<p>Grades have been criticised for as long as they have existed. For at least a century, scholars have claimed that grades are inaccurate and unreliable; they provide overly simplistic reductions of student achievement; and they orient students towards competition rather than learning. For these reasons and many others, academic research communities have argued that traditional grading practices hinder higher education institutions from achieving their goals. Despite this widespread historical criticism, grading practices remain stubbornly stagnant in higher education systems worldwide. Grades are awarded in most higher education institutions, and gradeless courses and programs remain at the margins. In this conceptual study, we argue that while critique has greatly advanced our understanding of grading, it has now run out of steam. Drawing on the work of Bruno Latour, we propose that rather than debunking – criticising or moving away <i>from something</i> – we should focus our concern <i>towards something</i>. We call for post-critical approaches to grades and grading to redetermine what is worth caring about in assigning worth and merit to student achievement.</p>