Sort students into different classes based on their ability and interest.

I have no objection to that, and I don't know why you think I would.

You seem to be assuming that "all students must meet these standards" means that all students must meet these standards at the same age and time, but I never said or implied that.

Right, but how do you filter students, if not by grades? With no grades, how do you know which ones are capable of a more rigorous program? (Similarly, later, how do you know which ones should get into the best universities? And so on)

> Right, but how do you filter students, if not by grades? With no grades, how do you know which ones are capable of a more rigorous program?

The concept here is mastery rather than grades. When a student has mastered a subject, they can move onto more rigorous subjects. If they haven't mastered a subject, then they need to continue studying that subject. When we socially promote students who receive a grade of D, C, or even B, I wonder, what is the student missing? Why are we giving up and moving on just because an arbitrary amount of time has passed? And if the student has failed to completely learn things at the current level, what's going to happen when the student moves on to higher, harder levels? That's a disaster waiting to happen, compounding ignorance over time.

It appears that the "answer" to these questions is that our society cares more about ranking students than it does about educating students. So we allow the education to be incomplete for many or perhaps most students, as long as we already have our ranking from "best" to "worst" (at a given age). This is, in my opinion, an unfortunate consequence of the multiple conflicting purposes of the educational system.

> (Similarly, later, how do you know which ones should get into the best universities? And so on)

I already talked about the GRE, for example, so I don't know why you're still confused about that. (I'm not actually defending the GRE, or the SAT, another standardized test, but there are clearly ways to evaluate people separate from schools and grades.)

I do have some problems with the inequality of opportunities implied by "the best universities", but that's a whole other discussion. I've already mentioned that the conflicting purposes of the educational system extend to the college level too, are arguably even worse at that level. Think back to the very first quote I posted, from the A.I. cheater for whom the point of an Ivy League university was not to receive an education but to make the right social connections. How is academic achievement even relevant there? To me, this is a sign that the current system is fundamentally broken.