Group projects are often sold as essential preparation for the “real world,” but in practice, they are one of the most inefficient, inequitable and frustrating aspects of college education. 

Instead of fostering collaboration, group projects frequently reward unequal effort, punish motivated students and shift the burden of teaching from professors to students who never signed up to manage teams.

One of the most widely documented problems with group work is unequal contribution.

Almost every student has experienced the same pattern: one or two people carry the workload while others disappear until the night before the deadline – or worse, never show up at all. 

However, everyone receives the same grade. 

This happened to me one too many times. It’s almost like a dreadful experience reading “group project” on a syllabus.

I don’t even bother telling a professor most times someone isn’t doing their part as I have often been received with “have you tried contacting them” or “well it is the group’s job to ensure you’re all working efficiently.”

This system does not teach collaboration, it teaches resentment. 

Hardworking students learn that effort does not always correlate with outcomes, while disengaged students learn they can go on without consequences.

I’ve personally fallen victim to the worst flaw of group projects. In one class, a professor decided to make the final exam a group assignment. 

The project itself turned out strong and well done – despite the fact that one group member was completely unresponsive throughout the entire process. 

While the rest of us collaborated and completed the work, this person only replied at the very last minute and contributed almost nothing.

Because the assignment required every group member to submit individually for the group to receive credit, one missed submission derailed everything. 

When the deadline passed, we all received a Canvas notification stating we all got a zero. The professor even acknowledged that the work was “great and interesting,” but explained that it was our responsibility as a group to ensure everyone submitted on time – turning someone else’s lack of accountability into everyone’s punishment. 

Time coordination is another major issue, especially at a university like San José State. Many students work part-time or full-time jobs, commute long distances and have family responsibilities. 

I work a full-time job, so when it comes to these group projects, coordinating a time can often be challenging to myself. Simply because I was at work and had no choice. 

About 64% of college students work while enrolled, with 40% of those working full-time jobs in addition to taking classes, according to the Lumina Foundation,

Group projects assume students have flexible schedules and equal availability, which is simply not true. 

Trying to coordinate meetings across conflicting schedules often takes more time than the actual assignment itself, turning learning into logistical chaos. 

Supporters can argue that group projects prepare students for workplace collaboration, however this comparison can fall apart quickly. 

In real jobs, teams have defined roles, clear accountability, supervision and compensation. 

In my own work experience, collaboration looks very different than it does in school group projects. In the workplace, I have clear responsibilities tied directly into my role and my performance is evaluated individually by my manager. 

If a coworker were to fail meeting a deadline or completing a task, it is addressed by management – not silently absorbed by the rest of the team and then everyone suffers. 

In group projects, students are expected to manage conflict, delegate tasks and enforce accountability without authority, training or incentives. That is not professional preparation. 

Additionally, group projects often obscure individual learning. 

Group performance scores often differ significantly from individual assessments, with group test results masking the range of individual understandings – high-performing groups showed mean score differences of about 12.0 points higher than low-performing groups, according to research published in a 2018 Life Sciences Education article.

Professors seem to assign them to reduce grading time, not because they are the most effective teaching method. 

This perception comes from how group projects are often structured: one shared submission, one shared grade and minimal individualized feedback. 

Compared to assignments like exams or essays that require a more in depth individualized evaluation, group projects allow for instructors to assess fewer total submissions.

When grades are shared, instructors cannot accurately assess who understands the material and who does not. Education should measure individual learning, not collectively.  

If the goal is to teach collaboration, there are better alternatives such as structured peer feedback, in-class group activities or individually graded components within collaborative assignments. 

I have completed collaborative projects in which each student worked on the same case study, but submitted their own written analysis for an individual grade. 

In those assignments, collaboration felt productive rather than stressful because discussion was encouraged without the fear of being penalized for someone else’s lack of effort. 

In comparison to traditional group projects, I felt more motivated and confident that my grade reflected my actual individual understanding and effort.