The fallacy in looking at grade inflation from the perspective of a single academic term is that the bell curve cannot be applied to the small number of students who enroll during that term - you need multiple terms to come to any reasonable conclusions. Also, the fact that enrollment in some courses requires completion of a lot of pre-requisite courses mans that, in some courses, students are pre-selected to be minimally competent. I do not believe that the fact that no one has failed the senior level capstone course in our nursing program for several years indicates low standards or grade inflation - it simply means that prior course instructors have prepared students well for their subsequent work. At most, grade inflation should be a concerned in low level courses.

About forty years ago, I went on a tour of elite graduate schools looking for a place where I might earn a Ph.D. in my chosen field. At one university in particular, the interviewing professor plainly stated that this department deliberately sought to produce as few graduates as possible. Needless to say, I avoided that one. Eventually I found one university (which shall be unnamed) that did admit me and from which I did earn a Ph.D. The academic atmosphere was very intense, but the requirements were clearly stated in the catalogue, and I met them. With hindsight, I now think the first university I mentioned was telling me not to come at all, whereas the one that accepted me really wanted me. I think that universities that deliberately and severely deflate grades are just as irresponsible as those that inflate them. Indeed, the ones that deflate grades could be found guilty of a "bait and switch" approach. --E.A.C.

I teach in a post graduate professional school. With some frequency, we get students from very good colleges and universities who clearly were "passed through" and are not up to the demands of our institution. I won't even go into the problem of students with serious psychological, honor board, or criminal problems whose records schools fail to diclose to us.

For a public institution where the real cost of enrollment is subsidized by appropriations, multiple enrollments actually cost the institution or the state. Recently, the average enrollment subsidy in my state was about 80% (tuition paid 20%) so a repeat enrollment costs the state more and is not primarily a student expense.

In fact, tuition is subsidized now by so many methods that for a significant percentage of students (not those on loans only) their contribution is less than 5% of the cost of enrollment. While the marginal cost of a specific enrollment may be far less than the appropriated per student funds plus tuition collected, the fact is that, to the state, there is a high cost for each student.

To the extent that institutions allow students to withdraw very late in the semester (after state census dates), then the state is financially supporting grade inflation caused by withdrawal to avoid a bad grade.

Inasmuch as access and high completion rates seem to be a public and legislative priority in many state higher education systems, then it seems that this priority may indirectly or even directly drive some grade inflation.

A second factor that needs study, is the extent to which pressure on faculty to maintain high course enrollments may result in grade inflation. However, ironically, if this really results in passing students who might otherwise have had lower grades that resulted in course repeats, then the pressure on faculty may actually yield potential cost savings to the state by avoiding the cost of multiple reenrollments.

Unfortunately, the real issue should be reliably and validly measure student accomplishment of the learning goals but as with other things such as health care, cost often blurs attempts to get at quality issues.

I think the way graduate schools (at least the ones I've been affiliated with) limit Ph.D. production is through dissertation expectations, not course grades. Some even ditch the GPA and use a different grading scale for graduate students since by definition graduate students on average are supposed to be higher achievers than undergraduates. akprof has it right, at least insofar as programs with vertical curricula are concerned, where students simply can't handle the next level of courses if the instruction is inadequate at prior levels.

Please (re)read Alfie Kohn's November 2002 article from The Chronicle entitled The Dangerous Myth of Grade Inflation (http://chronicle.com/article/The-Dangerous-Myth-of-Grade/34252/). There are numerous logical and practical fallacies in the notion that grades can be "inflated" or "deflated" or that they have any validity at all.

Grade Inflation in Engineering Education at Ohio University
http://www.ent.ohiou.edu/~manhire/grade/BM050228_Final.pdf

Manhire,

Thank you for sharing your paper. However, I don't understand how it addresses any of the issues raised by Kohn.

For example, while you demonstrate that grades are rising at OU overall, you provide no evidence to support your implicit claim that the grades given in 1999 are somehow less valid than the grades given in 1993. In fact, you don't address the validity of grades at all. What makes a grade valid? How have you measured or controlled for that in your study? Your reliance on the SAT and high school grades as a control for "inputs" to the equation is problematic (http://chronicle.com/article/Two-Cheers-for-an-End-to-th/15930/).

You make a fairly bold statement that awarding higher grades is an ethical/moral issue, but you don't make it clear who is being harmed, and how. I'll assume that your claim is that students are graduating knowing less when they think they know more, thereby reducing the quality of service they provide to society when they graduate. Other than showing that they have higher grades, you have not shown that they in fact know less, or are performing at a lower level, or that they are causing harm to society at a higher level. Since you are in an engineering school, your thesis might lead one to predict that a lower proportion of your students in 1999 would go on to pass their engineering licensing exams than those who graduated in 1993. Do you have any evidence to support your argument that assigning higher grades is causing harm?

In short, your analysis leaves much to be desired. You fail to consider any rival explanations of the differences in GPAs that you report. You fail to support with evidence that there aren't any good reasons for why the grades are different. However, the most troublesome aspect of your paper is the assumption that grades are meaningful indicators of student performance. That's essentially the point of Kohn's article, and the reason that I posted a link to it.

It's been said that a few failures in a course are the fault of those students, whereas a very large number of failures is the fault of the instructor. In between is probably a shared responsibility.

Perhaps associated is the controversial practice of required attendance--on the one hand it definitely can help to reduce failures, particularly in lower division courses, but on the other it seems a bit antiquated in an age of in loco parentis and recognition that university students should be treated as adults. Thoughts?

In some lower-division courses, a large proportion of the students who don't come eventually withdraw or fail without completing any of the course work. When there is enrollment pressure, they take a spot in the class away from another student. In a public university, where the state is footing much of the bill, students have an obligation to either participate in the course or not utilize the state's money while preventing another student from enrolling in the class.

I have heard professors gleefully boasting about how many students fail their classes, as if high failure rates meant that their courses were superior. It just means to me that they are terrible teachers.
I use clear requirements and standards to award grades, a criterion based curriculum. Theoretically, all students could pass or all fail, but usually it's a mixed bag in which I share half the responsibility for success.
My dream is to have a class where all students succeed in learning everything covered in the course. It may never happen, but I work very hard to hold up my end of the bargain and I demand that they do the same.
My son took a class where the professor managed to whittle down the course from 40 students to eight. I took a graduate course where the professor ran off all but five of fifteen graduate students. Both were awful teachers for different reasons. As a former administrator, I couldn't help but noticing the cost to the system of faculty who are such terrible teachers but draw a salary.
Some faculty take a perverse and self-congratulatory joy in running students out of college, which is what they are really doing, in oder to demonstrate their own superiority. Especially when most of these students did not earn this treatment by a faculty member who takes a delight in failing or running off students.

What courses, Gadget? What's your field. Some courses are inherent downwhittlers because some students' dreams and aspirations come head to head in those courses with their abilities, interest, and/or perseverance. Statistics and/or Field Methods tends to do that in the Social Sciences, esp. Anthropology and Sociology. Organic Chemistry tends to do that with would be premeds. Humanities departments tend not to have such kinds of perspective restoring courses, although foreign language and English majors often find Linguistics courses a hard row to hoe.

Sorry, I don't think it "just means they are terrible teachers.".

Grade-deflation pressure is standard pedagogical procedure in China's hgigher education institutions. Maybe this trend in the US is a kowtow to multiculturalism? Or are we just following their economic lead in desperation to get out of recession?