I have always understood the practice of assigning grades and scores as a form of incentive: a way to ensure that we take our learning seriously. In many ways, this is true. Without a lack of incentive, I am certain many young kids would give their learning far too little priority. Yet scoring systems are much more than just an incentive. They force students to conform to the belief that we compete against our peers in most of what we do. Furthermore, it promotes the idea of School as a means by which to earn grades, rather than a way to enrich one’s knowledge. I think this is especially true at Williams, a place where nearly every student had an amazing GPA in high school and/or excellent standardized test scores. Williams students are no doubt hungry for knowledge and interested in exploring the curriculum offered here; however, the concept of grades is nonetheless engrained in the way we approach school. It almost always seems the case that, when course registration rolls around, the courses with “easy grading” or a “light work load” are ranked above those with “engaging material” or which are “challenging but rewarding”. While I believe that Williams students are nowhere near being the monotonous and robotic products of the school system that Gatto describes in his paper, I certainly agree that the idea of ranking and distinction is something that we have all come to accept as normal and important in our Williams experience.