This paper is a discussion and critical review of grading practices at a large flagship public university. In this paper, I examine the rights a student has when calling into question the authority and decision-making abilities of teachers in a classroom setting. Following my recent experience with a professor (noted at the beginning of this paper), I began to question the legitimacy of interactions between students and teachers. The paper examines the way in which the system of Higher Education lacks due process for students who wish to appeal to their teachers about their grades. Ultimately my goal is to help facilitate conversations about academic review, including how professors can use syllabi and grading matrixs to protect themselves and their students, and well as ensure that conflicts can be avoided.Keywords: grading, classroom conflict, evaluation, curriculum, syllabus, grading matrix (rubic), teacher-student relationships Academic Qualifications as a Heuristic of ExpertiseThe process of earning a Ph.D. includes taking hours of classes and writing, then defending, a dissertation on a certain topic over many years. In America, it is hard to quantify the amount of time to earn a Ph.D. because the qualifications are not universal. Instead, some programs require as little as 36 credit hours, while some other programs may be close to double. Members of the academic community will argue that earning a Ph.D. requires intense duration which serves as a key anchor in the argument of expertise. Unfortunately, intense duration alone has never been found to be an attribute of expertise (Ericsson, 2008). The idea that duration alone leads to expertise is a heuristic; if long duration of practice alone equal expertise then my dad would be an expert in golf. He has played thousands of rounds over a half-century, yet no one mistakes him for an expert. Instead, we think it is nice that he has a passion in which he invests time and effort. Likewise, we should understand that earning a Ph.D. requires tremendous focus and determination, but does not necessarily mean the person is an expert. The Case for Checks and BalancesPart of the issue is a lack of governance by the institution. Proper governance would and should mirror our legal system which assures all legal proceedings shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Proper governance includes a clear and concise set of rules, an established burden of proof and rules of procedure which include impartially. Universities should ensure all professors have clear syllabi with a proper grading matrix, as well as a fair review process of students work and professors feedback. The review should include members of faculty from outside the department and who have no relationship with the professor overseeing the class.After reviewing the syllabus and grading matrix with the professor, if the student still feels there is an issue, the burden of proof should not fall on the student. Instead, the burden of proof should fall on the instructor to justify the grading ba...

This paper will apply the work of Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman in Prospect theory to the college recruiting process. Prospect theory challenges one of the fundamental ideas of Economics; humans are rational creatures and make rational decisions. The theory demonstrates that in fact, often humans do not make rational decisions and are instead subject to "heuristics". Heuristics are mental shortcuts individual use to solve problems. The paper will both explain heuristics, as well as demonstrate how coaches, administrators, and junior athletes should be aware of the role of heuristics in both long-termdevelopments, as well as the college recruitment process.