The math department’s decision to replace human graders with a computerized grading system is a sound one, and it illustrates an important lesson for students as we face budget cut-induced changes to our classroom experience: Replacing traditional teaching methods with computerized ones does not necessarily mean forfeiting quality.
As long as the people deciding such changes remain conscious, first and foremost, of the students’ experience, budget woes can be navigated without spelling disaster for our education.
The math department — which has faced nearly $70,000 in cuts during the past two years — had to eliminate human graders in order to continue funding the Math Help Center. They devised an alternate method of grading in order to ensure the existence of something to which there is no clear alternative.
Nor does the new grading system mean a wholesale decrease in quality. Students may not get explanations of their mistakes, but they also don’t have to wait a week for their homework to be returned.
No one is more surprised than we are that we support a shift away from real graders with real feedback. But this is a perfect example of how abandoning traditional teaching methods does not always translate into a less fulfilling education.
In that vein, it is important that all students remain open to such innovations as the University continues trying to trim the budget while still maximizing quality.
Not all the solutions will be perfect, but we must not dismiss every shift in this direction as an inevitable diminution of quality.
Rather, we should evaluate these changes on a case-by-case basis with both an open mind and a healthy dose of skepticism. It is important that the administration take student feedback into account when implementing such changes. But in order for such feedback to be taken seriously, we students must give these innovations, imperfect though they may be, a chance.
