I know I am modest when I say that the trustworthiness of existing examination criteria has feasts tremendous criticism in assessing a student’s insight of course material. Consequently, I argue that the institution has to take into account certain flexibility methods for a student’s academic records that reflect his or her efforts. The existing examination criteria for CU demand that the teaching staff adds a course-retaking student’s grades in his or her aggregate quality-point mean calculations. On the contrary, I propose that with the Dean’s consent, students can be free to replace their courses’ marks with the higher of the two exams taken during retake. This proposal will also allow the students to exempt the low-grade from calculating his or her aggregate quality-point mean score. As a result, the student’s records will still show the student took both exams and delivered an honest academic record. The following paper further provides proof of ways this policy can benefit the institution, student, and ensure the student’s future career. Additionally, I will support my proposal would statistics and true comparisons with institutions that currently apply this particular policy in their ranking system.
In 2009, author Gerald Watkins Bracey noted that examiners believe the existing system for evaluation in the education sector is flawed. Irrespective of this observation, representatives in control of this sector still consider student grades the single source of evaluating their academic abilities and commitment. This poor consideration turns the entire education system into an ethical matter that one can resolve or alleviate in some ways (Thomsen, 2015). It is worth noting that this proposal involves enabling limited forgiveness to students by offering them another opportunity when they make a twin effort in one class.
My retake and