August 19, 2009 2 Comments
B.C. University Dean Simon Fraser is taking punishment to a whole new level, by introducing a grade of FD meaning failure with dishonesty, or better yet f*cking disaster. This is the worst possible grade a student can possibly receive. “Students who receive a grade of FD essentially failed at failing,” said Fraser who has long supported raising the standards of failure. Fraser added, “for too long students have expected Fs to be handed to them because they merely skipped class and missed every exam, Canada should expect more from its losers.”
In an interview with Canadian newspaper, News…Eh?, Frasier justified the new FD grade on the grounds that it will finally provide F students with the opportunity to feel superior to another group of people. Despite F students’substantially higher rate of failure, Frasier opposes the belief that F students failed at feeling superior because they’re failures who simply fail at mostly everything. He cites a recent Montreal University study which attributes F students’ general lack of a superiority complex to the historical absence of a class of people to feel superior to.
Some critics think the new FD grade will cause F students to believe they’re not utter failures, but merely complete disappointments; and eventually lead to the replacement of D students altogether. Others are not so apocalyptic-minded, but believe D students might develop an unrealistic sense of accomplishment from outperforming two groups of people. Yet, most American educational experts think not much will be changed by the FD , as F and D students will always be considered losers. Frasier has not commented on what, if any, effect the new FD grade might have on D students.
The Canadian Ministry of Education is planning similar measures in its effort to reform the country’s entire grading system. In addition to adopting the FD grade, the Ministry also plans to introduce the experimental grade of CC (±), which is supposed to greatly expand the notion of slacker-style mediocrity. A grade of CC (±) introduces the subjective element of “style” to assessing student performance but will count the same as a grade of C. “C students did enough to get by,” said one board member, “whereas CC (±) students made it look easy or added some pizazz.” Another board member agreed and added, “we live in a society that increasingly values style over substance and the education system should be a reflection of what society expects from students when they enter the workforce.”