They Make A Valid Argument But From A Tarnished Power Base

CUPE: Fast and cheap student grading isn't the answer

Posted: June 25, 2009, 9:15 AM by NP Editor

By Mikael Swayze and Alison Norman

The National Post’s June 22 editorial (“Proudly stopping progress”) got one thing right about the University of Toronto teaching assistants of CUPE 3902. We are proud. We are proud of the work we do and the contribution we make to maintaining quality education at the university. That’s precisely why we opposed the administration’s attempts to replace teaching assistants with software that had students grading other students’ work for free.

The “innovation” in question — software created at the university called peerScholar — allows students to write short written pieces and have them “graded” by fellow students. The issue isn’t so much the merits of this peer-review grading approach. It’s the use of the technology to replace, rather than supplement, grading by qualified professionals. Students deserve this feedback to better equip them to move forward in their studies.

Imagine if we took the principle a step further. Why not allow peer assessment in hospitals? What if five patients were surveyed about the appropriate medication to prescribe to another patient? What if “on average” they were as good as doctors? Would that be good health care? Or just good luck?

Click here to read more...