The Broken Yardstick: Why Your Grade is a Resource Filter, Not a Self-Portrait

Every year, the emails arrive like clockwork. They are polite, deferential, and heartbreakingly similar. They come from students who have done everything right—attended lectures, highlighted every reading, and sacrificed sleep for high achievement—only to find that the numbers on the gradebook refuse to cooperate.

One recent email from a student in my Biochemistry class captured the sentiment perfectly:

I found it very emotionally challenging and draining to see my exam scores dip with each successive exam we took, when one should be striving for the opposite trend. This sort of trend has never happened with any other STEM course I have taken. How would you navigate the emotional burden of putting forth my best effort, and not see it truly come out during the exam?

To that student, and to those like you who are reading this: your pain is real, but your premise is wrong.

The emotional burden you feel is not just disappointment about a grade; it is the existential dread of the trend line. You have been conditioned to believe that learning is a linear ascent: that input (i.e., effort) must always equal output (i.e., grades). When the graph points down, you don’t just feel like you missed a question; you feel like you are slipping. You feel like you are losing your grip on the ladder of upward mobility that you have been climbing since kindergarten.

But here is the hard truth that few professors will tell you: the educational system is not a meritocracy. It is a resource management system.

Research into the sociology of education, such as screening theory, suggests that grades are often less about measuring your learning and more about filtering a population.¹ Universities implicitly promise that grades measure intelligence, character, and mastery. In reality, grades are often a “hodgepodge” of non-cognitive factors and clerical necessities.²

We face a supply-and-demand problem.³ There are fewer medical school spots, graduate fellowships, and high-paying tech jobs than there are capable applicants. To handle this surplus, the system reduces the multi-dimensional complexity of your potential down to a single, sortable data point: the GPA.

When you struggle in a rigorous course, you are not failing as a human being. You are simply encountering the friction of a broken yardstick. You are letting a logistical tool designed for bureaucrats determine your self-worth. And the only way to stop the emotional burden is to stop believing that the sortable data point reflects the quality of your mind.

Reducing Humans to Numbers

#

We live in an era obsessed with the quantified self. We track our steps, our sleep cycles, and our likes, believing that if we can measure it, we can optimize it. But when we apply this logic to education, we commit a dangerous reductionist fallacy.

Society has baked in the idea that your GPA is a proxy for your intelligence, or worse, your potential. We take the sprawling, messy, multi-dimensional complexity of a human mind—your ability to synthesize disparate ideas, your resilience in the face of failure, your ethical compass, your creative spark—and we crush it all down into a single floating-point number.

Why? Because it is convenient.

It is impossible to put tenacity on a spreadsheet. It isn’t easy to sort applicants by curiosity. But a 3.7 GPA? That sorts beautifully.

We have accepted a system that values measurability over meaning. Researchers call this the confusion of “exchange value” (i.e., what a grade buys you) with “use value” (i.e., what you actually learned).³ We convince ourselves that a student with a 4.0 is “better” than a student with a 3.2. We ignore the fact that the 4.0 often represents a student who is risk-averse and excellent at compliance. In contrast, the 3.2 might represent a brilliant outlier who took the most challenging classes and occasionally stumbled. By obsessing over the metric, we incentivize safety over growth.⁴

This brings us to the uncomfortable reality of “weeder” courses. You often hear students ask, “Why is [INSERT COURSE HERE] designed to make us fail?” The answer isn’t pedagogical; it’s logistical.

Universities and professional schools are facing a massive supply-and-demand problem. There are far more qualified applicants for medical school, graduate programs, and top-tier industry jobs than there are seats available. Because selection committees cannot interview all 5,000 applicants for 100 spots, they need a way to reduce “information asymmetry” efficiently.¹

They need a filter. They need a way to discard 80% of the pile without having to think too hard about it.

That is what your grade is. It is not a moral judgment of your character. It is not a prophetic prediction of your future success. It is a coarse filter used by a bureaucracy to manage scarcity. When you view your grade through this lens—as a logistical necessity for a crowded system rather than a reflection of your soul—the emotional burden begins to lift.

You realize you are not fighting for your worth; you are just fighting for a spot in line.

The Nail in the Ladder of Upward Mobility

#

If grades are just clerical data points, why do they hurt so much? Why do students write about emotional burden rather than just annoyance?

Because for the vast majority of us, a university education is not an abstract pursuit of enlightenment. It is an economic lifeline. As researchers, Lynch and Hennessy (2015) argue, we have shifted from a culture of learning to learn to one of learning to earn.² You are not just studying biology; you are engaging in a desperate architectural project. You are building a ladder of upward mobility, trying to climb from uncertainty to security, or from the working class to the professional class.

In this mental model, every course is a rung, and every exam grade is a nail that holds that rung in place.

Sociologists call this Positional Conflict. In a saturated job market, your degree is a “positional good”—its value depends entirely on how it compares to others.⁵ This creates a zero-sum game where a “C” on a midterm doesn’t feel like a simple feedback loop indicating you need to study enzyme kinetics more closely. It feels like a structural failure. It feels like the nail bent, the rung snapped, and you are left dangling over the abyss of economic instability.

You aren’t worried about the content; you are concerned that you have just disqualified yourself from the future you were promised.

This is the great tragedy of the modern university: The fear of falling paralyzes the ability to climb.

We know from research on mastery learning that deep understanding requires corrective activities: a polite academic term for failing, receiving feedback, and trying again.⁵ Deep learning is inherently messy. It requires you to take intellectual risks, to ask “stupid” questions, and to attempt problems you don’t know how to solve.

But you cannot take risks when you are clinging to the ladder for dear life.

When the “exchange value” of your grade (i.e., what it buys you) outweighs the “use value” of the knowledge (i.e., what you actually know), you stop playing with ideas and start memorizing them.³ You stop trying to understand and start trying to survive. You trade curiosity for caution. In doing so, you protect your GPA, but you inadvertently cap your growth. You become a perfect test-taker who is terrified of the very thing that science demands: the unknown.

The Invisible Head Start

#

If we accept that education is a race for limited resources, we must also admit that the starting line is not drawn straight.

Sociologists use the term cultural capital to describe the non-financial social assets that promote social status and mobility. This includes access to education, style of speech, and an understanding of “the rules” that some students just seem to know. In the context of a university, cultural capital is the invisible currency that some students inherit and others have to earn from scratch.

We pretend that every student enters the classroom with the same 24 hours in a day and the same capacity to focus. This is a lie.

Consider two students in my Biochemistry class:

• Student A comes from a family of academics. They know that “office hours” are for networking, not just remedial help. They know how to write an email that gets an extension. They have never worried about rent, so their “study time” is purely for studying.
• Student B is a first-generation college student. They work a night shift to pay tuition. To them, a syllabus is a rigid contract, not a negotiating position. They view a B-minus as a failure of their own ability, unaware that Student A hired a private tutor to earn an A-minus.

When I grade their exams, the “yardstick” treats them identically. But it is not measuring their raw intellectual horsepower; it is measuring their accumulated advantage.

This isn’t just an anecdote; it is a statistical reality. Research analyzing 20 years of educational data (such as the TIMSS study) confirms a strong, persistent correlation between Socioeconomic Status (SES) and educational achievement.⁶ Students from higher-SES backgrounds don’t just have better resources; they have a “home advantage” that directly translates into higher test scores.

In our hyper-competitive positional market, where students compete for a fixed number of spots, this inequality is exacerbated.⁷ The student with the cultural capital knows how to play the game to maximize their “exchange value” (i.e., grades), while the student without it is often left working twice as hard just to figure out the rules.

So, when you look at that “dip” in your exam scores, ask yourself: Are you struggling with the content, or are you exhausted from running a race where you started fifty meters behind the pack?

The Subjectivity of the Classroom

#

We treat a letter grade as a standardized unit of measurement, like a kilogram or a meter. We assume that an “A” in BIOSC 1000 represents a fixed quantity of knowledge, regardless of where or when it was earned.

This is a delusion.

Research spanning a century reveals that grades are rarely objective measures of achievement. Instead, they are a “hodgepodge” of cognitive factors (did you get the answer right?) and non-cognitive factors (did you behave well? did you try hard?) that vary wildly from teacher to teacher.²

Teaching is not a mechanical transfer of data; it is a highly subjective interaction between two specific human minds. Think of it as a transmission protocol. I, the professor, encode complex information based on my understanding, my vocabulary, and my biases. You, the student, must decode that signal based on your background, your way of thinking, and your current emotional state.

A bad grade is often just a bad translation. It doesn’t mean your processor is broken; it means the encoding and decoding keys didn’t match.

To make matters worse, the ruler we use to measure you changes length depending on who is holding it. Every professor operates with a different definition of what an “A” represents, often driven by perverse systemic incentives:⁴

• The Inflators. Some professors are easy graders. They might do this because they want to be liked, or because they recognize the yardstick is broken and refuse to be the executioner. They aren’t just being “nice”; they are often responding to the pressure of student evaluations of teaching. Research shows a strong correlation between high grades and positive student evaluations. Professors who “inflate” grades are often rewarded with better promotion prospects, awards, and job stability, effectively prioritizing their transcripts over their training.
• The Rigorists. Others (and I often fall into this camp) hold painfully high expectations. We believe that deep understanding only comes from struggle. We prioritize your long-term capacity over your short-term comfort. However, for non-tenured faculty, this position is perilous. If a young professor (i.e., me) grades rigorously and receives poor student evaluations in return, they risk their own job security. The system literally weaponizes your short-term discomfort against our long-term careers.

Here is the catch: these are explicit tradeoffs. A professor cannot maximize for “grade security” and “intellectual rigor” simultaneously. We have to choose one, the other, or an uneasy compromise in between.

This variability shatters the myth of the standardized metric. In one semester, with a rigorist, your best effort earns you a B and a deep understanding of the field. In the next semester, with an inflator, that same effort earns you an A and a fragile, superficial knowledge base.

If your grade can fluctuate wildly based on the personality of the instructor rather than the quality of your mind, how can you possibly let it determine your self-worth? You are measuring yourself with a rubber ruler.

My Own Resume of Failures

#

It is easy for me to sit here, with a PhD after my name and a faculty position, and tell you to “relax about your grades.” It sounds like rich people telling poor people that money does not buy happiness. (I always say that money can make unhappy things go away.)

So, let me show you the receipts.

I did not glide into academia on a golden parachute of high grades or cultural capital. I stumbled, scraped, and failed my way here. If you look at my undergraduate transcript from Western Michigan University, you will not see a linear ascent to greatness. You will see a messy, jagged struggle.

In my first year, I got a CB in Calculus I. The next semester, I got a C in Calculus II and a CB in General Chemistry. My GPA dropped to a 2.68. By the linear trend metric, I was failing. I was slipping.

But here is what the transcript doesn’t show: I didn’t know how to be a college student. I wasn’t the canonical genius who absorbed information by osmosis. I worked a 4 am to 12 pm shift to pay rent, sacrificed my social life, and spent countless hours trying to figure out how to learn.

The “dip” in my scores was not a failure of character; it was a confrontation with a difficulty curve that was steeper than my current adaptation rate.

I did not improve because I suddenly got smarter. I improved because I learned that effort is a vector, not a scalar. It’s not just about magnitude (i.e., how hard you work); it’s about direction (i.e., how you work). P.S. This is how I discovered and started using the Feynman Learning Technique.

I had to learn to teach myself when the professor’s style or content didn’t click. I had to learn that getting a B in Organic Chemistry (which I did—twice!) while actually understanding the mechanism is infinitely more valuable than getting an A by memorizing flashcards.

If I had let my self-worth be defined by that 2.68 GPA in 2014, I would have quit. I would have assumed I “wasn’t cut out for STEM.” Instead, I focused on what I found rewarding, interesting, and enjoyable. I decided that I loved to learn more than I loved the validation of an A.

And guess what? The grades eventually followed. By the time I reached my PhD at Pitt, my transcript looks completely different. I was earning A’s in Statistical Mechanics, Biophysics, and Computational Structural Biology. But those A’s weren’t the goal; they were the byproduct of a years-long, messy, non-linear process of learning how to learn.

Even then, the grade I am most proud of is the B in Quantum Mechanics taught by THE Dr. Kenneth Jordan. While this was the most challenging class of my life, learning from Dr. Jordan was an enriching experience. (He was also on my Ph.D. committee.)

Your transcript is not your biography. It is just a log of your training data. And as any scientist will tell you, data is always noisy and biased to some extent.

Becoming Your Own Teacher

#

If the system is broken, if grades are biased, and if professors are subjective, what is your move? Do you simply accept the “emotional burden” and hope for a better draw next semester?

No. You change the power dynamic.

You stop viewing your professor as the sole source of truth and start seeing them as just one available resource among many. You stop waiting to be taught and start learning how to learn. The most powerful skill a university can force you to acquire is not calculus or biochemistry; it is autodidacticism: the ability to teach yourself.

In high school, a “good” teacher was someone who spoon-fed you the material in the exact flavor you liked. In college (and especially in graduate school and the workforce), you cannot rely on finding that perfect match. You will encounter professors who are brilliant researchers but terrible communicators. You will face lecturers who are disorganized, boring, or who speak a different intellectual language than the one you speak.

If you rely on them to transfer knowledge into your brain, you will fail. But if you take ownership of your own education, you become unstoppable.

When a lecture leaves you baffled, don’t internalize it as a lack of aptitude or blame the professor for being the worst. Treat it as a missing data packet. Your job is to find that packet elsewhere.

• If the professor’s explanation of a reaction mechanism makes no sense, go find a YouTube channel that visualizes it in 3D.
• If the textbook is dense and impenetrable, go find the seminal paper that discovered the concept (often, the original discovery is clearer than the textbook summary).
• If the code examples in class are abstract, go to GitHub, read the documentation, and break the software until you understand how to fix it.

This is the ultimate secret of higher education: The grade is just the price of admission to the next stage. It gets you past the filter. But the ability to learn without a teacher is the only thing that guarantees you will survive once you get there.

In the real world, there are no syllabi. There are no office hours. There are no “review sessions” before the product launch. There are only the problems you don’t understand and the internet. If you can navigate that void alone, it doesn’t matter if you got a B in Sophomore year. You have already won.

I Am Fighting Along With You

#

I want to end with a confession.

I know I just spent pages and pages telling you to “hack” the system and teach yourself, but that doesn’t mean I am complacent about the state of higher education. I am new to this game. As a young professor, I am still close enough to my own student days to remember exactly how the “emotional burden” feels.

I am working to fight against the system from the inside, but it is a slow, grinding process. Every semester, I face an impossible choice.

• If I lower the bar to relieve your anxiety, I send you into the workforce unprepared for the brutal realities of science. I protect your feelings today at the cost of your career tomorrow.
• If I hold the line on rigor to ensure you are competent, I risk crushing your spirit, damaging the GPA you need to get hired, and likely closing the door on my own career.

I am constantly trying to find a balance: to design exams that test thinking rather than memorization, to grade based on growth rather than error, and to advocate for a curriculum that values resilience over perfection. I don’t always get it right. I am still iterating, still failing, and still learning, just like you.

So when you see a grade on an exam that stings, or when you feel the weight of the “broken yardstick” pressing down on you, please know this: I always have your long-term interests in my heart, even if it doesn’t feel like it in the moment.

I am pushing you because I respect you enough to know you can handle the weight. I am not trying to weed you out; I am trying to build you up so that when you leave this protected bubble, the world cannot break you.

A Note to the Student

#

So, to the student who wrote me that email, and to everyone else staring at a transcript that does not feel fair: Do not let a clerical tool dismantle your intellectual curiosity or drive.

Grades are the currency of the university, and like any currency, you need enough of it to buy what you want (a degree, a job, a grad school spot). So yes, you have to play the game. You have to study for the test, even if it’s flawed. You have to jump through the hoops.

But you do not have to believe that the hoops are a measure of your soul. I failed my way here, but learned along the way. I carried a 2.68 GPA before I carried a doctorate.

The burden you feel right now is real, but it is heavier than it needs to be because you are carrying the weight of a broken system, not just a difficult class. You are carrying the anxiety of a resource filter that is trying to sort you into a spreadsheet.

Put that weight down.

Focus on the science. Focus on the questions that keep you up at night (in a good way). Focus on learning how to teach yourself so that no bad professor can ever stop you.

If you can do that, the grades will eventually sort themselves out. And more importantly, you will leave this place with something far more valuable than a 4.0: a mind that knows how to survive in the wild.