Key sentence in the article: If a degree from a respected institution is a commodity, as well it might be at a time when annual costs at private universities are in the vicinity of $40,000, then grade inflation is a service being purchased.
Isn't is likely Boston U's grades are deflated2678 in comparison to the "You pays your fee, you gets your B" policies at the other schools?
Several of my colleagues have taught as adjuncts for extra money at one of the private universities in Uptown New Orleans, and a couple of them were told quite frankly that they were grading too strictly, that these were "good students" who expected better than a C in freshman composition and business writing.
On the other hand, I feel pressured not to have too many Bs or As in my comp and lower-level (non-major) lit courses, so there is something to the deflation idea, but given careful attention to exams and strict grading of papers, I don't have to manipulate my grades to meet that expectation.
My own experience at 48 years old, with a B.S. and M.S. in science has been that my GPA has never been a factor in any aspect of employment/career. Where I went to school, my degrees and work experience were the main factors, in addition to interview results and personal contacts/recommendations.
That said I realize its a problem for some. The "B" I earned in Minerology from Dr. Clay T. Smith at New Mexico Tech in 1976, was a crowing achievement that no ignorant HR person can ever take away. So I agree with Andrew.
I didn't know Lake Woebegone had a university... ;)
The student seems to be suggesting that the quality of his "middle of the pack" work at his respected institution is identical to the quality of work by "top of the pack" students at lesser schools. In other words, his B.U. "C" shows equivalent academic scholarship as a State U. "A".
Taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean that most students at the bottom-rung schools should receive "F"s, while most schools at the top-rung schools would receive "A"s, and the poor students going to your garden variety decent schools would all get "C"s.
Grades are necessarily comparative of students only within the school in which they are given. They measure your intelligence and effort against that shown by the peers with whom you chose to associate. If you chose to go to Harvard, then don't complain because it's harder to get an "A" there than at the local community college.
It's probably easier to get an A at Harvard than a B at State U. That's a large part of the reason why I agree BU's grading probably hurts its graduates, especially those that apply to law and medical schools since those admissions are GPA sensitive.
It's interesting how the standards have changed. When I graduated from college 30 years ago, grade inflation at Harvard and other Ivy League colleges was roundly criticized for devaluing the degrees. Apparently grade inflation is so widely accepted that colleges are now criticized for trying to institute what was once a traditional grading standard.
Grades are necessarily comparative of students only within the school in which they are given.
At my law school it seemed like there was am ongoing, unresolved debate within the faculty and administration about grading, probably influenced by the grade inflation at another law school in the city. But it didn't bother me that that other school had massive grade inflation because you have the class rankings (plus most of the law firms in town are chock full of grads from my school - it might be a bigger problem if you're applying for a job with an employer who isn't too familiar with your school). What did sort of bug me was that in my first year I was in the section of my class that had two profs who were far harsher graders than the other sections had. I'm not really complaining because I look back now and am happy I had a couple of the old style profs who were like I imagined law school would be like before I got there (one made us stand up when called on for the first month!). It's just that when our section got a look at the grade postings of the other sections and saw how generous their profs were, well...it seemed like we had to work harder for the class rankings, and it's not always the case that all professors at a school are following similar grading policies.
Well, I'm horrified by the idea of strictly grading on a curve. Twenty years ago when I was at MIT, there were no curves that I was aware of, but there was an Institute policy of B-centering the grades. So the class average of any exam was an automatic "B", which I knew at the time was a kind of grade inflation. My first grad-level finance exam was such a horror that even though I only got about a third of all possible points, that still counted as a C.
I don't know how they justified the B-centering policy then, and I don't know if they still do it. As a student I heard a lot of guff about how since the school was so terrifyingly difficult (and it was), that B-centering made up for the differences between the 'Tute and every other pansy-ass school in America. One thing I do know is that the B-centering policy helped me a number of times, and I ended up with a quite respectable GPA.
It seems to me if the professor gives an exam that can be graded objectively, if you get 100% correct, you should score 100%, and if you score half correct, you should get 50%. It's so weird to me to assign people a place in a made-up heirarchy because there can only be so many As, so many Bs, etc. Why? Why can't a class be exceptionally bright, or exceptionally dim (or lacking motivation)?
I'm just really glad I'm not in college right now, and this entire discussion is chilling any of the remaining vestiges of the "hmmm, maybe I'll go for another degree" urges that have been stirring lately.
"It seems to me if the professor gives an exam that can be graded objectively, if you get 100% correct, you should score 100%..."
This is an illusion created by having a 100 point scale, and a reason why A, B, C makes more sense. What if the test is very easy, so that nearly everyone gets 90% or more? What if the test turns out to be extremely hard and the best in the class gets only 70%? And those are 2 sections of the same course in a 1L that will be competing against each other in the marketplace. It would be outrageously unfair not to curve.
On an essay test, there's no question of appearing to be perfect and deserving 100%. My exams are hard enough that I wouldn't give my own written out answer 100%. I use a raw point scale, where, assuming I've made the total available points 100, the top scorer might only get 70. And this wouldn't have me thinking everyone did terribly and deserves a low grade. It's completely normal and part of giving challenging tests. The grades are curved and my grades follow the same pattern as the grades in a class with a professor who wrote an easy question and had low expectations for the answers and thus ended up with higher raw numbers.
Support the Althouse blog by doing your Amazon shopping going in through the Althouse Amazon link.
Amazon
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Support this blog with PayPal
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
8 comments:
Key sentence in the article: If a degree from a respected institution is a commodity, as well it might be at a time when annual costs at private universities are in the vicinity of $40,000, then grade inflation is a service being purchased.
Isn't is likely Boston U's grades are deflated2678 in comparison to the "You pays your fee, you gets your B" policies at the other schools?
Several of my colleagues have taught as adjuncts for extra money at one of the private universities in Uptown New Orleans, and a couple of them were told quite frankly that they were grading too strictly, that these were "good students" who expected better than a C in freshman composition and business writing.
On the other hand, I feel pressured not to have too many Bs or As in my comp and lower-level (non-major) lit courses, so there is something to the deflation idea, but given careful attention to exams and strict grading of papers, I don't have to manipulate my grades to meet that expectation.
My own experience at 48 years old, with a B.S. and M.S. in science has been that my GPA has never been a factor in any aspect of employment/career. Where I went to school, my degrees and work experience were the main factors, in addition to interview results and personal contacts/recommendations.
That said I realize its a problem for some. The "B" I earned in Minerology from Dr. Clay T. Smith at New Mexico Tech in 1976, was a crowing achievement that no ignorant HR person can ever take away. So I agree with Andrew.
I didn't know Lake Woebegone had a university... ;)
The student seems to be suggesting that the quality of his "middle of the pack" work at his respected institution is identical to the quality of work by "top of the pack" students at lesser schools. In other words, his B.U. "C" shows equivalent academic scholarship as a State U. "A".
Taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean that most students at the bottom-rung schools should receive "F"s, while most schools at the top-rung schools would receive "A"s, and the poor students going to your garden variety decent schools would all get "C"s.
Grades are necessarily comparative of students only within the school in which they are given. They measure your intelligence and effort against that shown by the peers with whom you chose to associate. If you chose to go to Harvard, then don't complain because it's harder to get an "A" there than at the local community college.
It's probably easier to get an A at Harvard than a B at State U. That's a large part of the reason why I agree BU's grading probably hurts its graduates, especially those that apply to law and medical schools since those admissions are GPA sensitive.
It's interesting how the standards have changed. When I graduated from college 30 years ago, grade inflation at Harvard and other Ivy League colleges was roundly criticized for devaluing the degrees. Apparently grade inflation is so widely accepted that colleges are now criticized for trying to institute what was once a traditional grading standard.
Grades are necessarily comparative of students only within the school in which they are given.
At my law school it seemed like there was am ongoing, unresolved debate within the faculty and administration about grading, probably influenced by the grade inflation at another law school in the city. But it didn't bother me that that other school had massive grade inflation because you have the class rankings (plus most of the law firms in town are chock full of grads from my school - it might be a bigger problem if you're applying for a job with an employer who isn't too familiar with your school). What did sort of bug me was that in my first year I was in the section of my class that had two profs who were far harsher graders than the other sections had. I'm not really complaining because I look back now and am happy I had a couple of the old style profs who were like I imagined law school would be like before I got there (one made us stand up when called on for the first month!). It's just that when our section got a look at the grade postings of the other sections and saw how generous their profs were, well...it seemed like we had to work harder for the class rankings, and it's not always the case that all professors at a school are following similar grading policies.
Well, I'm horrified by the idea of strictly grading on a curve. Twenty years ago when I was at MIT, there were no curves that I was aware of, but there was an Institute policy of B-centering the grades. So the class average of any exam was an automatic "B", which I knew at the time was a kind of grade inflation. My first grad-level finance exam was such a horror that even though I only got about a third of all possible points, that still counted as a C.
I don't know how they justified the B-centering policy then, and I don't know if they still do it. As a student I heard a lot of guff about how since the school was so terrifyingly difficult (and it was), that B-centering made up for the differences between the 'Tute and every other pansy-ass school in America. One thing I do know is that the B-centering policy helped me a number of times, and I ended up with a quite respectable GPA.
It seems to me if the professor gives an exam that can be graded objectively, if you get 100% correct, you should score 100%, and if you score half correct, you should get 50%. It's so weird to me to assign people a place in a made-up heirarchy because there can only be so many As, so many Bs, etc. Why? Why can't a class be exceptionally bright, or exceptionally dim (or lacking motivation)?
I'm just really glad I'm not in college right now, and this entire discussion is chilling any of the remaining vestiges of the "hmmm, maybe I'll go for another degree" urges that have been stirring lately.
"It seems to me if the professor gives an exam that can be graded objectively, if you get 100% correct, you should score 100%..."
This is an illusion created by having a 100 point scale, and a reason why A, B, C makes more sense. What if the test is very easy, so that nearly everyone gets 90% or more? What if the test turns out to be extremely hard and the best in the class gets only 70%? And those are 2 sections of the same course in a 1L that will be competing against each other in the marketplace. It would be outrageously unfair not to curve.
On an essay test, there's no question of appearing to be perfect and deserving 100%. My exams are hard enough that I wouldn't give my own written out answer 100%. I use a raw point scale, where, assuming I've made the total available points 100, the top scorer might only get 70. And this wouldn't have me thinking everyone did terribly and deserves a low grade. It's completely normal and part of giving challenging tests. The grades are curved and my grades follow the same pattern as the grades in a class with a professor who wrote an easy question and had low expectations for the answers and thus ended up with higher raw numbers.
This is what we do to be fair!
Post a Comment