system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: College students should be allowed to retake and completely replace the grade previously earned.

To a certain degree, this is already allowed. My old university (USA), for example, allowed people to retake classes they took in their first two semesters. However, for later semesters, people can retake, but the GPA will average out. 

In my mind, retaking a class is not necessarily a bad thing. The true meaning behind it is simple: the first time you learned a subject, you could not get it. The second time you learned the same subject, you were able to learn it efficiently. 

Let's ignore people who cheat on exams and projects for now. That's a discussion for a different CMV. 

Why should students be punished for trying again? Why is it bad for a student to take the time and effort to re-evaluate their failures, and try again? Isn't the purpose of the course to *teach* the student the material anyways? If a student does very well in their second try, doesn't it mean they learned it successfully? 

Of course, I do think there should be restrictions as well. I know that the *entire purpose* of a GPA is for companies and grad schools to evaluate your capabilities. Companies should be able to see how many times you've taken a course. For example, on your transcript, the old grade could be eliminated, the credits revoked. Then, it's completely replaced with your new grade, and a notification that you've taken it twice. 

Because in the end, some people learn slower than others. Some people might have a very bad semester, with uncontrollable events. Having a second chance should be permitted, especially when you're *paying* the university to give you that material. If I understand it in the end, why shouldn't my records show that I have a full understanding of it? 

Take a math course for example. If I fail the first time, it means I don't understand it. If I get high grades the second time, it means I understand it now. It doesn't mean I understand it *less* than the person who gets high grades the first time. It means it took me longer to understand it, but regardless, that material is in my head, I know how to do it, I know the logic behind it, and I know how to approach those problems. 


Of course, one argument for replacing the grades is that a lot of times, the exams are the same from year to year. For this, I say that's not a good excuse. Many professors provide previous years' exams. If the exam from year-to-year is too similar, you can't stop people from finding out anyways. But that is also a different discussion for a different CMV.
gpt
>Isn't the purpose of the course to teach the student the material anyways?

Not always. The most difficult programs usually start off(freshman,sophomore) with a lot of "general" courses and then allow you to specialize in the later years. Often times, some or even many of the courses you take will not be relevant. The purpose of taking these courses, however, is to prove you are a capable and quick learner that can master new material the first time.

This is important because in these types of professions, such as specialized engineering programs, there is simply not enough time in university to learn everything. You cannot graduate and walk into the field as an expert. 

In reality, you require extensive training from the company that hires you; they want to know you are capable of learning it right the first time. In university, sure, you can pay them as much as you want to take classes over and over. But when you have a real job, they are paying you, and they are not going to pay or tolerate you learning over and over until you finally get it. 

I would say in the vast majority of cases, your system would work better. Most people don't pursue these types of degrees, and usually go for something easier that they can learn and more or less master in university; in those cases, the final result is all that matters.