A few weeks ago, I found myself in a situation that might horrify most students. I told my professor to fail me.
It wasn’t because I didn’t complete the work or because I wasn’t invested in the course. Not at all. I had worked hard, engaged deeply with the material, and reflected thoroughly on my progress. But when it came time to complete a self-rating as part of our final evaluation, I hit a wall. One built of personal conviction and supporting research about the inherent flaws in self-assessment practices.
This is the story of why I refused to assign myself a grade and challenged a system that does more harm than good.
The Problem with Self-Ratings
Self-ratings are often presented as an empowering exercise. They’re framed as an opportunity for individuals to reflect on their performance, take ownership of their growth, and advocate for themselves. But here’s the catch: self-ratings are inherently biased. Whether we’re grading ourselves in school or evaluating our performance at work, our self-assessments are shaped by cognitive distortions that make them unreliable indicators of actual ability or achievement.
One of the most recognized biases – and a personal favorite – is the Dunning-Kruger effect. It demonstrates the inverse relationship between confidence and competence. It’s a cognitive bias where individuals with low ability tend to overestimate their competence while those with high ability underestimate theirs.
In other words, people who lack competence often don’t know enough to recognize their own shortcomings, while highly competent individuals tend to assume that what comes easily to them must also come easily to others. This creates a paradox: self-ratings are less accurate for those who need them most.
My Stance on Self-Grading
When my professor asked us to assign ourselves a grade as part of our mid-term, I refused. I shared an in-depth assessment but said the best I could do would be to give myself a “Pass.” A letter grade was not for me to determine, and I shared the research on why I believe this was an appropriate response.
While she may have appreciated my perspective, it wasn’t enough. She gave me an A at the mid-term but insisted that I self-grade for the final. Well, I’m not a big fan of the “because I said so” game. There was no reasoning provided other than it was what she required (ironically, we learned about positional power in that term as well).
When I completed all of my work, and it was time for the final assessment, a grade wasn’t happening. It wasn’t that I found the exercise uncomfortable – it was that I fundamentally disagreed with its premise. Enough that I invited her to fail me.
I wanted my professor to understand that my refusal was a principled position against what I saw as a flawed request. While self-assessments can be valuable tools for reflection and growth, self-grading crosses a line. It asks us not just to evaluate our efforts but also to quantify them – a task that is fraught with subjectivity and prone to distortion.
The Research Behind My Argument
My stance isn’t just based on personal opinion; it’s grounded in research. In addition to the Dunning-Kruger effect, several studies have highlighted the limitations of self-ratings in both academic and professional contexts:
1. Inflation Bias
Research shows that individuals tend to inflate their self-ratings when they know those ratings will influence outcomes like grades or promotions (Mabe & West, 1982). This bias can stem from overconfidence, fear of underselling oneself, or even strategic manipulation. It can be even greater when the evaluation criteria is subjective (as it was for the coursework).
2. Cultural Influences
Self-ratings are also influenced by cultural norms around modesty and self-promotion. For example, studies have found that individuals from Eastern cultures are more likely to underrate themselves compared to those from Western cultures (Heine et al., 2001). This makes self-ratings an inconsistent measure across diverse populations.
3. Gender Disparities
Gender can play a role in how people rate themselves as well. Research has shown that women are more likely than men to underestimate their abilities in academic and professional settings (Kay & Shipman, 2014). This disparity further undermines the validity of self-ratings as an objective measure.
These findings underscore why self-ratings should be taken with a grain of salt – or better yet, replaced with more reliable methods of evaluation.
What Happened Next
After submitting my self-assessment without assigning myself a grade, I braced for the fallout. I was prepared to fail and then tell my manager that I’d be reimbursing the company for my course. That felt like it would be a fun conversation (not), but probably not surprising to him once I explained why.
So, did my professor fail me for refusing to follow instructions? No. To my relief, I ended up with an A on my work. To my surprise, there was no comment, other than positive remarks on my final project.
I’m not sure it made a difference to her, but it did to me. When I spoke with friends, they said they would have gone ahead and claimed the A and been done with it. For me, it was the premise. If I know a process or request is flawed, I’m not going to knowingly follow it.
Moving Forward
This experience taught me two important lessons:
- Not everyone is okay with you standing up for your principles. Even a professor that’s supposed to be teaching leadership. Being a leader means being prepared to stand alone on the side of right.
- We need better systems for evaluating performance in both academic and professional settings. While I value the opportunity to assess my performance, too many of my leaders have just slapped a rating on what I wrote and not contributed their own assessment. That devalues my work and leaves me wide open to potential biases I may not realize I have. Leaders, let’s make sure we’re mitigating bias in our evaluation methods. Please. It’s too important.
Self-assessments can still play a valuable role in our systems—but only when they’re used as one piece of a larger puzzle rather than as standalone measures of success or failure. By combining self-reflection with peer reviews, supervisor evaluations, and objective metrics, we can create more holistic and equitable ways of assessing performance.
As for me? I’ll continue advocating for change—one uncomfortable conversation at a time.
What do you think about self-ratings? Have you ever faced a similar dilemma? Let’s start a conversation—because change begins when we question the systems we’re in.
References
Kay, K., & Shipman, C. (2014). The Confidence Code: The Science and Art of Self-Assurance—What Women Should Know. HarperBusiness.
Dunning, D., & Kruger, J. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134.
Mabe, P. A., & West, S. G. (1982). Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(3), 280–296.
Heine, S. J., Kitayama, S., & Lehman, D. R. (2001). Cultural differences in self-evaluation: Japanese readily accept negative self-relevant information while Americans do not. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(5), 618–641.
