Why More Testing Could Fix Meaningless College Grades
If colleges keep handing out meaningless grades, more testing could provide a better measure of what students have learned. Too many transcripts today read like glossy brochures rather than honest reports of skill, and that undermines employers, graduate programs, and students themselves. Testing won’t solve every problem, but it can anchor assessment to clear, comparable evidence.
Grade inflation and inconsistent standards make it hard to know what a GPA actually means from one campus to another. Standardized or common assessments create a shared baseline that makes comparisons fairer without erasing the value of classroom work. When tests measure agreed-upon outcomes, they force institutions to be explicit about what success looks like.
Different models exist: end-of-program exams, discipline-specific competency tests, and nationally benchmarked assessments tied to learning outcomes. Each approach has trade-offs in cost, logistics, and academic freedom, but those trade-offs are manageable if colleges prioritize transparency. Combining testing with coursework-based assessment preserves classroom judgment while adding an objective check.
Employers often complain that degrees don’t guarantee workplace readiness, and more consistent testing would help employers trust credentials. A reliable exam signal could make hiring fairer and reduce the weight given to prestige and resume padding. Students who know what skills are expected will be better able to demonstrate them in and out of the classroom.
Design matters: tests should focus on critical thinking, problem solving, and domain-specific skills, not rote memorization. Well-designed exams use real-world tasks and performance-based items so scores reflect usable capabilities. That keeps assessment relevant and resists the temptation to teach to a narrow test.
Equity risks are real if testing becomes high stakes without supports in place, but the answer is not to avoid testing — it’s to build supports. Diagnostic testing, tutoring, and multiple testing opportunities reduce bias and open paths for improvement. Transparent rubrics and accommodations ensure that tests measure ability, not background advantage.
Academic culture will resist change, and rightly so in defending intellectual exploration from bureaucratic checklists. Still, institutions can adopt tests as one part of a larger assessment ecosystem rather than a replacement for pedagogy. Faculty involvement in test design preserves curricular richness and keeps assessments meaningful.
Technology and proctoring tools make secure, scalable testing more practical than in the past, but technology is not a substitute for good measurement. Data from assessments must be used to improve teaching, revise curricula, and guide student advising. When used thoughtfully, testing becomes a feedback loop that strengthens education instead of narrowing it.
More testing should be framed as an accountability tool that benefits students, employers, and colleges by clarifying what degrees actually certify. It can restore trust in credentials while leaving room for creativity and mentorship inside classrooms. Adopting clearer, comparable measures is a pragmatic step toward making higher education more honest and useful.