The rise of the ‘gentleman’s A’ and the GPA arms race

[Tugg Speedman]

The rise of the ‘gentleman’s A’ and the GPA arms race
By Catherine Rampell
March 28, 2016

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-rise-of-the-gentlemans-a-and-the-gpa-arms-race/2016/03/28/05c9e966-f522-11e5-9804-537defcc3cf6_story.html

A’s — once reserved for recognizing excellence and distinction — are today the most commonly awarded grades in America.

That’s true at both Ivy League institutions and community colleges, at huge flagship publics and tiny liberal arts schools, and in English, ethnic studies and engineering departments alike. Across the country, wherever and whatever they study, mediocre students are increasingly likely to receive supposedly superlative grades.

Such is the takeaway of a massive new report on grade inflation from Stuart Rojstaczer, a former Duke University professor, using data he and Furman University professor Chris Healy collected. Analyzing 70 years of transcript records from more than 400 schools, the researchers found that the share of A grades has tripled, from just 15 percent of grades in 1940 to 45 percent in 2013. At private schools, A’s account for nearly a majority of grades awarded.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

Thanks for posting, Keefe. Was just talking with a friend of mine about this. It seems the best antidote is a forced curve around a University-wide standard.

It seems to me that if Marquette dictated that no professor could give an average grade above a 3.0 on a 4.0 scale within a course, the value of a Marquette grade would increase relative to other schools, and you give professors the leeway to grade their courses as they see fit.

But it would mean that getting an A (4) in a class means you demonstrated such expertise that, relative to you, a student didn't even pass.

You'd see very few A's but seems like its the only solution.

[GGGG]

Or the solution is to understand that it's all relative and therefore not very relevant.

[Tugg Speedman]

Thanks for posting, Keefe. Was just talking with a friend of mine about this. It seems the best antidote is a forced curve around a University-wide standard.

It seems to me that if Marquette dictated that no professor could give an average grade above a 3.0 on a 4.0 scale within a course, the value of a Marquette grade would increase relative to other schools, and you give professors the leeway to grade their courses as they see fit.

But it would mean that getting an A (4) in a class means you demonstrated such expertise that, relative to you, a student didn't even pass.

You'd see very few A's but seems like its the only solution.

From the article ...

A decade ago my alma mater, Princeton, decided to lead the charge against grade inflation. But when students grumbled, and other schools didn’t follow, the school abruptly abandoned its fight. Wellesley, which had the highest GPA in Rojstaczer’s database in 2000 (3.55), underwent a similar endeavor, only to see its grades creep back up more recently.

It is the opposite of what you say.  If a university was perceived as too hard, it would chase kids away from that school.  The rest of the article explains why.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

From the article ...

A decade ago my alma mater, Princeton, decided to lead the charge against grade inflation. But when students grumbled, and other schools didn’t follow, the school abruptly abandoned its fight. Wellesley, which had the highest GPA in Rojstaczer’s database in 2000 (3.55), underwent a similar endeavor, only to see its grades creep back up more recently.

It is the opposite of what you say.  If a university was perceived as too hard, it would chase kids away from that school.  The rest of the article explains why.

University of Chicago's B-School forces a curve around 3.33. Doesn't seem to have hurt their attendance/reputation.

[Herman Cain]

Marquette actually grades hard in certain disciplines.

[Coleman]

Maybe people are just getting smarter

[Tugg Speedman]

University of Chicago's B-School forces a curve around 3.33. Doesn't seem to have hurt their attendance/reputation.

Graduate school is different from undergrad

[brandx]

From the article ...

A decade ago my alma mater, Princeton, decided to lead the charge against grade inflation. But when students grumbled, and other schools didn’t follow, the school abruptly abandoned its fight. Wellesley, which had the highest GPA in Rojstaczer’s database in 2000 (3.55), underwent a similar endeavor, only to see its grades creep back up more recently.

It is the opposite of what you say.  If a university was perceived as too hard, it would chase kids away from that school.  The rest of the article explains why.

Or it would draw only the best kids who want to be challenged.

[GGGG]

Or it would draw only the best kids who want to be challenged.

It probably wouldn't.

I really don't know how much grade inflation is a problem anyway.  The better students are still differentiated from the poorer ones.  Sure more people are getting 3.8+ GPAs now than before, but unless you for some reason what to compare someone from the class of 2014 to the class of 1954, I don't know why it matters.

This is why I don't even bother with GPAs unless I'm hiring someone right out of college.  And even then, the GPA is irrelevant the first day they step foot in the office to work.

[brandx]

It probably wouldn't.

I really don't know how much grade inflation is a problem anyway.  The better students are still differentiated from the poorer ones.  Sure more people are getting 3.8+ GPAs now than before, but unless you for some reason what to compare someone from the class of 2014 to the class of 1954, I don't know why it matters.

This is why I don't even bother with GPAs unless I'm hiring someone right out of college.  And even then, the GPA is irrelevant the first day they step foot in the office to work.

I guess my point was that it doesn't matter. Recruiters from top corporations or law firms know the terrain and if one school graded on a much harsher scale that would be taken into account. That a student would attend knowing this would work more in his favor than not.

Grades are not the factor for someone getting a job or not.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

GPA is overrated anyways in college. I don't know if any of you hire people but how often if ever, do you look at GPAs?

Same goes for grad school. My undergrad GPA was very underwhelming but when I was applying for grad schools I wasn't even asked about it. It's really all about the personal statement, interviews and the assignments the schools give to you.

 Maybe I'm an outlier, who knows, but I also think GPA doesn't show the full capabilities of a scholar, it just shows they know how to work the system better than others.

Edit: didn't read Brandx post first, that's what I figured about employers and GPA.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

Graduate school is different from undergrad

Certainly. However GPA matters a lot in B School for landing top jobs in Consulting, I-Banking, PE

[Tugg Speedman]

Or it would draw only the best kids who want to be challenged.

Read the article. 

Their is this middling school you might have heard of called Princeton. 

About 10 years ago they tried to crack down and make grading harder.  Well the rather average kids that go to this middling school whined and complained and moaned and hollered.  Some of these average kids starting going to another middling school called Harvard, I believe.  So this middling school called Princeton caved and allowed grade inflation to continue.

That said, I'm not sure how this would work at an elite University.

[Tugg Speedman]

Larry Summers: If we really valued excellence, we would single it out
By Lawrence H. Summers
April 5 at 9:00 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/05/larry-summers-if-we-really-valued-excellence-we-would-single-it-out/?postshare=9171459901382466&tid=ss_tw

Lawrence H. Summers, the Charles W. Eliot university professor at Harvard, is a former treasury secretary and director of the National Economic Council in the White House. He is writing occasional posts on Wonkblog about issues of national and international economics and policymaking.

The Washington Post's Catherine Rampell wrote a column last week about grade inflation that reminded me of an issue that has long interested me as an economist and as a president of Harvard.

I remember many years ago listening to some monetarist quote Milton Friedman one too many times, saying, "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon."  I responded, "What about grade inflation?"

I could never quite decide whether this was just a wisecrack or whether it captured something important. It might well reflect that inflation has much to do with different actors seeking to leapfrog one another and, in the process, setting off a spiral.

In any event, pervasiveness of top grades in American higher education is shameful. How can a society that inflates the grades of its students and assigns the top standard to average performance be surprised when its corporate leaders inflate their earnings, its generals inflate their body counts or its political leaders inflate their achievements?

More than ethics classes, this is a matter of moral education. And America’s universities are failing when an A is the most commonly awarded grade. If we really valued excellence, we would single it out.

I did succeed in a small way as Harvard president in reducing the fraction of students graduating with honors, from a ludicrous 90 percent to an excessive 55 percent. I wish I had been able to do more. Further still, I wish that today's academic leaders would take up this issue.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

Read the article. 

Their is this middling school you might have heard of called Princeton. 

About 10 years ago they tried to crack down and make grading harder.  Well the rather average kids that go to this middling school whined and complained and moaned and hollered.  Some of these average kids starting going to another middling school called Harvard, I believe.  So this middling school called Princeton caved and allowed grade inflation to continue.

That said, I'm not sure how this would work at an elite University.

Given that an extremely small number of transfers are even taken at Harvard, and that Princeton accepts less than 10% of applicants, I can't see how this would matter at all. They're not going to suddenly be unable to fill their classes with extremely qualified candidates.

Anyone choosing to go to Harvard over Princeton (or similar schools) likely has a very wide group of options. That would be an incredibly narrow set of criteria to change universities.

I just don't feel I've seen anything close to evidence that tier 1 Universities are under actual pressure or risk by setting a forced curve.

[jficke13]

Oh man, grade inflation and a forced-curve. This warms the nostalgic cockles of my law school heart.

The reality of grades is that they are a system on which other systems rely. If undergrads are applying to med school, law school, competitive jobs, and they attend a university without grade inflation, they are at a numerical disadvantage. Forcing a curve onto MU's undergrads would do two things:

1. Disadvantage them when applying to jobs/programs compared to schools without a forced curve.
2. Incentivize curve manipulation.

Elaborating on #2: MULS has a mandatory curve that's something like 2.95 - 3.05, which means every A has to be balanced by a C. Professors don't really like giving Cs, so there are LOTS of Bs given. When applying for jobs, trying to grade onto journals, etc. your class rank is considered. So, if almost everyone gets a B, a B aims you for about 50%, which is bad at a school like MU. Very bad. Unemployably bad. So... what to do?

Answer: Manipulate the curve. The curve is only implemented in classes with over 25 students. Take classes with the curve as possible regardless of what they are so as to get easier access to grades above B. Take easy classes not classes that challenge or educate you. Game the system because there is a flaw that can be exploited. If you get to be morally right and practically wrong.

If MU undergrad implemented the curve, we could pat ourselves on the back saying "at MU, an A means something." But we would be doing a serious disservice to our students, and creating incentive for our more Machiavellian students to ignore their education just to make the GPA numbers.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

The reality of grades is that they are a system on which other systems rely. If undergrads are applying to med school, law school, competitive jobs, and they attend a university without grade inflation, they are at a numerical disadvantage.

This assumes that potential employers, schools, etc equate a given GPA between different schools.

Is a 3.5 equally impressive at Stanford or UWM all else equal?

From your MULS example, it sounds like you agree that dependent systems adapt when they realize that GPA is no longer a reliable metric. They use class rank.

Let's say MU decided this was an arms race and allowed the average GPA to rise to a 17.8, it would just reduce the value of a MU GPA. Essentially if you went to MU people wouldn't know what to make of your performance other than pass/fail.

[StillAWarrior]

This assumes that potential employers, schools, etc equate a given GPA between different schools.

Is a 3.5 equally impressive at Stanford or UWM all else equal?

From your MULS example, it sounds like you agree that dependent systems adapt when they realize that GPA is no longer a reliable metric. They use class rank.

Let's say MU decided this was an arms race and allowed the average GPA to rise to a 17.8, it would just reduce the value of a MU GPA. Essentially if you went to MU people wouldn't know what to make of your performance other than pass/fail.

Two thoughts:  1) grade inflation in HS is, in my opinion, one of the main reasons for the increased reliance upon standardized tests (ACT, SAT, AP) by colleges -- they simply don't know whether a 4.2 from one school is better or worse than a 4.7 (WTF?) from another; and 2) when we consider candidates from the two local law schools, we are well aware that the more highly regarded school inflates it's grades to a ridiculous degree (i.e., a 3.0 student from CSU is quite likely at least equivalent to a 3.5 from CWRU -- students at CSU have to earn their A's).

[jficke13]

This assumes that potential employers, schools, etc equate a given GPA between different schools.

Is a 3.5 equally impressive at Stanford or UWM all else equal?

From your MULS example, it sounds like you agree that dependent systems adapt when they realize that GPA is no longer a reliable metric. They use class rank.

Let's say MU decided this was an arms race and allowed the average GPA to rise to a 17.8, it would just reduce the value of a MU GPA. Essentially if you went to MU people wouldn't know what to make of your performance other than pass/fail.

If an institution's grade inflation is egregious (from what I've heard Harvard is like this), then only the name of the school will matter. I think it best serves your undergrad population to have a grade inflation environment that's roughly in line with its peers and if misaligned, misaligned to be mildly more generous.

I'm not advocating for grade inflation, I'm advocating against a forced curve for undergrads.

As for "Is a 3.5 equally impressive at Stanford or UWM all else equal?" My answer is absolutely not, unless the system you're applying for relies on numerical inputs for ranking. One of the inputs in the USNWR law school rankings is incoming class GPA. To that mindless formula, and to the extent that law schools prioritize inputs that will maximize their USNWR ranking, a 4.0 at UWM > 3.5 from Stanford.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

If an institution's grade inflation is egregious (from what I've heard Harvard is like this), then only the name of the school will matter. I think it best serves your undergrad population to have a grade inflation environment that's roughly in line with its peers and if misaligned, misaligned to be mildly more generous.

I'm not advocating for grade inflation, I'm advocating against a forced curve for undergrads.

As for "Is a 3.5 equally impressive at Stanford or UWM all else equal?" My answer is absolutely not, unless the system you're applying for relies on numerical inputs for ranking. One of the inputs in the USNWR law school rankings is incoming class GPA. To that mindless formula, and to the extent that law schools prioritize inputs that will maximize their USNWR ranking, a 4.0 at UWM > 3.5 from Stanford.

Interesting point on Harvard and the name of the school mattering most. There've been a fair amount of findings to support the notion that Harvard (for example) does not add much more value than a Tier 2 or 3 university... but rather they are able to select from a stronger pool of candidates than other schools.

If inflation gets to the point where nobody really cares what grades you got at Harvard (just that you didn't fail), then there isn't an incentive for students to do very strong work while in school. It would sort of negate the assumed benefit of going to school with a group of super smart people if they don't push each other.

Personally I think the fixed forced curve is the way to go, but I'm certainly not in education. I always come back to the idea of the "Marketplace of Ideas." That the role of an educational institution is to gather and incentivize people to challenge each other and compete respectfully. Everyone realizes the benefit of that system as the best ideas will rise to the top.

Removing the incentive to challenge others and push yourself doesn't support that model.

[GGGG]

Oh man, grade inflation and a forced-curve. This warms the nostalgic cockles of my law school heart.

The reality of grades is that they are a system on which other systems rely. If undergrads are applying to med school, law school, competitive jobs, and they attend a university without grade inflation, they are at a numerical disadvantage. Forcing a curve onto MU's undergrads would do two things:

1. Disadvantage them when applying to jobs/programs compared to schools without a forced curve.
2. Incentivize curve manipulation.

Elaborating on #2: MULS has a mandatory curve that's something like 2.95 - 3.05, which means every A has to be balanced by a C. Professors don't really like giving Cs, so there are LOTS of Bs given. When applying for jobs, trying to grade onto journals, etc. your class rank is considered. So, if almost everyone gets a B, a B aims you for about 50%, which is bad at a school like MU. Very bad. Unemployably bad. So... what to do?

Answer: Manipulate the curve. The curve is only implemented in classes with over 25 students. Take classes with the curve as possible regardless of what they are so as to get easier access to grades above B. Take easy classes not classes that challenge or educate you. Game the system because there is a flaw that can be exploited. If you get to be morally right and practically wrong.

If MU undergrad implemented the curve, we could pat ourselves on the back saying "at MU, an A means something." But we would be doing a serious disservice to our students, and creating incentive for our more Machiavellian students to ignore their education just to make the GPA numbers.

The problem with a forced curve is that it assumes that every student can't actually earn an 'A.'  So instead of grading someone on their proficiency of the material, they are basically getting ranked.  I would think that grades are about proficiency.  Not proficiency versus the others in the class.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

The problem with a forced curve is that it assumes that every student can't actually earn an 'A.'  So instead of grading someone on their proficiency of the material, they are basically getting ranked.  I would think that grades are about proficiency.  Not proficiency versus the others in the class.

I don't see how this is a problem that not every student can earn an A. It's sort of the entire point of grades.

Proficiency is binary... "pass" or "fail." Grades, or "a particular level of rank, quality, proficiency, intensity, or value" is relative and differentiates among those who pass. It's the point of the thing; to convey additional information about a candidate relative to her classmates.

A fixed curve gives information of what an A means. If anyone can get an A (there were classes at MU like this), then it doesn't say anything other than "this person passed." But if you know that the curve is anchored at a 3, an A means a tremendous amount.

Scarcity increases "value," and it seems that's the real debate here. If grades are of no value, then get rid of them and go to Pass/Fail.

[GGGG]

Proficiency is binary... thus pass/fail. Grades, or "a particular level of rank, quality, proficiency, intensity, or value" differentiates among those who pass. It's the point of the thing; to convey additional information about a candidate relative to her classmates.

IMO that's what class rank is for.

And I don't think proficiency is binary.  You can know 97% of material and therefore earn an A.  In theory, every person taking the class can.  Is it fair that if someone only knows 96% that they should get a 'C' because of an enforced curve?

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

IMO that's what class rank is for.

And I don't think proficiency is binary.  You can know 97% of material and therefore earn an A.  In theory, every person taking the class can.  Is it fair that if someone only knows 96% that they should get a 'C' because of an enforced curve?

How do you determine class rank if everyone gets an A? The very concept of ranking is to differentiate students regardless of how strong the class as a group is. Someone graduates at the bottom of every class, so it's of value to know who got the #1, #2, #3.... spots. If rankings are handled like grade inflation, schools will then allow for ties at #1, and that will become another meaningless metric.

I agree that proficiency is both binary and scaled.