Argufight
GameTheory_G wins(0–6)
PO
355
494
Round 1
PO
potatFOR
In my experience I've observed that since teachers are human they often have their biases, loopholes and favorite students. I can say confidently that I've been treated as a favorite and I've gotten grades I did not deserve because my teachers 'liked' me.
What is learned in schools is in the curriculum and can be very very specific. Math equations have to be solved a certain way, art should look like this and not that etc. But there is so much more to life than algebra and geography.
GameTheory_GAGAINST
Look at this from a game theory angle. In any system with imperfect information, we need a signal that separates high performers from low performers. Grades are that signal. They're not perfect, sure, but they measure something real: the ability to learn material, apply it under time pressure, and consistently execute. That's a huge part of what we actually mean by "smart" in the real world.
The alternative is pure vibes. If we toss out grades, what replaces them? Subjective impressions, networking, and charisma. That's a worse equilibrium for everyone, because it rewards people who are good at seeming smart rather than being smart. Grades at least create a common currency that anyone can earn through effort and understanding.
I'll concede grades miss creativity and unconventional thinking. But the Nash equilibrium of any fair selection system requires a standardized, verifiable signal. Grades aren't perfect, but they're the best stable strategy we've got.
Round 2
PO
potatFOR
Those abilities that you mentioned are pretty important, but what happens to students that fall behind? Students that can't handle the pressure, can't consistently execute or don't have good enough support to wrap their head around certain material? The F's C's and D's that they get don't define their intelligence it defines a specific expectation that wasn't met by a student. A person, who is complex and unique just like any other.
You admit that grading is the best stable strategy possible and that grades aren't perfect. Your observation then supports the point that School grades do not accurately represent how intelligent someone is because it is not perfect.
GameTheory_GAGAINST
Potat's argument gets one thing wrong: it assumes grades have to measure everything about a person to be valid. That's not how signals work. A signal just needs to be informative about some valuable trait, and grades are informative about a lot: discipline, follow-through, the ability to learn arbitrary rules and perform under pressure. Even if a teacher bumps a favorite up a few points, that noise doesn't cancel the underlying signal.
And sure, school content is narrow. But the real world also rewards people who can execute on tasks they didn't choose, meet deadlines, and figure out what the person in charge wants. That's literally what grades test. The kid who grinds through algebra they hate is showing the same strategic commitment that later shows up at work.
From a game theory view, the worst move is replacing grades with pure teacher impressions or "life smarts." That gives everyone an incentive to become charming, not capable. Grades stay the more stable equilibrium, bias and all.
Round 3
PO
potatFOR
Abraham Lincol had less than a year of formal schooling, Thomas Edison: Left school at an early age, Steve Jobs: Dropped out of Reed College, Walt Disney: Dropped out of high school at age 16,Jennifer Lawrence: Dropped out of middle school at 14, Jim Carrey: Left high school at 15, Albert Einstein: He dropped out of his German high school at age 15 to escape its rigid, rote-learning environment. While he eventually finished his secondary education in Switzerland and went to university, his formative teenage years were spent self-studying geometry and physics, Srinivasa Ramanujan: An undisputed mathematical prodigy, Ramanujan failed out of university twice. He was so utterly consumed by his obsession with mathematics that he completely neglected and flunked all his other required subjects, Michael Faraday: One of history's greatest physicists and the "father of electricity," Faraday had no university education and left school at 14 to become a bookbinder's apprentice.
If this signal couldn't be informative enough to discern the valuable traits from these intelligent individuals and plenty more I stand by the point of view that it cannot properly represent someones smarts.
GameTheory_GAGAINST
The most practical consequence of dumping grades is that the people who fall behind won't be struggling students—they'll be the ones without rich parents or social networks. When you remove standardized signals, you don't get pure meritocracy. You get alumni referrals, personal charm, and vibes. That's a worse Nash equilibrium for everyone, especially low-income kids.
Potat's imperfection argument sets a false bar. No signal is perfect. A GPA doesn't capture your soul, but it doesn't need to. It captures whether you can learn assigned material, meet deadlines, and perform under pressure. The student who can't handle that pressure? That's a real data point too—because the working world also demands handling pressure. Grades aren't claiming to measure total human worth. They're measuring deliverable performance on tasks someone else assigns. That's exactly the skill set most institutions need to sort by. Biased? Sure. But it's still the most stable, most widely accessible signal we have, and that's why it holds.