In this article, “Revision of Achievement Goal Theory: Necessary and Illuminating” by, Judith M. Harackiewicz, Paul R. Pintrich, Kenneth E. Barron, Andrew J. Elliot, and Todd M. Thrash there is a response to a recent article in Journal of Educational Psychology, written by Madgley, Kaplan, and Middleton (2001). The article is responding to the idea of goal theory is which all mastery goal are good, and all performance goals are bad. Harackiewicz has a different idea behind that goal theory. She and the other authors of the article believe that there can be a healthy combination of mastery goals, which are almost always seen as good, and performance goal which tend to have a negative effect. The idea that everyone should only have mastery goals is preposterous because not everyone in classrooms is there to learn maximum amounts of information all the time. The idea of a healthy combination of performance and mastery goal is a more obtainable idea. Not every student can excel in each subject a hundred percent of the time so to bring in a performance goal, such as, getting and “A” is much more realistic than becoming a master in every subject. That’s where they think that Madgley’s theory is wrong and believe that there should be a revision in the achievement goal theory.