The lecture on compassionate assessment by Neil Currant made some insightful points regarding assessment. One of the things that resonated most was the questioning of the often-accepted notion that there is fairness in procedure. I often find myself frustrated with the entrenched procedural systems linked to assessment within UAL that often use opaque language and are implemented in a blanket way across all levels and courses. This presupposes that knowledge can be acquired and evidenced by all students at the same time and in the same way. Overly rigid procedures can in fact create issues with social justice as students from different backgrounds may have different modes of learning. Therefore assessments as it stands (specifically linked to a graded system) can’t always reflect a fair representation of where a student is at. Another question raised mentioned the often-hierarchical relationship created between lecturers and the students which is reenforced at the assessment stage where a lack of trust exists. This puts in doubt student’s ability to submit on time, in a format relevant to their practice, or that they might be able to self asses. Giving more responsibility to the students, with a focus on feedback rather than grades may help to enhance student learning and eliminate the practice of grade chasing. Though assessment can be used to take account of learning and develop courses, often it is used as a standardised system that fits into a culture of attainment, credit and awards. These two aspects are in tension with each other. Compassionate assessment can be a possible way to bridge the gap between the two. Though until we go back to a pass/fail system, grades will inevitably hold up too much importance in students’ mind and negatively affect the creative learning process. This is a shorter version of this blogpost.