<p>I'm very skeptical about the whole phenomenon of grade inflation. In fact, US Department of Education figures show that average undergraduate GPAs have decreased since the 60s and 70s (I read this in the Chronicle of Higher Education). People have been claiming that Harvard gives out As and Bs too easily since 1860(!). Can this really be true? From what I understand of grade inflation, it's basically when no matter what you turn in.. you get at least a B or above on it. I've heard claims that schools like Harvard and Stanford grade on this "A to B continuum." Regardless, my point is this: I believe grading at WashU to be fair, and there is data to indicate that lower grades are given out more frequently that at its peer institutions. </p>
<p>With respect to U Chicago: I've heard WashU's avg GPA is something like 3.3. I admit that things are probably changing over at Chicago; maybe they realized that, whatever the school's reputation, they were actually <em>hurting</em> their student's chances by only giving out As once in a blue moon.</p>
<p>Also, all of my high school friends are sitting in state schools ("prestigious" state schools, at that) playing video games all and getting 3.9something GPAs. Are they incredibly intelligent? Not really, although they're not dumb. So maybe there's grade inflation at state schools... I mean, they're having a really easy time there, right? Let me explain what I think is going on here. Not too long ago, it was an accomplishment to go to college: not many people went. Today, an astounding number of people go. I've had at least two hair stylists with BAs in psychology. A friend told that the local restaurant he worked for required a BA for a head waiter position. In other words, an undergraduate education is ubiquitous in 2006. Whereas those with college educations have always been thought to earn significantly more than those with only a high school diploma, this too is changing. Inflation-adjusted earnings for college graduates have been steadily <em>declining</em> since 1990. Apparently, a college education is worth about $200,000 in increased salary over a lifetime (I sure hope that number is after the $150,000 price tag). First- and (especially) Second-tier state schools are full of students who would never have gone to college 30-40 years ago. They'd have graduated high school and begun some sort of career, or maybe they'd have gotten some vocational training. But now they're in college, and I believe standards have decreased as a result, allowing my friends to study less and get better grades than at our high schol (it should be the other way around, shouldn't it?). Very talented students, however, still enroll in state schools. As there's no grade higher than an A, they also get a high GPA. When comparing students, it's unfortunately much easier to look at a number (GPA) than to take the time to investigate the academic rigor of the school and the program of study taken at said school (this, particularly, is really a shame). So, when Average Joe with a 3.7 GPA from Ohio State and Jane, who graduate from U Chicago with a 2.9, apply for a job, it's really hard for employers to ignore this disparity. Despite their best intentions in assigning to U Chicago the difficulty and prestige it deserves, they can't help but feel uneasy that Jane's "number" is lower. I think this is really what it comes down to: the average quiality of state school students has decreased while their GPA remains unchanged, for the most part. In response, the GPA of the average elite private school student has adjusted accordingly. Nevertheless, I think that at WashU some more work still goes into earning those higher grades than at other institutions.</p>
<p>Some people do get bad grades at prestigious school: notably, our political leaders (Bush, Kerry, Al Gore, &c)</p>