Communications Question

COM 102Comparison Essay
(20 points, 1000 words)
Objective
The student compares two articles that feature similar arguments and determines which article possesses the
stronger argument. The assignment utilizes comprehension, application, analysis, and evaluation. The specific
course outcomes include the following skills: 1. Analyze the choices writers make to suit purpose and audience;
3. Construct an argument based on a text; 4. Demonstrate awareness of elements of rhetoric. 5. Adapt style and
tone to purpose and audience; 6. Create connections among texts.
The Task
Please read the article “Grade Inflation in Higher Education: Is the End in sight?” by Michael J. Carter and
Patricia Y. Lara. The article can located in the database Academic Search Complete; just type the title into the
search bar. Review “Good Grieve! America’s Grade Inflation Culture” as well as your analysis of it.
In an essay written for a general reader, compare both essays and make an argument as to which article is
stronger. Remember, it isn’t about your agreement or disagreement with an author; withhold your opinion on
the subject matter. Given the brevity of the essay, you may not hold a qualified thesis. That is, you may not say
that one article is better in some ways while the other is stronger in other aspects. Pick one.
Be sure to use quotations to support your analysis. Cite using MLA format, eighth edition.
Organization
Introduction Provide some context for your general reader. Introduce the subject matter as well as both
authors. The introduction should occupy a single paragraph.
Summaries
Summarize each article. Each summary should be no more than two brief paragraphs.
Thesis
Clearly state which article is stronger. Define the criteria that inform your perspective. The thesis
should be a single paragraph.
Each discussion point should begin with the weaker argument and end with the stronger. Utilize
textual evidence throughout. Remember the needs of your general reader.
Discussion
Conclusion
Provide a brief restatement of your major observations, effectively reiterating the content of your
thesis. The conclusion should occupy no more than a single paragraph.
Works Cited
Cite the articles according to MLA format, eighth edition.
Acad. Quest. (2019) 32:328–333
DOI 10.1007/s12129-019-09810-8
I N C A PA C I T Y: E N F E E B L I N G H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N
Good Grieve! America’s Grade Inflation Culture
Craig Evan Klafter
Published online: 24 July 2019
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019
The university admissions scandal exposed in March 2019—in which
parents paid a college admissions consultant to inflate their child’s ACT
or SAT scores or to fabricate a stellar athletic record—necessitates taking
a fresh look at grade inflation. The reason is that those who paid to
have their children gain admission to elite universities would not have
done so if it was likely that their children would perform poorly in those
institutions or even fail to graduate. The American culture of grade
inflation has made those outcomes unlikely.
The most common American university grading system is A or 4.0, B or 3.0,
C or 2.0, D or 1.0, and F or 0.0. Nearly all universities and colleges still define
these grades as Excellent, Good, Average, Below Average, and Fail or Deficient.
However, most university and college grading is in the range of A and B.
Between 1940 and 2008, the percentage of “A” grades awarded increased by
28 percent and the percentage of “C” and “D” grades declined by 21 percent and
7 percent respectively. Forty-three percent of grades awarded in 2008 were “A”
compared to only 15 percent in 1940.1
At some elite universities, the situation is even worse, with the average
undergraduate grade awarded much closer to an A than a B. Consider the
following average undergraduate GPAs of recent graduates of some elite
universities:
Institution
Brown University
GPA
3.75
Stuart Rojstaczer and Christopher Healy, “Where A Is Ordinary: The Evolution of American College and
University Grading, 1940–2009,” Teachers College Record 114, no. 7(2012): 1-23.
1
Craig Evan Klafter is Rector Emeritus, American University in Myanmar; cklafter@aslh.net.
Good Grieve! America’s Grade Inflation Culture
Stanford University
Harvard College
Yale University
Columbia University
University of California, Berkeley
329
3.68
3.63
3.63
3.6
3.59
At these universities an A- is average.2
Complaints about American grade inflation date to the late nineteenth
century, but the American culture of grade inflation was born in the 1960s
with the confluence of two movements. The anti-Vietnam War movement
was strongest on university and college campuses. In 1965, the Selective
Service System announced a change in its practice of granting draft deferrals
to students enrolled in universities and colleges. No longer would all
undergraduate students be deferred. Instead, students would be deferred
only if they exhibited high intellectual ability as determined by class rank
and scores on the Selective Service Qualification Test. 3 John R. Seeley,
Chairman of the Sociology Department at Harvard, reacted by exclaiming,
“we might grade every one equally high.” 4 In fact, professors throughout the
country did just that as a means of registering their opposition to the war.
The Viet Nam-driven grade inflation came around the same time as
another driver of grade inflation: the self-esteem movement. In education,
the self-esteem movement had its start in the late 1960s with the publication of
Stanley Coopersmith’s The Antecedents of Self-Esteem and Nathaniel Branden’s
The Psychology of Self-Esteem.5 One of the movement’s early followers was
John Vasconcellos, then a member of the California State Assembly
representing Silicon Valley. He used his position to argue that low self-esteem
was a primary cause of crime, violence, substance abuse, teen pregnancy, child
abuse, chronic welfare dependency, and educational failure. He advocated what
he called a “social vaccine”—government spending to boost self-esteem as a
means of curing these ills and even balancing the California budget on the theory
that people with higher self-esteem earn more money and pay more taxes. In
response to his advocacy, “The State Task Force to Promote Self-Esteem and
2
Kate Beckman, “The Top 15 Universities with the Highest Average GPAs,” 2018, Ripplematch.com,
https://ripplematch.com/journal/article/the-top-15-universities-with-the-highest-average-gpas-4f4b544d/.
3
Michael S. Foley, Confronting the War Machine: Draft Resistance During the Vietnam War (Chapel Hill, UNC
Press: 2003), 39-40.
Laura E. Hatt, “LBJ Wants Your GPA: The Vietnam Exam,” The Harvard Crimson, May 23, 2016,
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/5/23/lbj-wants-your-gpa/.
4
5
Stanley Coopersmith The Antecedents of Self-Esteem (New York: W. H. Freeman & Company,1967);
Nathaniel Branden, The Psychology of Self-Esteem (New York: Tarcher, 1969).
330
C.E. Klafter
Personal and Social Responsibility” was established. The Taskforce’s final
report, Toward a State of Esteem, makes many bold recommendations including,
for example,
1. Every school district in California should adopt the promotion of selfesteem and of personal and social responsibility as a clearly stated
goal, integrated into its total curriculum and informing all of its
policies and operations. School boards should establish policies and
procedures that value staff members and students and serve to foster
mutual respect, esteem, and cooperation.
2. Course work in self-esteem should be required for credentials and as a
part of ongoing in-service training for all educators.6
These recommendations were adopted throughout California and spread like
wildfire throughout the United States.
One of the immediate effects of the self-esteem movement was on academic
grading. William Celis wrote in 1993 that “The push to increase self-esteem has
also helped sustain the trend toward grade inflation.” He cited the example of an
Albuquerque middle school where “teachers tried to start a new academic honor
society, using as the cutoff for membership a 3.5 grade point average on a 4.0
scale.” Two-thirds of the school’s 600 students were found to be eligible. Celis
went on to note that “[t]eachers in many public schools are praising student
accomplishments so indiscriminately that such praise has become
meaningless.” 7
In higher education, the self-esteem movement also influenced academic
grading. Professor Michael Pomerantz found in 2008 that “substantial numbers
of professors simply don’t believe in rigorous grading anymore, particularly in
the arts and humanities. As they see it, grades are hierarchical and subjective,
and they diminish students’ self-esteem to the detriment of learning.” 8 The draft
was ended in 1973 and the self-esteem movement has been widely condemned
as a failure. 9 Still, grade inflation has persisted. A key reason is university grade
grievance policies.
6
Toward a State of Esteem, Sacramento, California State Dept. of Education, January 1990.
William Celis, “Down From the Self-Esteem High,” The New York Times, August 1, 1993, https://www.
nytimes.com/1993/08/01/weekinreview/the-nation-down-from-the-self-esteem-high.html.
7
8
Measuring Up: The Problem of Grade Inflation and What Trustees Can Do (Washington, DC: ACTA, 2008), 3.
Steve Baskin, “The Gift of Failure,” Psychology Today, Dec 31, 2011, https://www.psychologytoday.
com/us/blog/smores-and-more/201112/the-gift-failure; William Storr, “’It was quasi-religious’: the great
self-esteem con,” The Guardian, June 3, 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jun/03/
quasi-religious-great-self-esteem-con; Richard Lee Colvin, “Losing Faith in Self-Esteem Movement,”
Los Angeles Times, January 25, 1999, https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-jan-25-mn-1505story.html.
9
Good Grieve! America’s Grade Inflation Culture
331
Nearly every American university and college developed grade appeal
policies during the 1980s. These policies came about just as the transition of
higher education into a mass consumer market was completed, and colleges
felt compelled to present a more nurturing and softer image. But these
policies were also intended to limit the number of appeals, establishing procedures
and short deadlines as a means to deny appeals from students who fail to comply.
What they did not plan on, however, was how diligent college students proved to be
about mastering the procedures and deadlines that provide the possibility of higher
grades. Consequently, the policies principally served to encourage appeals,
burden faculty members and administrators, and promote grade inflation.
Grade appeal policies vary among higher education institutions. However, the
typical policy allows students to appeal grades (sometimes final grades only) for
any reason. The faculty member is the recipient of the appeal and his decision
can be further appealed to the department chair or directly to a faculty
committee. Further appeals are often permitted to the relevant dean, the
provost and even the president. There are usually deadlines for each
step—imposed on both the student appellant and the various respondents.
Non-tenured and adjunct faculty members are often averse to burdening
their superiors and colleagues, fearing that doing so will influence decisions
about their tenure or reappointment. The policies have, in short, incentivized
giving into student demands rather than contesting them, and have promoted
a sense of entitlement about grades among students.
Five years ago, I counselled a first-time faculty member at an American
university. She is the graduate of some of the finest universities in Europe, and
took her grading of students very conscientiously. She informed her students in
advance what the requirements of the course were and how the assignments in
the course would be weighted when determining their grades. She carefully read
student assignments and took detailed notes on student performance. Soon after
her grades were posted, she began receiving appeals from students. These
appeals were made by 16 percent of the students, those who received grades
of B and C, demanding that their grades be raised to A. Their arguments reflect
the students’ sense of entitlement.
There were those students who contended that effort should trump
performance. “I worked long hours, tried my best and diligently did every
assignment. Your grade does not reflect all the hard work I put in.” Clearly
these students do not understand that effort should have no role in academic
assessment. Should a student who earns an A grade with little effort be
penalized? Of course not. Then why should a student have his grade
inflated because he found the course to be more difficult than others?
332
C.E. Klafter
Some students objected to how the professor assessed their performance. She
specified that the final grades would be based on four components in her
syllabus. Not one student complained when it was distributed. After receiving
their grades, these students argued that more components would have been
fairer. No rationale for this was offered. One component was “teaching skill”
for a focus of the course was teaching English as a second language. She
specified that she would observe the students teaching on two occasions. Again,
none of the students challenged this when she initially informed them. After
receiving their grades, these students argued that it was insufficient. Their
strategy was if you don’t like the results, challenge the rules of the game.
There were students who argued that their judgment or the judgments of
their friends were better than the faculty member’s judgment. The idea that
faculty members hold their positions because they have qualifications,
experience, and learning that students lack made no difference to these
students. Perhaps it is not surprising that students obsessed with grades
exhibited little respect for qualifications, education, and learning.
Some students peppered their appeals with terms of outrage. “I was shocked,”
“I was stunned,” and “I am angry.” Presumably, they believed that terms of
moral indignation strengthened their argument. All they actually do is reveal
immaturity and a failure to understand that only well-reasoned arguments are
persuasive.
One student said that she took the course because she thought it would
“boost her GPA” rather than hinder it, and suggested that this was grounds
for having her grade raised. This claim is akin to either false advertising or
breach of contract. In effect, the student pleaded that either the faculty
member misrepresented the course because it had a reputation for being an
easy A, or the faculty member breached an agreement to give all students
high marks. Actually, the faculty member was a last-minute substitute. Even
if her predecessor had the reputation for being an easy grader, under what
theory did this student believe the replacement faculty member would be
bound by her predecessor’s reputation? And, why did this student not see an
inherent problem with a course where all students get grades of A regardless
of the quality of their work? Perhaps, like in the Lake Wobegon of “The
Prairie Home Companion,” they believed all students are above average.
The final arguments employed were attempts at guilt. “Your ‘B’ grade will
ruin my chances of getting into graduate school” and “I am a consistent ‘A’
student, so this type of grade really affects my GPA.” The fact that this grade
counted for just 2.5 percent of their overall grade point average—and only the
difference between an A and a B—did not matter to them. What is even more
Good Grieve! America’s Grade Inflation Culture
333
disturbing, however, is their unwillingness to take responsibility for their own
performance. As they saw things, it wasn’t that they failed to measure up, it was
the professor’s failure to recognize what the students believed to be the high
quality of their work.
The faculty member was stunned by the appeals, and sought the advice of her
department chairwoman. However, she did not get the advice she expected. The
department chairwoman encouraged her to give in to all the student requests and
raise the grades arguing that it would be easier to do so. This entire grade appeal
scenario is typical of what is frequently played out across the country. It is proof
that the harm caused by grade appeal policies far outweighs the benefit.
Although some grade appeal policies have been curtailed in recent years,
most universities and colleges have yet to do so. They should revise their grade
appeal policies now.
Their grade appeal policies should be relabeled “grade reconsideration”
policies, restrict grade reconsideration to the faculty member who issued the
grade, and state that a faculty member who reconsiders a paper or examination
has the right to raise, lower, or not change a grade. These changes will add an
element of risk to students considering filing appeals and accordingly should
reduce the numbers of requests. Students should be required to write letters of
appeal to their faculty members explaining their justification for the reconsideration
within a specified number of days of the grade’s posting. Only arguments that focus
on the material that is the object of the assessment and/or the stated calculation used
to determine the grade should be acceptable to require reconsideration. Faculty
members should complete the reconsideration within a specified period. There
should be no further right of appeal. Consequently, frivolous appeals will not merit
reconsideration, faculty members would no longer suffer unreasonable pressure to
give in to appellant demands, and the American culture of grade appeals will lose a
key contributing factor.
Grade inflation penalizes truly exceptional students, for the grades they
earn are only marginally better than the average student. Grade inflation
disincentivizes hard work, as students know that they can earn a B grade
with relative ease. Grade inflation permits those students who should not
have been admitted in the first place to graduate—often with at least a “B”
average. And, employers are finding it difficult to distinguish between
excellent, good, and mediocre students. Revising grade appeal policies will
help reverse the American culture of grade inflation, restore academic
integrity to American higher education grading practices, and create a check
on unqualified students being admitted to and graduated from universities
and colleges.
Academic Questions is a copyright of Springer, 2019. All Rights Reserved.
Acad. Quest. (2016) 29:346–353
DOI 10.1007/s12129-016-9569-5
A RT I C L E S
Grade Inflation in Higher Education: Is the End in Sight?
Michael J. Carter & Patricia Y. Lara
Published online: 28 July 2016
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
Over the past few decades, claims of grade inflation in American higher
education have been ubiquitous, with ample evidence documenting its
prevalence and severity.1 Many have condemned the trend toward grade inflation, noting that students spend less time studying in courses that inflate grades,2
and that students who receive inflated grades in introductory or preliminary
courses often do poorly in advanced courses.3 In this article we present summary
findings of a study we conducted that examines grading trends across a recent
five-year span in two of the largest higher education systems in the United
States: the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU)
systems. 4 We show that changes in grade distributions in many campuses have
begun to plateau, but note that it may be premature to claim that grade inflation is
an issue of the past. We also cite and discuss a potential correlate of grade inflation
others have ignored: the relationship between grade point averages and semantic
definitions of grade categories.
1
Roger A. Arnold, “Way That Grades Are Set Is a Mark against Professors,” Los Angeles Times,
April 22, 2004, http://articles.latimes.com/2004/apr/22/opinion/oe-arnold22.
Philip Babcock, “Real Costs of Nominal Grade Inflation? New Evidence from Student Course
Evaluations,” Economic Inquiry 48, no. 4 (October 2010): 983–96.
2
3
Valen E. Johnson, Grade Inflation: A Crisis in College Education (New York: Springer-Verlag, 2003).
4
The complete study findings are available on the NAS website at http://www.nas.org/articles/grade_inflation_
in_higher_education_is_the_end_in_sight.
Michael J. Carter is associate professor of sociology at California State University, Northridge, Northridge,
CA 91330-8318; michael.carter@csun.edu. His main research interests are in social psychology, specifically
the area of self and identity. His research has appeared in the American Sociological Review and Social
Psychology Quarterly.
Patricia Y. Lara is an MA candidate in sociology at California State University, Northridge, Northridge, CA
91330-8318; patricia.lara.707@my.csun.edu. Her interests include college student development, qualitative
research methodology, and criminology. Her research has appeared in the International Journal of Research &
Method in Education.
Grade Inflation in Higher Education: Is the End in Sight?
347
Still an Issue?
There are two issues concerning the phenomenon of grade inflation in
contemporary higher education. The first regards the fact that over time
distributions for letter grades have gradually increased (become inflated),
so that As and Bs are now more commonly assigned than Cs, Ds, or Fs.
The second issue is more of a question: Are grade inflation trends that
have been documented in higher education over the past decades
continuing to occur? In other words, are the inflated grade distributions
that now define higher education still inflating? We are interested in the
latter question.
There is no consensus on the causes of grade inflation. Regardless
of why, the fact that grades have increased begs a question: Considering
that the common grading scale has lower and upper limits—i.e.,
the scale ranges from zero to 4.0—how far toward the high end
of the scale will grades increase before the limit is reached? After
all, inflation connotes change—by definition inflation represents
a sustained increase. Considering the common grading scale’s
upper limit, grades cannot inflate forever; at some point inflation
must—theoretically—stop. A look at recent data shows that such an end may
be in sight.
Grade Inflation Trends: 2009–2013
We examined current grading trends in the UC and CSU systems to
discover the prevalence of grade inflation. 5 Between 2009 and 2013 the
average grade point average (GPA) across all UC campuses (nine total) was
3.03. Across CSU campuses (twenty-three total), the average GPA was
2.93. Among UC campuses, the highest GPAs were found at UC
Berkeley (3.29), the lowest at UC Riverside (2.77). Among CSU
campuses, the highest GPAs were found at San Francisco State and
Sonoma State (both = 3.11); the lowest at CSU Bakersfield (2.74). One
can debate whether these GPAs are too high (indeed, many would
claim it so). A separate question is whether these averages have
changed over the past half-decade. To answer this question we
performed a series of statistical (regression) analyses on UC/CSU grade
distribution data, the results of which allow us to determine if GPAs
5
Grade data for the UC and CSU campuses was the most recent available at the time the study was conducted.
Data for CSU Los Angeles represents GPA trends between 2008 and 2011.
348
Carter and Lara
have changed significantly in recent years. Figures 1 and 2 present
results of our analysis for each UC and CSU campus, respectively.6
At first glance, figures 1 and 2 seem to reveal (visually) that grade
distributions at many UC and CSU campuses showed an upward trend
between 2009 and 2013. However, when analyzing the data for statistical
significance, only half (five out of nine: Berkeley, Riverside, Santa Barbara,
San Diego, and UCLA) of the UC campuses showed a significant increase in
GPA over that time. Grade inflation trends were even less noticeable among
CSU campuses; only one-third had significantly higher GPAs across the
years observed (Dominguez Hills, East Bay, Fullerton, Northridge, Pomona,
San Diego, San Jose, and San Luis Obispo). Across both university systems,
nineteen campuses we examined had stable GPAs, and in the CSU,
Humboldt State’s GPA actually decreased significantly. So, the notion that
grade inflation (i.e., an ongoing rise in grades) continues to plague all areas
of higher education is not altogether true: thirteen of the thirty-two UC/CSU
campuses (41 percent) inflated grades (meaning that they showed a steady
increase in grade point average between 2009 and 2013).
These findings offer some optimism to those who fear that grade
inflation will continue unabated, though the fact that two-fifths of the
universities examined in this study still inflate grades may quickly quell
that optimism (and it is possible that the universities that did not inflate
grades could return to the practice in the future). Moreover, it should be
reiterated that regardless of which universities in our sample inflated
(i.e., steadily increased) grades between 2009 and 2013, all have average
grade distributions that are high overall. Let us now discuss why grades
might be higher at some university campuses than others. Here we cite a
correlate of GPA that others have not generally considered.
Letter Grades as Semantic Categories
Research on grade inflation usually treats changes in GPA over time as the sole
indicator of inflation. For example, if today a university’s combined student GPA
is 3.12 and it was 2.98 five years ago, most would cite this as indicating grade
inflation. This is sensible, but often in these studies the semantic meaning of
“grade point average,” i.e., what GPA actually represents, is glossed over or
ignored. After all, a student’s performance in a class is not usually assessed by a
6
Figures 1 and 2 present the study results as linear fitted values; regression coefficients for the analysis
performed is presented in the complete report, available on the NAS website.
Grade Inflation in Higher Education: Is the End in Sight?
Figure 1 Grade Trends in UC Campuses: 2009–2013 (Fitted Values)
Figure 2 Grade Trends in California State University Campuses: 2009–2013
349
350
Carter and Lara
grade point, but with a letter grade. There is a potential problem in treating GPA as
an exact proxy of a combination of letter grades. GPAs can be reified measures of
competence since they represent different units of analysis (i.e., grouped data
consisting of combined grade points) from what was measured in the unit of
observation (i.e., a student’s performance in a particular class). Letter grades are
translated into numeric scores to determine grade point averages, at which point
any semantic meaning of what a letter grade represents washes out. GPAs are
thus—to some degree—numeric aggregates that are less than the sum of their
parts. Let’s examine this in more detail.
When GPAs are calculated it is under the assumption that 3.0 equates to a B,
and that a B equates to work that is above average. However, in practice it does
not follow that the semantic meaning of a student’s competence equates to a
numeric value. This becomes clear when examining grade definitions across
universities: quite a bit of variance exists regarding definitions used to represent
letter grades. Sometimes a B means “above average,” but other times it means
something else, such as “high pass.” Again, these differences wash out when
letter grades are translated into grade points. A 3.0 from one university is
virtually the same in value and meaning as it is at another, but perhaps we
should not be so quick to ignore the semantic meanings of letter grades and what
they represent. Assuming that in every university “3.0” = “B” = “above average
performance” misses crucial detail, and can even lead to a faulty interpretation of
student performance. Let us use grading schemas across UC and CSU campuses
to illustrate this more clearly, focusing on the relationship between assessment
scales and semantic grade categories.
Assessment Scales and Semantic Grade Categories
It may be assumed that, for the most part, student assessment strategies are
standardized and similar across college campuses. By standardized and similar
we mean that the assessment scale (i.e., using the 0–4.0 grade point scale) and
semantic grade categories (i.e., labeling an A as “excellent,” a B as “above
average,” a C as “passing,” etc.) used to represent student competence are the
same across universities. A closer look reveals that this is only partly so. For
example, while most universities use the traditional A through F assessment
scale, not all employ a plus/minus system for each letter grade. Using our data to
illustrate this, within the UC and CSU systems, UC Santa Cruz uses plusses and
minuses for some grades (A+, A-, B+, B-, C+), but not all grades
(anything below a C is not modified by a plus or minus). CSU Dominguez Hills
has no D- grade in its A to F scale. These examples reveal that there is more
Grade Inflation in Higher Education: Is the End in Sight?
351
diversity in the assessment scales universities employ—and thus more diversity
regarding how students are assessed—than has (perhaps) been taken into account.
More variability also exists across universities regarding semantic grade
categories (or grade definitions). For example, among the twenty-three CSU
campuses, nine different definitions are used for the grade A, twelve for the
grade B, eight for the grade C, eleven for the grade D, and ten for the grade F. 7
To illustrate, seven CSU campuses define a C as “satisfactory,” two as
“satisfactory achievement,” and six as “average.” That some campuses define
a C as “average” where others do not is noteworthy. Average connotes that most
students should fit this definition. Indeed, San Diego State’s General Catalog
states that a C is “the most common undergraduate grade,” adding that a B is
“definitely above average.” 8 This implies that more Cs should be awarded than
Bs. Defining grades as average or otherwise may seem irrelevant (after all, few
administrators, professors, instructors, or students would challenge the notion
that a “C” equates to “2.0” when determining one’s GPA), but it raises a
question: Do semantic grade distinctions affect how professors grade students?
If a university defines a C as “average,” which implies a set distribution and by
definition connotes that most students should be assessed that grade in any given
course, do those universities have GPAs that are closer to the numeric value
associated with a C (i.e., 2.0) than universities who do not define a C as average?
Our findings reveal that this is so.
Using our sample, we conducted a t-test comparing GPAs of campuses that
define a C as “average” to campuses using some other definition for C. A t-test is
a statistical procedure that compares the means of different distributions to
reveal whether they significantly differ from one another. Our results showed
that universities that define a C as “average” have significantly lower GPAs
(and GPAs closer to 2.0) compared to universities that use some other definition
for the C grade. One potential implication of this—though it cannot be
determined given the nature of the data examined—is that when a C is defined
as “average” professors seem to be more likely to grade as if a C is the most
common grade given.
Again using our sample, we also found a significant difference in GPA across
universities depending on how the F grade is defined. Some campuses label an F
as “failing” or “failure”; others define an F as “unacceptable performance,”
“unacceptable work,” “performance has been such that minimal course
7
Differences among definitions are both substantial and subtle; for the purpose of this article we consider a
substantial difference as defining the grade A as “Excellent” versus “Highest Level Performance”; we consider
a subtle difference as defining an A as “Outstanding” versus “Outstanding Achievement.”
8
San Diego State University 2014–2015 General Catalog, 468, http://arweb.sdsu.edu/es/catalog/2014-15/
GeneralCatalog/!GeneralCatalog.pdf.
352
Carter and Lara
requirements have not been met,” “non-attainment,” “poor performance,”
“unsatisfactory achievement,” or “performance of the student has been such
that course requirements have not been met.” Our results show that for our
sample, universities that define an F as “failing” or “failure” have significantly
lower GPAs than universities who use some other definition for the F grade.
Study Implications
The findings we present here help answer two nagging questions that
continue to surface in higher education: Is grade inflation still occurring? If so,
what contributes to its sustenance? Our answer to the first question is that grade
inflation is still occurring, at least in some universities. However, we provide
evidence that shows that grade inflation may be plateauing more than is
commonly believed. Secondly, in examining the relationship between variability
in semantic grade definitions and GPA, we hope that we have added to the
literature that addresses the causes and correlates of grade inflation. To date, no
studies on grade inflation have examined whether instructors assign grades
differently depending on how letter grades are defined. Our research provides
some evidence that variability in how grades are defined correlates with grade
outcomes.
Many have offered strategies to curb the practices that lead to grade inflation,
including implementing pass/fail grading systems, better articulating grading
expectations, focusing on earned grades versus entitlement, and reporting
median grades on student transcripts.9 Our findings regarding the structural
relationship between grade category definitions and grade distributions
contribute to the understanding of why GPAs have increased over time.
If universities carefully conceive the definitions they use for letter grades
they may be able to reduce and even reverse grade inflation. Perhaps
defining a C as average across universities—and emphasizing that it is the
most common grade given—would lower inflated distributions. Other
factors may explain more of the variance in grade distributions, but our
results are compelling moving forward. Since our findings are
preliminary, more research is needed.
It should be mentioned that the analysis (and data) in this study has
limitations. The sample used in our study only addresses grading trends in
universities on the West Coast (and only two of the university systems in this
geographic region). Additional research is needed to determine if grade inflation
in universities across the nation is beginning to plateau or decline. Furthermore,
Jan Tucker and Bari Courts, “Grade Inflation in the College Classroom,” Foresight 12, no. 1 (2010): 45–53.
9
Grade Inflation in Higher Education: Is the End in Sight?
353
respective grade distributions for each university in our sample are likely
influenced by many variables beyond those mentioned, including students’
socioeconomic status and level of preparedness before entering college. Even
considering these limitations, our analysis provides clarity about assessment
practices and the state of contemporary higher education. The grade inflation
issue that many believe plagues American higher education might have an end
in sight.
Academic Questions is a copyright of Springer, 2016. All Rights Reserved.