“Just because I’m running doesn’t mean you need to run—it’s not Deerfield academics.” But in fact I did need to run, because I was two minutes late to curfew that night.

When Andy Chen ’25 passed me on Albany Road, running with his Namaste dinner in hand, something told me I needed to run as well. Instinctively, or more likely out of fear of having to spend the few precious Accountabiltiy Points I had left, I joined his sprint. Hearing my footsteps, he assured me that I wasn’t getting graded on getting back to my dorm on time.

Although thrown as an out-of-pocket joke, Chen’s comment reflected what compels Deerfield
students, myself included, to run academically. Losing sleep to study for that math test or to finish writing that history essay, we are pressured by an ever-increasing internal. and external burden to not fall academically behind—all while teachers tell us to get more sleep.

There’s been a lot of op-eds written about grades and grading in the Scroll, and the most recent one by Opinion Page Editor Chloe Xue ’25— “Deerfield Should Abolish Grades”—goes as far as to argue grades shouldn’t exist at Deerfield. While I don’t believe grades shouldn’t exist entirely, the new, unannounced changes made this year to Deerfield’s grading system add even more burden to the pressure cooker that this school already is.

Opening DAInfo the day comments were released, I doubt I was the only one to be surprised by the new scheme for effort grades. Replacing ME (meets expectations) at the top of the grading pyramid was its more flashy, desirable counterpart—OU (outstanding). I assume the most compelling reason for this new category was so it could more accurately reflect students that showed “outstanding” levels of commitment in-class, but performed poorly on assessments, leading to lackluster grades compared to their engagement. But the way effort grades work at Deerfield, as more of a box to be checked rather than a grade to be earned, this new change places uncalled for pressure on students.

If a student has shown such considerable effort in class that it’s considered “outstanding,” the numerical grade should reflect that. There’s no need for a separate distinction. The primary reason students listen, participate, and show effort in class is the expectation that we will do well in that class if we do. If a student shows outstanding effort in class and their numerical grade reflects it, the new “outstanding” grade isn’t necessary. Conversely, if a student shows outstanding effort in class but their numerical grade doesn’t reflect it, that’s more of an indicator that a teacher’s grading system is unnecessarily punitive or unduly weighted toward assessments rather than there needing to be an “outstanding” category.

Additionally, by changing the effort grade from a checkbox grade to basically another grade to be earned, we, the students, feel an undue burden. As Chen’s quote reveals, there’s enough academic competition and stress at Deerfield already. The benefit of adding the “outstanding” grade is far outweighed by the drawback of increased anxiety and stress amongst students. If the administration cares so much as to have the Health Center hold anxiety clinics, it seems contradictory to add a new source of worry for students. The policy is two-faced, and it shows these decisions aren’t considering the perspectives of students, because they were made without student input. Because number grades are more important than effort grades, only the former being included in official transcripts, effort grades should remain a checkbox.

I also doubt that I was the only one to be close-reading my teacher’s comments— certainly much closer than I read Emily Dickinson in English class—psychoanalyzing every word my teachers wrote for a hint of what my numerical grade could be. I shouldn’t have to do this. While the reason for releasing numerical grades two days after comments is that it incentivizes students to actually read them, similar to the addition of the “outstanding” effort grade, this policy only induces more stress amongst students without providing substantial benefit.

Comments don’t fall out of coconut trees. They exist within the context of the numerical grade. The number tells me how well I’m doing in that class, and the comment justifies why I earned that grade and how I can improve. It doesn’t make much logical sense to explain a number that we haven’t received yet. Furthermore, because Deerfield students want to do well in class, as repeatedly echoed in Chen’s quote, we’re incentivized to read comments. Because the number grade only tells us on a relative scale how we are doing, students will naturally pay more attention to comments because they provide actionable feedback.

In reflection of receiving midterm grades, there’s a trend that exists throughout—uncommunicated change. Many students only found out about the addition of the “outstanding” category the Friday
grades were released, and the fact that we were receiving comments only during the Wednesday advisory meeting they were released. This lack of communication is infuriating; not only were students not involved in any conversation whatsoever, there was also no centralized communication between the administration and the student body that told us these changes were made.

Deerfield, as an institution, exists for its students. Without us, Deerfield wouldn’t exist. But these recent grading reforms not only neglect the perspectives of students, but actively go against our interests. It’s time that major changes such that affect student life consider our point of view, instead of being made from the isolated ivory tower that is the Deerfield administration.