On Ungrading
Grades measure compliance, not growth, risk, or the quality of thinking behind a design decision
I began ungrading around 2020, driven by frustration with a recurring pattern in studio courses: students designing for me instead of for the work itself. They seemed to read the room to determine what I expected, producing solutions aimed at gaining my approval rather than addressing the actual problem. The grade became the main goal, making all other efforts—like research, iteration, and real engagement with the design problem—subordinate to achieving that target.
Ungrading challenges traditional grading. In my classes, students suggest their final grades, backing them up with a Process Book that shows their thinking, revisions, and an honest evaluation of their achievements and shortcomings. We then have one-on-one grade conferences, transforming the assessment into a dialogue. I remain involved in the evaluation process, but I no longer hold exclusive authority over determining the value of the work.
Most students find the first few weeks the hardest, as they want detailed feedback on their performance. Beneath that is a deeper issue: a mostly transactional view of education — doing the work to get grades and meeting requirements to move forward. Ungrading challenges this mindset, which can initially feel unsettling because there’s no clear exchange. I try to show students that asking, "How am I doing?” is most meaningful when they answer it themselves—shifting from a transactional perspective to a genuine reflection on their growth.
I've noticed that students tend to be more critical of themselves than I would be. They recognize what they skipped, hurried through, or played it safe on. The Process Book reveals these insights far better than a rubric ever could. Consequently, the subsequent discussions about genuine growth throughout the semester are almost always more meaningful than what a points-based system can generate.
Ungrading doesn't mean lowering standards; in fact, the standards remain high. The key difference is who takes responsibility for understanding and expressing those standards.