No class is burned into my memory quite like Psych 202, which is sort of sad, since I never even took the course. However, every single person I talked to while choosing first year classes assured me Psych 202 was the devil, and its horrendous curve would suck out my feeble freshman soul and feed it to the wolves. Well, maybe it wasn’t quite that intense, but what I heard was enough to assure me Psych 202 was not to be messed with, unless I was positive of my intent to be a psychology major (and I’m pretty sure the only thing I was positive about at this point in my life was how badly I wanted not to know what was inside the “chicken” sandwich they gave me at SOAR).
Anyway, I’ve since heard Psych 202 is not so terrible, or, at least manageable. Regardless, I haven’t heard much praise of its implementation of the “weedout” style grading scale. I’m sure most of you are familiar with this concept, which is, in short, a system in which only a set proportion of students in a given course can receive the highest grades, because only a certain percentage of students can receive each grades (i.e. 10% A’s).This can potentially create unnecessarily difficult testing, as well as the possibility that students who are proficient in the material will end up performing poorly.
Increasing concern over grade inflation may cause the Psych 202 grading model to be adopted on a wider scale. Grade inflation has proven itself to be a leech of an issue for many American college campuses, as confirmed by a recent analysis of the University of Wisconsin’s grading policies in an article in The Capital Times. According to the report, UW’s average GPA has gone from 2.5 in 1958, 2.9 in 1988, and 3.2 in 2008.
This issue is, of course, nothing new, and neither is the mounting concern over what grade inflation says about classroom standards and the quality of work students produce. Regardless of what one may personally think about grade inflation, it doesn’t seem to be something that’s going to disappear off the higher education agenda anytime soon. Grade inflation has a clearly negative connotation. Stuart Rojstaczer, creator of the website gradeinflation.com, which documents the upward trend in grading at US universities, states in The Capital Times article that the purpose of grades is “to motivate students and to identify outstanding performers.” So, if grade inflation is a problem, it’s because students aren’t motivated and grades are meaningless, since getting an ‘A’ is too easy. Hence, one way to offset the possibility of undeserved good grades is to use a set curve, a la Psych 202.
Notwithstanding how problematic grade inflation is, and whether or not it exists (in the sense that the rise in grade point averages is not in accordance with an equivalent rise in student achievement), obsessing about the issue is as harmful to the value of grades as their supposedly unmerited swelling. For instance, the arbitrary grade cutoff created by a curve does not necessarily function to enhance learning, especially in the large lectures where it is usually used. Instead of being taught to engage in class material in a meaningful way, students are encouraged to become competitive grade-mongerers. Further, mastering multiple-choice tests does not ensure mastery of the material, especially if there is as little professor contact as there is in many UW classes. Just because a class is deliberately made to be difficult does not mean it measures competence, as professors who feel pressure to ensure that grades conform to a set average may place irrelevant material on exams.
Further, according to gradeinflation.com and similar sources, dozens of schools across the country have seen upsurges in GPA. This being the case, a school that makes an isolated effort to reduce the impact of rising grade averages risks damaging its students’ reputations, as well as their chances for jobs and graduate programs by making their grades appear unusually low. A friend of mine who transferred here from a more reputable institution had to apply twice to gain admission to UW. She was transferring from a program known at her previous university for having grade deflation (read: notoriously few A’s). Because the program is reputable and highly ranked, she assumed UW’s admissions would know the school and program enough to be aware of the grading policies she had been subject to. However, when she was denied initial admission and appealed the decision, my friend’s adviser admitted the review committee had been unaware of her situation until she spoke up.
This example provides an important guideline for thinking about grade inflation: if any effort to resist the current trend in GPAs is to be made, it should be part of a concerted national effort, rather than something each university takes up as it pleases. For instance, there could be an effort to create a database, available at all admissions offices, of grading trends at other universities. If we decide that college GPAs are so high as to be problematic, then the effort to counteract this phenomenon must be fair to all students.
As of right now, it does not seem clear that grade inflation is as much of a concern as some make it out to be, especially considering that admissions requirements at many institutions have become more stringent (i.e. the ACT score of UW acceptees went from 24.0 in 1988 to 28.1 in 2008). However,
If growing GPAs are going to be something that should be addressed, we must take time to carefully consider the options for how this should be done. This means ensuring that students are not placed at a disadvantage due to overzealous “deflating” practices.
Hannah Shtein ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in philosophy.
