Vulnerability and Empathy in University Teaching

Vulnerability and Empathy in University Teaching: Framing the Empowered Classroom

Dr Michael Toomey

Michael.Toomey@glasgow.ac.uk

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3562-9987

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18018170

Abstract: It is widely accepted in much of the academic literature (and elsewhere) that there is a widespread, if not global, mental health crisis particularly affecting university students (cf. Andersen, Holm, and Côté, 2021). The effects of this crisis on academic achievement are severe, with students often finding themselves too anxious or depressed to study, participate in class, or even socialise. This article seeks to examine how traditional teacher-centric approaches to lecturing might risk exacerbating these problems, leading to frustration on the part of the instructor at low attendance and attainment rates and compounding student feelings of isolation. Instead, it proposes an approach to course design centred on vulnerability and empathy whereby the instructor shares with students the challenges and difficulties they face in order to encourage the development of mutual trust. The aim of this is to promote inclusivity and senses of belonging, while facilitating and supporting the needs of the modern, diverse student cohort.

Toomey, M. (2025) Vulnerability and Empathy in University Teaching: Framing the Empowered Classroom, The Journal of Education on the Margins, 1 (1), 39-48, available: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18018170

Introduction

Based on data derived from Google Trends (2025a, see figure 1), there is increasingly since 2013 a widespread perception throughout much of the world of a mental health crisis. This is particularly apparent in the Anglosphere countries (2025b, see figure 2). These trends are especially noticeable in universities, where student mental health has become a notable and recurrent area of concern for administrators and instructors alike. For instance, Schwartz and Kay (2009) had noted that as early as 2006, nearly 38% of students in American universities were attending regular counselling sessions (either on or off campus), while 23.3% were being prescribed (or otherwise taking) psychiatric medication. This problem has clearly not abated since then. More recently, Andersen, Holm, and Côté (2021: 101-102) have noted that the issue has only become more severe, with student diagnoses of depression rising from 10% in 2005 to 18% in 2018, and 57% of students noting that they felt “overwhelmed” with work and responsibilities.

Figure 1: Search interest for the term “mental health crisis” throughout the world, relative to the highest point on the chart for the period from 2004 to the present date. “A value of 100 is the peak popularity for the term. A value of 50 means that the term is half as popular. A score of 0 means there was not enough data for this term”. Data is derived from Google Trends (2025a).

Figure 2: Locations in which the term “mental health crisis” was most popular during the period from 2004 to the present date. “Values are calculated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 100 is the location with the most popularity as a fraction of total searches in that location, a value of 50 indicates a location which is half as popular. A value of 0 indicates a location where there was not enough data for this term. A higher value means a higher proportion of all queries, not a higher absolute query count.” Data is derived from Google Trends (2025b).

Social media, the emergence of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI), the COVID pandemic, and the ongoing global climate, political, and economic crises have undoubtedly exacerbated this problem. Students consistently report high levels of stress and anxiety, with a great degree of pessimism about their future employment prospects upon graduation from university. This is manifesting itself in a number of negative outcomes. Student requests for extensions have multiplied, complicating the task of returning marks and feedback for assignments in a timely manner. Pre-class preparation and study in the form of reading or other homework is rare, with students commonly reporting that they do not have the time, energy, or motivation to undertake such consuming but necessary activities. Attendance and participation in classroom activities has severely declined, and it is becoming common for instructors to teach to half-full (or less) classrooms. And several reports have even identified a decline in peer-group socialising among students, throughout both the Western world and Asia (cf. Eagan, et. al., 2014: 4; Byeon, 2025: 6-8; Tan and Xiao, 2025: 9-10). These numerous problems beg the question- in such a situation, what sort of university experience or education are students actually achieving?

This paper seeks to examine the role of the instructor in supporting and mentoring their students. It begins by contrasting the contemporary understanding of student-centric teaching with the traditional teacher-centric approach to classroom management. It then moves on to situate both these approaches within the context of the global university mental health crisis. Critiquing both, I argue that the manner in which “student-centric” approaches manifest themselves oftentimes replicate many of the issues of teacher-centric learning, particularly in terms of maintaining the instructor’s placement on a metaphorical (or even literal) pedestal. Without a genuine commitment to placing oneself on the same emotional and psychosocial level as the student, the lecturer runs the risk of inadvertently exacerbating the anxieties and stresses students experience. The paper then goes on to outline an alternative pedagogy which borrows from both approaches, but which is fundamentally grounded in vulnerability and empathy. I conclude by describing the steps I take in my own classrooms to build this sense of empathy and trust, in order to facilitate genuine, effective senses of inclusivity and belonging.

Approaches to teaching: teacher-centric vs. student-centric

Paulo Freire’s seminal 1968 work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, revolutionised how teaching is thought of. Freire outlines the traditional approach taken to teaching. He describes this as the “banking approach”, whereby education is “narrated” from an all-knowledgeable teacher to students who mechanically internalise and memorise these lessons as if they were gifts (Freire, 1968: 72-73). In common parlance, this approach to teaching is often referred to as “teacher-centric”, or colloquially, “the Sage on the Stage” (University of San Diego, 2025). This involves the teacher establishing themselves in the classroom as the ultimate authority over what is being taught: they set the curriculum and reading list, they set the agenda for each classroom session, and they remain the primary source of knowledge in the class throughout, with students reduced to a more passive role (ibid.).

For Freire, this approach to teaching represented a form of oppression, reinforcing power and class structures and denying students agency in their own learning. As an alternative, he advocated for “problem-posing education”, a collaborative and more egalitarian approach whereby teachers and students engage in a mutually constitutive dialogue with each other, and where strict boundaries between these categories are broken down (ibid.: 79-81). In practical terms, problem-posing education may involve methods such as teaching a language class whereby the vocabulary and grammar introduced is based on concepts, scenarios and environments immediately familiar and recognisable to the student (as opposed to abstract or unfamiliar concepts and environments) (cf. Nelson and Chen, 2023: 137-139). Alternatively, as Bhattacharya (2019: 404-405) describes, it might involve centring a political science course around the authentic histories and lived experiences of the (predominantly) minority ethnic students enrolled in the course, with the aim of empowering them to confront and challenge the systemic discrimination they face in their lives outside the classroom. To summarise, problem-posing education is one which centres the real-world experience and knowledge of the student and which structures the learning environment around this, with the teacher functioning to present and problematise the material (Chan, 2023: 112).

Despite the significance and importance of Freire’s arguments, teaching methods or activities directly aligned with his philosophies are not the only (or even necessarily the predominant) examples of student-centric teaching in present-day universities. Indeed, problem-posing education is just one example among many of the student-centric teaching strategies which are increasingly becoming the recommended means of structuring teaching and learning in higher education. Student-centred learning was officially adopted as a policy by the European Higher Education Area and by the Bologna Process, for instance, and has also been adopted by relevant authorities in the United Kingdom and elsewhere (Glava et. al., 2024: 733-735). But regardless of this broader acceptance of the preferability and importance of student-centred learning, teaching in higher education (and particularly in the Political Science and International Relations classrooms of greatest familiarity to the author of this piece) remains stubbornly teacher-centric in a number of ways. Instructors generally set the curriculum, syllabus, and reading list for their courses; they define the intended learning outcomes and objectives (ILOs) for the course, usually based on their own personal beliefs about what students should be learning; they design and mandate how these ILOs are assessed (occasionally, if not commonly, based on their own personal and professional needs and preferences); and in general, they retain a sense of professional distance and aloofness from their students (University of San Diego, 2025). Meanwhile, student-centric elements are relegated to the margins, featuring in classroom activities and exercises and open discussions, and/or involving various forms of independent individual or group work. In this sense, student-centric teaching methods are utilised, but only in a way that subordinates them to the direct needs and preferences of the instructors.

There are many valid, and even good, reasons for this approach. Most obviously, university-level instructors are generally expected to be subject-matter experts, and as such have a greater awareness of what material needs to be covered in a course than their students (No author, 2024; Teachers Institute, 2023). Additionally, teacher-centred classrooms are noted for their efficiency in terms of covering a large amount of material in a short period of time, and in terms of their greater levels of structure and predictability (Altun, 2023: 107-108). Amongst other things, teacher-centred approaches are also identified as being more applicable to foundational-level classes (where the imparting of basic knowledge about a given subject is the primary objective) and/or to particularly large classes (where it is logistically impractical to have students engaging in self-directed learning) (Teachers Institute, 2023; Gibb, 2017). Thus, a teacher-centric approach with some trappings of student-centric teaching, as outlined above, might seem like an optimal approach to teaching university courses. And for sure, this might be the case in certain specific instances.

The problem: student agency and mental health in the modern university

However, this approach also features many potential shortcomings. Firstly, and most obviously, a teacher-centred approach which pays lips service to the student-centred approach remains just that: a teacher-centred approach. For more advanced students (whether upper-level undergraduates or postgraduates), this is a fundamentally disempowering approach which removes agency over their learning, and hinders their capacity to develop as independent learners. From the broader perspective of the learning objectives of a degree program, this would likely also result in the students in question being unable to reach the higher levels of learning associated with Bloom’s taxonomy (except in a very thin, facile and superficial manner). A classroom approach which is dictated by the instructor, whereby the subjects engaged with and the outputs produced are preconceived for the student, fits uneasily with the idea that by the end of the course (or module, or degree program) these students would be able to independently engage in analysis and evaluation of information, and the creation of knowledge. Without having been given the space to drive their own learning, there is a significant risk that what is actually occurring is the student is learning how the instructor analyses and evaluates information, or that they are recreating the instructor’s knowledge, rather than creating their own. It is a common maxim amongst educators (and particularly university-level educators) that they “teach students how to think, not what to think”. And it is certainly true, at least in the broader field of Political Science and International Relations, that many (if not most) educators do not have prescriptive approaches to the assessments they set. Regardless, because the parameters of the assessment are set by the instructor, there is limited scope for the student to genuinely break free of these confines and to genuinely engage in their own independent processes of analysis, evaluation, and creation.

Even in cases where the instructor is genuinely trying to construct a course which they believe to be centred on the real-world needs of the student (in other words, one which utilizes meaningful or authentic assessment), the pitfalls of the “teacher-centric-with-student-centric-decorations” approach are manifest. This can be exemplified by looking at how institutions describe meaningful assessment. University of Glasgow (2023), for instance, states the following in its Learning and Teaching Framework:

“…One way to think about meaningful assessment is to consider what we want our students to be able to do with the knowledge/skills they gain from our teaching, and what they would likely do with that/those knowledge/skills in a workplace? We can then use an assessment that will enable them to demonstrate similar knowledge/skills so that they are emulating what they will do later, rather than using assessment to only test their recall” (emphasis added).

In a framework ostensibly designed to re-design a university curriculum with the future employment prospects of the student at its core, University of Glasgow places its own institutional needs and desires, and the views and perspectives of its instructors, above those of the students themselves. In such a formulation, students’ needs are assumed, and their agency denied to them. Students are not consulted about what skills, competences, or knowledges they want to develop, or about how they envisage their future lives. Instead, this is imposed upon them from the top down. It is presumed that students pursue university education for the purposes of future material gain, such that they can become effective participants in the capitalist economy. In this way, the university reinforces the hegemonic political and economic system of neoliberalism, perpetuating oppressive power and class structures exactly in the manner described by Freire. To be clear, it should not be inferred from the tone of this discussion that the author believes students do not typically pursue university education for the purpose of developing skills and qualifications. Obviously, such an idea would be patently false if not ridiculous. However, the teacher-centred (or, in the example above, the institution-centred) approach to instruction creates a one-size-fits-all model for students to follow. Those whose preferences do not align with this model are disregarded.

In the 21st Century, such a market-friendly, commodified, neo-liberalised approach to teaching is increasingly outmoded. The planet faces multiple severe challenges and crises: climate change and the degradation of the biosphere, war and violence, the resurgence (and empowerment) of extremist political ideologies, and so on. University instructors and administrators, ensconced (relatively, at least) as they often are in comfortable, well-paying careers with secure financial and housing situations, are less likely to experience the sharp end of these crises than the young people attending their institutions. In centring their own preferences and perspectives about the world, they run the risk of preparing students for the world as it was, not as it is. And the students see this: according to Lipson and Eisenberg (2018: 208), in a study of 3,556 students enrolled at four university campuses in the US, 24% of them felt that university education was a waste of their time, money, and effort, with this figure rising to 31% and 38% among students with at least one or more mental health problems, respectively. In such an environment, then, it should not be particularly surprising that students skip their classes and lectures, do not bother with preparing the readings their lecturers have decided are important or required for them to read, and most significantly, do not feel as if their university cares for or supports their mental wellbeing (cf. Lewis and Stiebahl, 2025: 29).

Not the fix, but a small start: co-collaboration and the creation of a genuine classroom of equals:

It is not the aim of this paper to propose a sweeping cure for all aspects of the mental health crisis amongst university students. Indeed, challenging and resolving such a massive global problem in a comprehensive manner would require a polyfaceted approach, involving medical, psychological, economic, and even political interventions- if not a fundamental revolution in the entire prevailing global political-economic order. Rather, this paper proposes something far more modest. Simply put, this paper suggests that university educators stop paying lip-service to the concept of student-centred teaching and instead work to restructure their classes to create something approaching a genuinely egalitarian classroom, where the agency and independence of students is respected. In the following paragraphs, I humbly propose a few steps which I adopt in my classroom to allow that hierarchies of status can begin to be broken down, and a more empowering pedagogy can be employed.

At the outset, it must be immediately acknowledged that there will almost always be some form of hierarchy of role within any classroom. At the end of the day, so long as universities award tiered degrees based on the achievements of students on graded assessments (however they are calculated), then the role of instructor (who awards these grades) will always be more powerful than the role of student.[1] However, this power differential should not be conflated to mean that instructors have some sort of higher social status. In practically no other job in the world where adults interact with other adults (with the obvious exception of the military, for equally obvious reasons) are people required to address their clients, managers, or colleagues with seniority by their honourific or professional title. Yet in the university classroom, it is virtually ubiquitous that lecturers (even those who do not hold a terminal degree) insist on their students addressing them in such a manner. There are valid reasons for this: for people from marginalised backgrounds who often face discrimination and disrespect, use of honourifics can be a way of asserting their legitimate credentials to teach. Alternatively, it might be used as a way of maintaining professional distance from students, to avoid any potentiality for the emergence of improper relations or attachments. However, insisting that students refer to them as “Doctor” or “Professor” (or similar titles) immediately places the instructor on a pedestal above their students, and creates a sense that they hold a higher status than their students. As a white, heterosexual, Anglophone man in the middle stages of his career, there is no need for me to need to assert my validity or my credentials. As such, throughout all my classes, and in all my interactions with students, I insist that they refer to me by my first name.[2]

At the outset of my classes, I also seek to build an inclusive and safe environment for students living with disabilities, neurodivergent conditions, mental health difficulties or disorders, and even for those who do not. In my first teaching session with students, I explain very clearly my own experiences with neurodivergence and with mental health challenges, and I explicitly state that they are always welcome to contact me regarding any challenges they might be encountering. This involves allow a substantial degree of vulnerability on my behalf; after all, it is not entirely comfortable to admit one’s weaknesses and struggles in front of sometimes quite large student cohorts. However, it is a crucial step to foster a broader sense of empathy with the students, and to build mutual trust. Without this, a sense of aloofness between student and instructor might remain, whereby a student might avoid contacting me if they are struggling out of fear that they may be bothering me, or that I might be just paying lip-service to the idea of supporting them (for whatever reason, be they selfish or otherwise). Subsequently, I directly contact each student listed with learning needs or disabilities that is registered on my course to acknowledge that I am aware of their needs, and to ask them if there are any further accommodations I can introduce that will facilitate them performing equitably on the course as every other student. While these are small interventions, they are appreciated by students, with several having subsequently contacted me to say how supported it made them feel (and how rarely it had been done by any other lecturer). Additionally, it serves the purpose of creating a genuinely student-centric experience.

However, the most substantial, and least easily replicable, intervention I have adopted to build a student-centred class is co-collaborative syllabus design. Co-collaborative syllabus design is a method of teaching whereby students on a course are consulted about the content and assessments, with the course subsequently structured around this. In plain terms: it involves asking students what it is that they want to learn about on a given course, and how they would like to be assessed; and then teaching the students the things they wish to learn and assessing them in the ways they wish to be assessed. Several studies attest to the benefits of this form of course design in terms of its impact upon feelings of empowerment, agency, engagement, and accountability (cf. Jafar, 2016: 226-228), and in fostering a sense of equality between the students and the instructor and in encouraging participation (Jay et. al., 2025: 12-16). Importantly to note, co-collaborative design is not a dictation- the instructor also has a role in structuring the course and can set required sections. After all, there are often some fundamental pieces of knowledge that must first be developed in the learners, before further learning is possible. For instance, someone learning to ride a bicycle must first learn how to balance and stay upright before moving on to learning how to pull a wheelie or how to cycle without their hands on the handlebars. However, once these fundamental basics have been established in the syllabus, space can be opened for students to structure their own learning. In my classes, I achieve this by structuring the first half of a course around fundamental principles, and then presenting students with a broad range of seminar subject/title options in the second half of the course and asking them to vote on which ones they prefer. Through this, students are able to exercise agency over their learning and can ensure that they are being taught the skills and issues they need in their own lives. As a lecturer at a British university, where changes to the assessments for a module are strictly regulated and have to be approved at least six months to a year in advance, it has not been possible for me to include co-collaborative elements in this aspect of my teaching to date. However, I intend to rectify this going forward by presenting students with multiple options for assessment format (e.g. essay, policy briefings, video essays, presentations, etc.) throughout the term, rather than the standard approach of mandating a specific combination of assessments and funnelling students into them. Finally, I also intend to build structures into courses which would allow students to choose how to receive feedback on their work- in written format, video format, voice note, in-person, and so on. Through this approach, I aim to achieve a truly problem-posing, student-centred classroom, as envisaged by Freire, and through this, to restore a sense of agency and autonomy to students who have been denied it.

Conclusion:

To be clear, implementing a pedagogy centred around vulnerability and empathy, and with student empowerment and agency at its core, is not without its difficulties. As described, there are logistical challenges at many universities that can hinder the introduction of co-collaborative courses. Indeed, to date, I personally have only been able to implement this approach in two courses over the preceding two years. Meanwhile, allowing vulnerability and empathy to frame one’s teaching, in a manner aligned with Carl Roger’s concept of the ‘authentic self’, is simpler to implement but can potentially lead to some discomfort on the part of the instructor. Given that the placement of the instructor on a metaphorical or physical pedestal is a direct function of the teaching-centric model (or teaching-centric-with-student-centric-trappings), un-learning this and presenting oneself to their students as a flawed equal might be virtually unthinkable to many. However, if university education is to be reformed to serve the genuine needs of the students they serve, rather than their needs as perceived and assumed by the instructors and the institution (or even just the needs of the instructor and/or the institution, without regard for the student), then I believe that we should not just be willing to bear these costs, it is our moral duty and imperative as teachers to place the needs and preferences of our students first.

References:

Altun, Mustafa: (2023) “The Ongoing Debate over Teacher Centered Education and Student Centered Education”, International Journal of Social Sciences and Educational Studies, 10(1), 106-110

Andersen, Robert; Anders Holm; James E. Côté: (2021) “The student mental health crisis: Assessing psychiatric and developmental explanatory models”, Journal of Adolescence, 86(1): 101-114

Bhattacharya, Sudip: (2019) “Education as Empowerment: Review of Pedagogy of the Oppressed”, Journal of Political Science Education, 16(3): 403–406

Byeon, Haewon: (2025) “Impact of video game addiction on social interaction: An observational review examining loneliness, social anxiety, and social activity”, World Journal of Psychiatry, 15(12): 1-11, [online], available at: https://www.wjgnet.com/2220-3206/full/v15/i12/110653.htm (accessed on 4/12/2025).

Chan, Alan: (2023) “Localizing the Practice of Critical Pedagogy through Place-Based, Problem-Posing Education”, in Park, Gloria; Sarah Bogdan; Madeleine Rosa; Joseph Navarro (eds.): Critical Pedagogy in the Language and Writing Classroom: Strategies, Examples, Activities from Teacher Scholars, New York: Routledge: 106-118

Eagan, Kevin; Ellen B. Stolzenberg; Joseph Ramirez; Melissa Aragon; Maria Ramirez Suchard; Sylvia Hurtado: (2014) “The American freshman: National norms fall 2014”, Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA, [online], available at: https://heri.ucla.edu/briefs/TheAmericanFreshman2014-Brief.pdf (accessed on 4/12/2025).

Freire, Paulo: (1968) Pedagogy of the Oppressed: 30th Anniversary Edition, Continuum Books: New York

Gibb, Nick: (2017) “The evidence in favour of teacher-led instruction”, Gov.uk, [online], available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/nick-gibb-the-evidence-in-favour-of-teacher-led-instruction (accessed on 25/10/2025)

Glava, Adina Elena; Cristina Ghitulica; Nicolae Adrian Opre; Petrisor Laurentiu Tuca: (2024) “Student-Centred Learning in Higher Education: Relevant Quality Assurance Indicators”, in Adrian Curaj; Cezar Mihai Hâj; Remus Pricopie (eds.): European Higher Education Area 2030: Bridging Realities for Tomorrow’s Higher Education, Cham: Springer Nature, 733-758

Google Trends: (2025a): “Mental health crisis: Worldwide”, Google Trends, [online], available at: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=mental%20health%20crisis&hl=en (accessed on 9/7/2025)

Google Trends: (2025b): “Mental health crisis: Worldwide; Interest by region”, Google Trends, [online], available at: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=mental%20health%20crisis&hl=en  (accessed on 20/11/2025)

Jafar, Afshan: (2016) “Student Engagement, Accountability, and Empowerment: A Case Study of Collaborative Course Design”, Teaching Sociology, 44(3): 221-232

Jay, Zoë; Sophie Bujold; Emma Savoie; Apolline Wittig; Melis Yasat: (2025) “Input, Respect, and a Little Uncertainty: Student Perspectives on Collaborative Course Design”, International Feminist Journal of Politics, [online], available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2025.2582179 (accessed on 5/12/2025)

Lewis, Joe; Sonja Stiebahl: (2025) “Student mental health in England: Statistics, policy, and guidance”, House of Commons Library: Research Briefings, [online], available at: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8593/CBP-8593.pdf (accessed on 4/12/2025)

Lipson, Sarah Ketchen; Daniel Eisenberg: (2017) “Mental Health and Academic Attitudes and Expectations in University Populations: Results from the Healthy Minds Study”, Journal of Mental Health, 27(3): 205–13

Nelson, Nadine; Julian Chen: (2023) “Freire’s problem-posing model: critical pedagogy and young learners”, ELT Journal, 77(2): 132–144

No author: (2024) “What are the advantages and disadvantages of the teacher-centered method?”, Baychester Academy, [online], available at: https://baychesteracademy.org/what-are-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-the-teacher-centered-method/ (accessed on 21/10/2025)

Schwartz, Victor; Jerald Kay: (2009) “The Crisis in College and University Mental Health”, Psychiatric Times, 26(10), [online], available at: https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/crisis-college-and-university-mental-health (accessed on 9/7/2025)

Tan, Hongxiu; Wen Xiao: (2025) “The mediating role of core self-evaluation in the association between perceived peer relationship quality and loneliness in university students”, PLoS ONE, 20(1): 1-14, [online], available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317310 (accessed on 4/12/2025)

Teachers Institute: (2023) “Teacher-Centered Methods in Curriculum Transaction: Pros and Cons”, Teachers.Institute, [online], available at: https://teachers.institute/institutional-management/teacher-centered-methods-pros-cons/ (accessed on 21/10/2025)

University of Glasgow: (2023) “Selecting the Most Meaningful Assessment Method”, University of Glasgow, [online], available at: https://www.gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/learningandteaching/afresourceshub/meaningful/methodsofassessment/ (accessed on 14/11/2025)

University of San Diego: (2025) “Complete Guide to Student-Centered vs. Teacher-Centered Learning”, University of San Diego, [online], available at: https://onlinedegrees.sandiego.edu/teacher-centered-vs-student-centered-learning/ (accessed on 17/10/2025)

[1] To date, more-or-less every accredited university and institute of higher education in the world awards some form of tiered degree (e.g. First Class Honours, Magna Cum Laude, Godkänd, etc.) which indicates a higher level of achievement for some graduates than others. Contrary to urban legend, even Brown University has a system of grade and degree classification.

[2] While some may worry that this makes me overly familiar to my students, use of my full first name is itself a mark of professional distance; almost nobody in my personal life refers to me as such.