Grading in the art and design discipline is tricky business. It’s not like math or science, where there are (usually) clear, specific answers to problems (2+2 will always equal 4). Evaluating art is a far more subjective process. What makes one piece superior to another? Are there right and wrong answers when it comes to design? Are there universal standards? How could there be when some of the most valued qualities in art are originality and uniqueness? The best work, arguably, is that which breaks the established rules. In an art school setting, it is entirely possible for one instructor to give a certain student’s project a “B” while a second instructor might consider the same piece a “C” and a third an “A.”

So what is to be done about grading? I suppose if I had my druthers, I would dispense with grades altogether. Of course, this is not practical for most academic settings. Schools need to be able to track students using quantifiable data, to show that they are making timely progress, that they are somehow learning. Institutions require certain grade point averages for promotion and graduation. Financial institutions likewise require specific calculable evidences of success in return for the money that they lend students. So we must gives grades; the question becomes how do we apply them to art?

Over the years I have developed a fairly simple guiding principle, or rubric, that I use when I evaluate student work. Starting with the traditional letter grades, I reserve “A” for work I consider “portfolio quality,” that is work that shows polish and professionalism, and could be placed directly in a student’s portfolio without any significant changes or alterations. “B” I use for work that is good, strong, creative, but needs some revision, some refinement, before it can be considered portfolio ready. “C” means the student met the minimum requirements. She did everything correctly, but it does nothing to stand out from the pack. “D” is used for sub-standard work; perhaps the piece is incomplete, or a major requirement was ignored. I generally only give an “F” when work is not submitted at all, though occasionally, I have received pieces from students that were so far off track, that I could not bring myself to give them a passing grade (for example, if I ask for a design of a spaghetti sauce label and I get a drawing of a cat). Of course these categories are still subjective, but I feel that many years of experience as a designer and educator helps me to properly gauge where the work falls on this scale.

Starting from this basic rubric I will often break projects down into specific aesthetic and technical categories. For example, categories might include composition, use of color, use of typography, originality, technical ability, etc. Each of these could be given an A-D grade using the above scale, to give the student a better picture as to where her strengths and weakness lie. These scores can be added together to create a (somewhat) quantitative score. Projects also usually have specific non-subjective, requirements as well: size of the design, specified color system, resolution (if done on computer), length of piece (if time-based), etc. Points can be subtracted from the grade for failure to meet one or more of these criteria.

These letter grades are not set in stone, however. I have a standing policy in all of my classes that students can re-work or re-do any project and then resubmit it to me. If the quality of the work improves, so does the grade. I do this for three reasons: 1) to encourage students to work harder, to not be satisfied with work that is simply “good enough”; 2) to give students a glimpse of the “real world,” where designers often have to constantly revise work in order to appease clients and patrons; and 3) so that the students will have the strongest possible work to put into their portfolios.

Given all of this, it is important to recognize that alphanumeric grades are still a very limited tool for evaluation in art and design. The most important component of evaluation in art is the critique, where students can hear direct and detailed feedback about there work (good and bad), pose questions, and hear from other students as well. A detailed, thoughtful analysis in this setting is far more useful to an art student than a generic, an somewhat ambiguous, letter grade