Dave

I also like your grading approach, it’s just that it looks like grading to me.

So to be clear, I’m not opposed to the radicalism (or the anti-positivism) of rhizomatic learning. Quite the opposite — I’m really convinced, so I find that I’m frustrated by the lack of more purposeful or at least rhizomatic solutions to as basic a problem as grading. It’s as though all the doors and windows can be flung open except that one, and to that we just say, oh yes, that’s the door marked “Rules”—or sometimes “Reality”—and we’re not allowed the key to that one.

So I find myself thinking, OK, why not? If we’re up for arguing the materiality of things, how come we then take what seems like a relatively quiescent view of the rules of institutions? Is this is a long view? Can we really not imagine a future university without these particular rules, given that we have so many public institutions (including those with very significant workplace training) that don’t use grades to measure learning?

Just wondering, you know, in that open way.