<p>Walter Williams: "An article in the Wall Street Journal (Jan. 30, 1997) reported that a 'bachelor of Arts degree in 1997 may not be the equal of a graduation certificate from an academic high school in 1947' . . . Academic dishonesty, coupled with incompetency, particularly at the undergraduate level, doesn’t bode well for the future of our nation. And who’s to blame? Most of the blame lies at the feet of the boards of trustees, who bear ultimate responsibility for the management of our colleges and universities."</p>
<p>I love Walter Williams.</p>
<p>But quoting him in this forum is like like bringing garlic bread to a vampire potluck.</p>
<p>I love Walter Williams, too.</p>
<p>I will always remember how he once talked about how it used to be important to “behave properly” to protect the “family name”. There was a time when parents would say that bad behavior would “ruin the family name.” That has pretty much disappeared, and he wanted to bring that idea back.</p>
<p>Couldn’t it be that grade inflation in top schools like Harvard is the result of an increase in the quality of the students? I’ve heard many say that the stats they had 10 years ago wouldn’t get them admitted today.</p>
<p>^^^^</p>
<p>My H was admitted to Harvard over 30 years ago. His stats wouldn’t get him admitted today. Few E/Cs, no hook, straight A’s, but not a spectacular SAT (of course, back then, people only took the SAT once and didn’t practice before! LOL )</p>
<p>Interesting premise Willaimsdad, but I wonder, too, if that doesn’t have to do with grade inflation in the HIGH Schools. Also, didn’t they change the way they score the SATs a little while ago? I haven’t really looked around at the teenagers in my house, some of whom have gone to Ivy Leagues this year, and thought, BOY ARE THEY SMART. ;)</p>
<p>I know there is grade creep involved in HS. And they recentered the SAT about 15 years ago. Prior to that MENSA would take SAT results as equivalent of an IQ test; not so any longer (FWIW). On the other hand, I know that my children were much better prepared for college than I was, and are smarter than I am.</p>
<p>We would also have to take the 20th century knowledge boom into consideration. The things kids needs to learn and master today to get a high grade seems to be a lot harder than days long gone.</p>
<p>I know there’s more to Biology, for instance, than there was when I took it 30+ years ago!</p>
<p>But overall, I tend to agree with his point. I remember looking at my father’s textbooks from HS, (pre WWII) and they seemed written on a much higher level than the average HS textbook of my day, with denser text and no pictures. </p>
<p>I’m not talking about AP classes, of course.</p>
<p>The modern AP Biology textbook (say Campbell) is massive and you’d better have a lot of brain cells available to store data and understand how things work and make conjectures about how things work. I’d say that there’s much more there than what I remember from high school biology. On the other hand I recall that honors calculus was much more proof-oriented than the modern AP Calculus curriculum. AP Calc emphasizes applications over theory. That’s probably more of a deliberate change - people interested in theory can take courses with that approach later on.</p>
<p>My stats wouldn’t have gotten me into BC today but I did zero preparation for any of the College Board exams.</p>
<p>I think our top students are much better prepared academically at my children’s high school than the top students were at mine. The breadth of their math and science courses in particular is superior to what was offered to us. However, the middle and bottom thirds today seem to be far worse off, and many cannot read on a high school level, do simple mathematical calculations (like make change) or write coherently with proper punctuation. They also lack basic cultural literacy and knowledge of American history, world geograpy, etc. One reason for the difference, though, could be due to the fact that the non-academically oriented students of my generation were encouraged to go the Vo-Tech route. It was socially acceptable and provided for decent-paying jobs after graduation. Now, most parents I know would rather die than see their child go to Vo-Tech school. So these kids stay in the regular curriculum all four years and flounder. If they go on to college, they require remedial classes.</p>
<p>He says that maybe idiots can earn A’s & B’s, well no idiot even gets into a top tier school but even if they did they wouldn’t be getting good grades, but I guess it depends on how you define “idiot”.</p>
<p>I also think that teaching methodology today is better than it was in my time. My S took an Anatomy-Physiology course in our Community College, and there were several 3D models at the college that made my jaw drop, for instance. We had to “imagine” it all from text, and the drawings and diagrams in the book. So of course, if kids learn more and learn it better, they would tend to get better grades, especially the best students in the best schools. So if you are grading against the total content of the course, and not comparing one kid’s knowledge against another’s, you might get a greater percentage of kids that are close to perfect than you used to have 20 or 30 years ago. The internet also makes things incredibly easy. Literature review paper due soon? No more looking for old articles in the library, or walking to it in the snow. Just google them!! Forgot what the homework was, or lost it? Email a friend, or a professor, or look it up on the intranet. When I went to visit JHU I attended a lecture, and I was amazed to see all the kids had the current class topic on their lap-tops. Wow!! It seemed like you don’t even have to take notes anymore!!</p>
<p>I think that the average grade of a B in universities is entirely acceptable. University students are already in the top 30% of everyone else their age when it comes to academics so why should the curve be reset to a C? It’s like punishing schools for being selective with who they accept.</p>
<p>I think we are much better at technical subjects today and school curriculum have moved away from memorization (IE geography) in favor of more conceptual things because it simply isn’t important in an age where you can look anything up in and instant. What use is learning something if you can find it in seconds anyways?</p>
<p>I agree that scientific and mathematical education has improved since the 1970s in this country, but traditional humanistic literacy has declined. Even top students do not read much anymore, mostly because they don’t have the time. To the ears of a lot of older educated people, today’s “elite” kids have stunted vocabularies and don’t express themselves particularly well in writing.</p>
<p>What does it say about the author that he quotes a 12 year old newspaper article to back up his premise? Not much, in my opinion. I’d give him a C or D on research for this piece. :p</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>All I know is this…</p>
<p>My 81 year old mom who only went as high as a CC for her formal education (Fullerton College in Calif) was very educated in various subject matters from Latin & French, to the classics, to writing skills, to math, to accounting, to physics and other sciences. </p>
<p>I am certain that her education exceeded many of those with Bachelor degrees today… Absolutely certain. </p>
<p>And, frankly, I think there are many who hold BA degrees today who couldn’t have passed the curriculum that she did.</p>
<p>NJSue’s post is on point. </p>
<p>The universities are just an extension of the high schools. At the affluent schools, there is heavy grade inflation. The schools who don’t follow this pattern wind up hurting their graduates, I believe. </p>
<p>Princeton’s faculty implemented steps several years ago to ration grades in order to limit grade inflation. I’m not sure what the fallout has been, but obviously they were aware of what Williams is writing about. </p>
<p>Frankly, the Harvard situation is very bad for some. If you are a Harvard grad who does not list departmental honors, you are pretty certainly in the bottom decile of your class. And if you ARE listing honors on your resume, you may be as low as the 9th decile.</p>
<p>
What are you talking about? That sounds absolutely ■■■■■-like, unless I’m missing something.</p>
<p>What do you love about Williams?</p>
<p>And what are you trying to say with the garlic/vampire reference?</p>
<p>I’ve worked for the state of California reviewing appeals for people whose applications were rejected for corrections officer. I can attest that there are people with college degrees who cannot write a coherent letter to (literally) save their jobs.</p>