. The right to fairness and the right to integrity is the moral rights they would claim. There are two types of moral rights violated: the right of fairness and of integrity.
Conclusion
Overall, grading must help students gain insight into their learning by revealing what they already know, what they still need to learn, and how they can grow. Professors should try to grade students according to their presented work in order to encourage improvement. Under Rawlsian Justice and Kantian Deontology, the morally right decision is to grade each student’s work depending on their efforts, as giving everyone an A undermines integrity and fairness moral rights.