In my grade, there are more kids with a 3.6 GPA (A-) than those who have less than a 3.6. That is quite a statistic. A couple teachers have complained about grade inflation...or is it generational?

In the late 1960's in my European Cultural History class of about 280+ students at a Big Ten University, the instructor announced at the start of each term that he might give one A+, A's were limited to three, 40% were destined to D's or F's (which led to late withdrawals and many an I for Incomplete). I don't think that GI got many complaints from the students for such a grade distribution. (The Silents worried about a great deal of cannon fodder being made available for LBJ's Progress in SE Asia).

On the other hand, my American Cultural History instructor, another GI, gave you whatever grade below an A you wished for completing the two required essays due at mid-term and term's end. If you wanted an A you had to do very well indeed: 8 to 10 of 400 taking the class.


I was indifferent about grades as I needed neither credentials nor occupational instruction after being institutionalized at the Territorial Grove of Academe known as the University of Minnesota. I may have put a crimp in some other's career path with those grades I received. :oops: I had to meet my standards and not those of the institution nor the instructor; this may be a portion of the Crown of Creation's propensity to self-worship.

Grading is a joke.

Plus, deflation might be possible after tenure.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

In my grade, there are more kids with a 3.6 GPA (A-) than those who have less than a 3.6. That is quite a statistic. A couple teachers have complained about grade inflation...or is it generational?

At my nephews graduation, about 6 years back, one quarter of the students were listed as Salutatorians or Validictorians. I couldn't believe it.

At my wife's niece's high school (class of 2005), the school board decided that their students were so much smarter than those in other school districts that the threshold for all letter grades would be moved down a few points. Even the niece was flabbergasted - it is not the students, its the parents that are being catered to.

What is happening is that the colleges are getting wise to grade inflation - the Univ of Georgia recomputes your GPA without "bonus points" for AP classes and such. Hell, the U of Mich is slashing AP credits awarded in math! There is a war going on between the colleges and the high schools here. The high schools want to hype their kids to make sure that Mommie and Daddy's little precious gets a scholarship while the colleges are trying to avoid being stuck with hordes of students in remedial classes.

Here's what I used when I was teaching. It is an effort to quantify the unquantifiable, but that's the nature of letter grades. It avoids the idiocy of curve grading, and you got what you earned. I remember one class where everybody got B's.



All grading of written material is to some degree subjective, but the following indicates the criteria used to grade your work.

An "A" represents work of superior quality as demonstrated by a mastery and understanding of factual material, a high order of formal reasoning skills as shown in the ability to analyze complex issues, to evaluate and synthesize, and to marshal facts to argue a case, coupled with a clear and cogent writing style.

A "B" represents work of good quality as demonstrated by a mastery and understanding of factual material as well as evidence of formal reasoning skills such as analysis, evaluation, and synthesis, as well as effective writing skills.

A "C" represents work of average quality as demonstrated by a mastery and understanding of factual material, some difficulty in reasoning on the formal level, and clarity of expression.

A "D" represents work of poor quality as demonstrated by a partial knowledge and understanding of factual material, an inability to reason on the formal level, and infelicity of expression.

A "F" represents work of unacceptable quality as demonstrated by a failure to know and understand the factual material, an inability to reason on the formal level, and infelicity of expression.


Pax,

Dave Krein '42

The idea that students are entitled high grades has become such a disease that some of my classmates have resorted to trying and squeeze as many marks possible to get the best grade out of their courses.

I had 30 minutes of lecture time wasted when half the class argued with the professor over an issue of miscommunication on a certain aspect of a paper that cost them a full letter grade. I was one of those penalized but I remained silent, knowing full well what the error was and that it isn't worth arguing over because we should have known better (the issue was collusion, though somewhat inadvertent, and the professor was being very lenient on just knocking the grades down a letter, I could have failed a course important for my graduation).

Doing your best at understanding and knowing how to use the material is an important aspect of learning and should be encouraged. However, achieving for achieving's sake treats education like a big contest. I am unfortunate to have gone through the process, overshadowed by zealous parents in the race to see who gets the most impressive credentials. I've seen high school friends going over hysterics just to get a good grade. We even had a clique dedicated to those who are good but not good enough (the criteria being those who barely missed the cutoff on the PSATs).

I hope the C gets the respect it deserves. It means you can at least understand it to a competent level. It may not be stellar, but it showed you got the gist of it. High grades is a Sisyphian goal for me (I manage but I become a wreck after the ordeal), especially for a person who has a passion for learning and knowledge but at the same time a chronic underachiever.

Remember... inflation with money is not (entirely) about bosses giving workers too much money, but about the general value of the money being worth less.

Analogously with grades... professors lowering the grades they give would do about the same to fight grade inflation as bosses lowering salaries would do to fight dollar inflation (i.e. the effect would do more to hurt students/workers than to reestablish the value of a grade/dollar).

In my opinion, there definitely has been grade 'inflation' over the years... and it works as follows:
I) It used to be that A, B, C, and D were all considered passing grades, and the average grade was around C+ (just below the average of the passing grades) in a non-filter class and a lower C in a filter... but
II) now that D is universally considered a fail, or at least an 'unsatisfactory pass'... the C grade has pretty much taken up the role of the D grade as 'lowest satisfactory grade', effectively robbing it of its role as 'average' (in many places, even C- doesn't count as 'satisfactory'!) The new grade just below the average of the passing grades becomes a B (if you count the range from, say, C to A+) which becomes the average in non-filter classes... and in filter classes (where people fail) the average can be more like B- or C+, as far as I can tell...

so in other words, the general public, professors, bosses, etc now consider B to be average, where once the average was a C, because of a redefinition and devaluation (i.e. 'inflation') of what grades really mean.

Then, there are graduate programs (or selected gifted programs) where B- or even B can be the lowest satisfactory grade... and 'average' gets pushed up even higher...

Originally Posted by Alchemist's Angel '85

We got two GPAs so that we ould save colleges the hassle. I ended up with a weighted GPA of about 4.7+ and an unweighted GPA of 3.97. Basically, I'd gotten all As and then a B in one of my a AP courses.

They do the same thing here. I actually got a 3.97 unweighted, but nowhere near 4.7 weighted.

Originally Posted by Seminomad

Remember... inflation with money is not (entirely) about bosses giving workers too much money, but about the general value of the money being worth less.

Analogously with grades... professors lowering the grades they give would do about the same to fight grade inflation as bosses lowering salaries would do to fight dollar inflation (i.e. the effect would do more to hurt students/workers than to reestablish the value of a grade/dollar).

In my opinion, there definitely has been grade 'inflation' over the years... and it works as follows:
I) It used to be that A, B, C, and D were all considered passing grades, and the average grade was around C+ (just below the average of the passing grades) in a non-filter class and a lower C in a filter... but
II) now that D is universally considered a fail, or at least an 'unsatisfactory pass'... the C grade has pretty much taken up the role of the D grade as 'lowest satisfactory grade', effectively robbing it of its role as 'average' (in many places, even C- doesn't count as 'satisfactory'!) The new grade just below the average of the passing grades becomes a B (if you count the range from, say, C to A+) which becomes the average in non-filter classes... and in filter classes (where people fail) the average can be more like B- or C+, as far as I can tell...

so in other words, the general public, professors, bosses, etc now consider B to be average, where once the average was a C, because of a redefinition and devaluation (i.e. 'inflation') of what grades really mean.

Then, there are graduate programs (or selected gifted programs) where B- or even B can be the lowest satisfactory grade... and 'average' gets pushed up even higher...

This is a fantastic evaluation. I love it.