Occasionally, my instructors require us to evaluate our learning team experience. The university goes so far as to provide a form with which to do the evaluation. But, the form is all wrong. The way in which the criteria is worded forces the evaluator (me) to unfairly grade a teammate because knowing the teammate’s potential is impossible thus the grade is based largely on speculation. For example: Under ‘preparation,’ I have no way of knowing whether or not my teammate completed all of the reading. I can make an educated guess whether or not my teammate researched the project (based primarily on whether or not citations are used), but it would be just a guess—is that a fair way to rate someone? Under ‘participation,’ some teammates clearly participated to the best of their apparent academic ability—but that ability is significantly inferior to that which would (or at least should) be the ability of a college-level student. Honestly, I know grade-schoolers with better academic skills than some of the teammates I have worked with in my Bachelor program. Yet, is this team member demonstrating his or her best academic ability? Who am I to decide? For all I know, what the team member produces IS his or her best. Should I rate that person a "4" because they are performing their best even though it is inferior? Or should I rate that person a "1" because they are causing the rest of the team extra work by having to correct their mistakes in grammar, punctuation, style, and comprehension?