Group projects reward laziness

An athlete, a commuter, the president of a sorority and a student overloaded with credits are thrown together in a group and asked to create a cohesive paper, memo or slideshow for a class. 

They’re expected to coordinate with four vastly different schedules to work together and demonstrate their knowledge of material they’ve been learning all semester. The group assignment should be evenly distributed among them, yet still sound cohesive and meet every part of the rubric. 

Group projects are stupid. They’re an overrated educational tactic.

Yes, they’re meant to give students the opportunity to collaborate and show they can work effectively in groups, but in practice, they’re ineffective and a waste of brain space. Some students wake up early and do their homework as the sun rises, while others are forced to complete it in the evenings after jam-packed days.

Even if students can figure out times to meet outside of class to work on these projects, they work differently. Some prefer to work on small pieces of it throughout the week, while others open an energy drink and finish everything  in one sitting.

Beyond scheduling, the chances of full student engagement are slim. The workload typically falls on one or two students in the group. Eight times out of 10, those students complete the assigned work, yet still receive a poor grade because of the rest of the group’s presentation skills. 

On presentation day, the remaining members are often seeing the slideshow for the first time, fumbling through a script they didn’t write. For example, if I notice that the rest of my group couldn’t care less about the assignment and decide to complete it myself, we can still be docked points because of a messy presentation. 

Students’ academic priorities are different. Some students’ main focus isn’t that particular project or class. Those students are just trying to earn a C-plus, or the bare minimum to pass for credit. On the other hand, some need an A for future education or to maintain scholarships. While the intention is to create shared accountability through a shared grade, it isn’t realistic. 

This is a recurring problem I’ve encountered throughout my education. Whether it was a middle school history class presentation or classes I take now at Lehigh, group projects are always assigned. There are occasional situations where all of my group members take the assignment seriously, but this is very rare.

What happens when students enter a job where the same imbalance exists? 

It makes sense that group projects are meant to prepare students for real life, but that doesn’t explain why academic institutions and professors continue to ignore the flaws in this system. A mandatory evaluation of group members at the end of the semester — as some classes require after a group project is completed — doesn’t adequately reflect what actually happened. 

I disagree that group projects prepare students for the “real world.” I believe those who do their work move forward, while those who don’t face consequences. 

Even if I’m mistaken, there’s a larger problem at hand: Why is it like this? Why are people allowed to skate by without contributing? 

If academia’s goal is to prepare students for the professional world, it must stop using “collaboration” as a shield for imbalance in effort and intention. The current system doesn’t teach teamwork. It teaches diligent students to resent their peers who are rewarded for doing less.

To fix this, professors should implement a firing clause. If a group can document a member’s consistent failure to meet deadlines or communicate during the project, they should have the right to remove that person. The removed student should be required to complete the entire project independently, while the remaining group is graded normally. 

This introduces the one thing currently missing from group work: consequences for inaction.

It’s time to stop grading the group and start grading individual performance.