<p>I’m really curious who the outlier is on the high end around 1945.</p>
<p>Only provided that everyone in the class took the same classes and professors. “Class” (if you are referring to a graduating class) rank can be gamed just as much as GPA. For example, there are many science courses here that sound hard if you read it off of a course catalog, but are in reality much easier than most science courses. A person looking at a GPA or class rank won’t know that a class called Drugs and Behavior, Animal behavior or Neuroendocrinology have an average of B+ while intro. to anthropology as B-/B. Even most psychology classes here are harder than those (maybe B-/B average for many). Two neuroscience majors will apply to med. schools and the one w/the lower GPA and “class rank” that took psyche based electives (there are many electives. Some may choose the actual neuroscience electives which are fairly easy though they sound hard, or psyche, bio, and anthropology electives, which by and large are tougher) will have the disadvantage, especially if they took the harder sounding neuroscience electives. Class rank only helps if median and average grades are published for each course. Needless to say doing such a thing causes problems. This transparency will make it clear to students which courses and profs. are easier, but then again perhaps those who take the challenge will be noticed. Even class rank needs a context.</p>
<p>To me I don’t see this as a good thing. It could easily mean that its getting easier for people to get good grades.</p>
<p>Grade distribution and exceptions go hand-in-hand. If when the average grade was around a C+ then if you had a 3.0 you would have seemed smart and hard working. Now when a student has a 3.0 the response is something more along the lines of “What’s wrong with you? No we won’t accept you for Law school. No we won’t accept you for Med school. No we won’t give you a job.” You can’t deflate grades because the expectations are already there, and you can’t lower expectations because the grade inflation is already there. Ultimately the only real problem with grade inflation is when it becomes hard to distinguish between two individuals.</p>
<p>why are people complaining about grade inflation, higher grades make you look better! and even if it is all relative than it really shouldn’t make a difference. It really doesn’t hurt anybody IMO.</p>
<p>It screws over anyone who wants a harder class or professor (while knowing they may not get an A, but instead learn much more w/a B in that class than another w/an A in someone else’s) because they risk falling behind in rank or GPA. It also devalues those with “high” GPAs (it’s extremely hard to pick out those w/exceptional qualities. In reality, everyone at the top no longer looks good as you say, but they only look okay or slightly better than average). They really don’t help, but in some cases they don’t particularly hurt either. It may also lower the incentive to learn/work and thus may lower learning outcomes overall. Your opinion assumes that college should only be about looking good in the end, not being educated well. Why can’t we have both is the question? Or why can’t we actually be expected do work at the level that will sharpen skills and “thus” make us look good at the same time? It shouldn’t be about looking good, it should be about actually being good. Either way, inflation is here to stay. And we’ll have to do other non-academic things to make us be and look good.</p>
<p>“To me I don’t see this as a good thing. It could easily mean that its getting easier for people to get good grades.”</p>
<p>Define a “good” grade. Good is always a subjective term. Grade inflation generally doesn’t necessarily make it easier to get a good grade, but it changes the definition of a good grade.</p>
<p>For example, economic inflation will cause people to have more money, but this does not make it easier to become rich, it just changes the value of the money. The definition of rich changes, just as the definition of a good grade changes.</p>
<p>Maybe in specific cases, grade inflation can be bad if it becomes unfair, but this chart shows a general trend over time, which changes the value. A 3.0 today may be worth less than a 3.0 was a few years ago, but I don’t see how this is inherently bad. The chart shows nothing about it becoming harder to distinguish the good and bad students, just changing trends in what defines them.</p>
<p>Bernie, I think you’re confusing difficulty/fairness with grade inflation. From my understanding, grade inflation is more about grading trends changing over time at the same institutions, not so much about one school vs. another, a class vs. another, or a student vs. another. Even if Cs were average, there would still be classes that are too easy and students who whine about grades.</p>
<p>I realize what it is, but when there is an upward trend where say B+ is now average among elite schools, that makes professors and classes grading lower (basically, not having really caught up) than that somewhat of a black sheep no matter the actual quality of their teaching. I’m kind of looking at it in terms of the individual institution. When average is B+ or higher (almost to B+/A- midpoint), you have to be really good to attract students to your classes when it ends up averages C+/B- (even if say a 2.9? slightly below a B). The exception of course are some intro. sequences which majors or people on a certain track must take. The chart doesn’t really say it, but many people are crowded at the top. It seems really weird when 3.5/4.0 is not good enough (because like 1/2 of the students have it or higher). This indicates some crowding at the top to me (as in, running out of options to distinguish students). Forbid it if you took tougher profs. and aren’t among them. Should we add a 5.0 scale or would that immediately shift grades to 4.0-5.0 range (at elite schools more like 4.2-4.8 for most. Probably would, as standards won’t really change. Profs. can basically still choose to use the top 2 brackets)? At least when C was average, one had 3 tiers to work with instead of the two you have now to distinguish between average, above average, good, solid, and awesome. Now it seems that B+/A can be somewhat arbitrary in certain courses (especially writing intensive and curved courses. Remember allusion to top students in beloved prof’s class. It’s now a lot more likely for a student to argue over why a B+ wasn’t an A as the B grades and perhaps the A-s may not have huge differences). It just makes grading more tricky and arbitrary. Will you employ a grading mechanism that saves people from C/D/F grades while leaving many B-grades (say on a normal scale) students untouched or perhaps push some of the Bs to As and maybe an isolated C+ to a B-/B and call it a day (thus not being overly generous to “average” students especially when the average is much worse than what it should be)? The inflationary trend seems to promote saving those at the bottom I guess so it may often have implications for the level of fairness in grading and for the pre-dominant level of difficulty found acceptable in coursework. Basically how low can you go before ticking students off and inciting fear in prospective students. Back when it was C (or even solid C+/B- average), they could probably go much lower. Also, keeping a class at a B+ average in many cases is difficult if you don’t water down material or relax grading standards or syllabi rigor in general. A C/C+/B- (maybe even a solid B) is a different story. There is much more wiggle room if any of those were the norm.</p>
<p>I guess the question is, how difficult is it to work w/in only the B- to A realm when grading? Is it exactly as easy or difficult as when a C was average, especially when B+ is set as an average for many courses. What distinguishes B,B+, A-, A especially when they must be distributed in a way that yields 3.3ish?</p>
<p>I think there’s a lot more pressure now to get A’s.</p>
<p>I know at my private high school, a lot of students were told by their parents that if they didn’t have straight A’s then they would take them out of the school or ground them or something. They would have a punishment. I remember one student had everything taken away from him because he had a B+ in a Latin class. I mean his parents wouldn’t let him watch TV, have his iPod, play video games, get on the internet, etc. for an entire year. Needless to say, for the rest of high school, he made straight A’s. But I mean, his parents basically did everything in their power to punish him and he had one single B+ and the rest of his classes were A’s! That’s crazy in my opinion.</p>
<p>I knew so many students at my high school who basically begged and pleaded with teachers to give them A’s. They would ask for extra credit work. They would do anything to get an A. I mean anything that was legal and ethical. It wasn’t like they felt like they were entitled to an A for just doing the minimum work (which at my school, would in fact give you a C, a B- if you were lucky.) They just felt like they were entitled to the optino of doing extra work to get that A.</p>
<p>My high school, I don’t think that they had a big problem with grade inflation. In my senior class, only three students had straight A’s. About ten or fifteen had A’s and B’s. The rest had at least one C or D.</p>
<p>I never understood how my public school counterparts could apply to schools with 5.+ GPA’s and not have nearly as much work as we did.</p>
<p>Well I don’t think we need to hear from stuck up private school kids, I see that enough in college.</p>
<p>And elite schools with B+ averages? Damn that’s high. I think the avg umich engineering GPA is like s 2.9</p>
<p>Who cares if the average is higher, its all relative. Employers realize a 3.4 at school A is like a 3.7 at school B</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did the parents use Amy Chua as their model?</p>
<p>[Why</a> Chinese Mothers Are Superior - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html]Why”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And that is why schools inflate grades. More grade inflation means that the school’s students have a better chance at getting into medical schools, law schools, and jobs that screen by GPA without regard for school and course difficulty, rigor, and grading policy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>High school grade inflation means that HYPSM and similarly selective schools can fill their freshman classes several times over with top GPA students. Distinguishing which applicants to accept involves an opaque holistic process (and plenty of people ask on these forums how to make themselves look better in this process).</p>
<p>At the end of the day I personally believe that the most pressing matter is the low graduation rate in higher education. I do not care if a person is going for a BS or a certificate from community college, it is my opinion that more emphasis should be placed on retention and graduation than grade inflation.</p>
<p>On a side note I was told as a new TA that good teachers have successful students. This pretty much boils down to “good profs give good grades.”</p>
<p>I was watching some stupid “College Conspiracy” video my friend sent, but there was an interesting point made within it. One of the speakers said that at the college he teaches at there are plaques with the names of everyone who had ever achieved a 4.0 GPA in the school. The first plaque has 22 names on it with people spreading from the early twentieth century up until the early 2000s. There are then four additional plaques, in which all of the students listed graduated between 2005-present. </p>
<p>This shows how our grading system has become increasing easier even over the past decade. a 4.0 GPA used to mean something…now…psh…</p>
<p>There are a lot of majors a 4.0 would still ne really impressive in Haha</p>
<p>Part of the problem is that if the stakes are high, i.e. job offers, admission to med/grad/law school, pay incentives, internships, etc., based almost exclusively on ‘objective’ measures, such as GPA, grades will go up. Otherwise, graduates from certain institutions are at a disadvantage.</p>
<p>Bowtie: I believe this is how elite schools actually achieve their grad. rates. They admit wealthier students and give great fin. aid to those who aren’t and then they inflate grades. As long as you are comfortable w/students at other colleges w/currently low grad. rates not learning upon graduation, they can employ the same method. It works in that context.</p>
<p>AUGgirl: Of course there is a lot of pressure to get As, especially when most grades are given between B- and A. If schools were legit hard and As weren’t as common this wouldn’t be the case. I was in an AP/honors program at a public school that probably gave as much work or more (and then gave ridiculous exams that on the 4X4 block schedule may require 2 days/class periods to complete) than a private school and then it also graded harder. There were really no extra credit options and begging. The only extra credit would appear on an exam, if you don’t get it then, then oh well. The fact that extra credit and begging is common indicates there is some quasi-inflation even though it may involve extra work. At my school, you had to perform against what was on the syllabus and that’s it. Again, no one would get 4.0s, including valedictorian (mines is now at Yale w/o a 4.0 so it’s possible. The 3rd place student is also at yield. These are both excellent, very bright students. And yes, one is very rich, this person is the val.) and sal., even when you weight the APs. Some would be hard enough so that you still end up w/a B/B+ and maybe B- even after a 3-5 point addition. AP Chem and Calc. come to mind, which are classes where everyone was allowed to fail a quarter. The social science courses would generally have 1-2 quarters where most of the class would have a C grade on the report card (except AP gov. w/my favorite teacher who willingly gives D/Fs to AP, honors, and traditional students. She teaches all of them with higher than normal rigor. The tough love is spread evenly. The same could be said for my AP English Professors. Those were really tough graders). Luckily only the final course grade goes on the transcript, so you get 2-3 additional quarters to get it right if APs are year round. I wouldn’t quickly pass judgement on tougher courses at public schools. That may apply for some, but certainly not all. Ours was really solid and it wasn’t at a suburban school or anything. Oh, but yeah, we don’t do anything above 4.0 (no one gets that anyway), so we certainly don’t apply with 5.? or anything over a 4.0 for that matter (I don’t think) b/c don’t do 4.0 system, they convert our numerical grades to letters and if they’ve been pre-weighted by the HS, some elite schools will just leave the weight and convert to a 4.0 system. Emory for example, clearly rescales GPAs so that they are out of 4.0 as opposed to 4-5.? So if you go to our class profile, you won’t see something like: "Oh look: We have a GPA between 4.1-4.3, nope it’s 3.74-3.99UW. I’d imagine the 4.0+ stats. that some schools put really scare some people. Emory probably realizes that that type of grading is ridiculous and doesn’t reflect on how college grading works. So a person w/a 4.5 in HS may have to get over only getting a 3.4-3.5 here on top of the fact that there is no A+.</p>
<p>Purpleduck: The sciences at the elite schools are still in the “dark ages” lol. The averages are still low there, they may range from 2.9-3.2 depending on the school. Here, about 4 science depts. give grades that average 2.8-2.9, and others maybe 3.0-3.1, however, some elite schools don’t have sciences whose total average grades end up below 3.0 (I think I read Duke was 3.1-3.2), though they may have a couple of classes w/in the dept. that go that low. 2.8-2.9 comes from Emory math, chem, bio, and physics making many science classes hard enough so that average either lands at B- (perhaps just lecture, or perhaps a combination of lecture and lab. In the latter case, the lecture may have a C/C+ average and the lab B+/A- depending on instructor, so it comes out to B-) or is low and is recentered to a B-. B- is 2.7 (and this is the majority of those 4’s courses), so 2.8-2.9 results from some classes that are indeed easier or curved higher than normal. For the chem, physics, and math dept, it’s actually the intro. courses (they can have anywhere from 2.5-3.2 depending on the strength of the class b/c they aren’t curved. But if any class will be higher than normal, it’s these), in bio, it’s normally a couple of the upperlevel courses (gen. bio normally has 2.5-2.7 pretty consistently) which may curve or grade to B/B+. But 2 classes that do this are actually kind of challenging it’s just that questions on exams are open ended and as long as they make sense scientifically and w/in the scope of what we learned, we get the benefit of the doubt. Emphasis is on facts and then using them to think scientifically (use the facts and critical thinking for completely new situations on exam. No simple recall or multiple choice, all data analysis and essay) in this class. The prof. is really good enough to yield B/B+ in such an environment. No real lecture, a discussion/group problem solving format that involves him heavily engaging w/students. Some classes like animal behavior (at least this dude is decent lecturer and attempts to engage his large class), human physiology, and evolutionary biology are flat out easy lecture courses, where the profs. don’t care (and the class is too large) enough to make it more rigorous than very simple multiple choice exams. But overall, I assure you that sciences at elite schools are still hard. For example, we don’t have engineering, but I know that many of our natural science courses are more intense than the ones at Georgia Tech (theirs seemed memory heavy and ours critical thinking heavy. Just shows the two different focuses of institutions. A liberal arts based institution even approaches the sciences differently b/c as an earlier poster mentioned, they are a liberal art).</p>
<p>You raise a good point. The gap between sciences/engineering and humanities/social science grading may have gotten larger. It’s perhaps because grading in the latter is much harder for profs. for various reasons. Perhaps it’s the effect I describe in the 2 challenging classes w/3.0-3.3 average, however that’s doubtful as many humanities and social sciences have like 3.5-3.7 averages. That seems to reflect that the profs. are scared to have specific grading standards or give below a certain grade more so than giving students the benefit of the doubt as long as it is written well and has factual/evidential support. Maybe writing is now viewed as an art (basically, write what you want, interpret w/e source how you want, but just don’t make mechanical and grammatical errors) that shouldn’t be judged harshly so as to avoid breaking spirits of undergrads in which case it is difficult to grade effectively in these disciplines. I mean, how can you break it to a student that got a 4.5 in HS, a 14-1600 on the SAT, 5s on writing intensive APs, and was accepted to X elite institution that they got a C/C+ on a writing assignment b/c it didn’t meet the standards of college writing. I mean, supposedly AP/IB is college level right (and thus the student w/5s/7s is perfect right? lol) ? Basically, colleges should just keep the illusion going.</p>
<p>Also, since these courses (you know ones graded like this) and majors compose the bulk of most top research institutions, this may explain why the average is around B+ and is higher at many of the elite institutions. I just think it’s weird that we are the only school w/o engineering yet many of the other top 20 schools w/engineering still manage to give higher grades. They clearly have different grading conventions, even in the sciences.</p>
<p>That’s why I’m happy I don’t have to take any humanities writing course. Grading is too subjective. I feel like it would be similar to honors english in high school.</p>
<p>People complain about “subjective” grading in humanities classes, but there are still standards, many spelled out in grading rubrics. It’s hard to take someone seriously when they don’t put the effort into following a rubric, meeting the standards, using proper writing conventions and formats, then complain about subjective grading.</p>