<p>ModestMelody -- you are describing a use of grades different from what I think 90% of teachers and students expect.</p>
<p>As a practical matter, you are describing 3,500 different criteria for what a grade means... each professor at each university will have their own standard of achievement appropriate to A, B, etc. The only way I can think of around this is the High School AP type test, which purports to test every student in the US against the same standard of knowledge no matter where taught.</p>
<p>At least if a grade represents a comparison of performance of students within a partular class, then all one has to do as an outside evaluator is to draw some simple conclusions: "Let's see now... Student A got a B in x class at Bowdoin... OK, I know the quality of student at Bowdoin, so I know what that means. Student B got an C in the same x class at Brown. OK, I know ht quality of student at Brown, and I know how they grade, so I know what that C means. And so on.</p>
<p>There are many areas of evaluation in business, sport, the arts, where there simply are no fixed standards of achievement. There are some, though. The CPA exam is an example. Certain examps for professional designations. I just don't see how 3,500 professors all teaching introduction to Modern Economic Theory can have a set standard common to all 3,500 classes offered in all US Universities so that the grade in that course compares to a grade granted anywhere else that course is offered.</p>
<p>I don't necessarily think they should have a set standard or need to. That's my point. I don't think a standard exists now. There is no generally accepted way to curve a course anymore than there are standards across the 3,500 classes.</p>
<p>I think the obsession with grades is misplaced and grades are misused, that's my whole point. Some places run closer to my model than others. In fact, while some Brown professors complained about inflation in a recent article in the Brown Daily Herald, many professors had responses similar to mine.</p>
<p>Grades are assessments of students by professors for work done in a specific class-- they're not designed for cross-institutional comparison or sweeping generalizations, etc. Hell, GPAs are no more standardized in high school than they are in college but you don't hear people complaining about that. I think people who view this as an "issue" are part of a growing group of people of a particular mindset that have attempted to transform the use of measures beyond what they're designed for and beyond what they can do well.</p>
<p>modestmelody -- what you are suggesting would make it much harder for grad school adcoms (e.g. Yale Law School, Stanford Business School, Berkeley English Dept, etc.) and business (or non-profit) recruiters (e.g the Bains, the Googles, the Goldman Sach's of the world) who are in a position the hire only the <em>very</em> cream of the crop to cull the list of thousands of aspirants down to a number that can be more thoroughly vetted within the budgets these institutions run on.</p>
<p>What is the function of the grading system anyway? Sure, part of it is for the student to know where they stand with respect to the professor's standard. In High School, grades are used for university admissions. In college, grades are again used for grad school admissions.</p>
<p>If you take your argument to its conclusion -- either eliminate or bundle grades to the point on non-differentiation -- what objective measure remains for institutions to discern who is a high achiever and who is middle of the pack?</p>
<p>I don't think you have to bundle grades based on what I just said, and I also don't think it's an institutions job to make adcoms or businesses jobs any easier. The only reason high school GPA can even be looked at is because colleges have significant data on the structures at almost all schools and do a lot of work specializing and learning these systems so as to be able to make these grades mean something. Honestly, that's not making anyone's job any easier than the system I proposed.</p>
<p>I think that business would just be fine recruiting people the old fashion way-- interview them, use internships for screening, etc. Most areas do this anyway. If people are unsuccessful, you fire them, the same as anyone else who's not cut out for work despite the fact that some metric, GPA, which in no way reflects how well you'll be at doing something in industry, was used to screen you before.</p>
<p>Google doesn't use GPA-- they give exams and have an extensive hiring process that can last six months or more. They seem to think that just knowing you did well in class is not enough to build successful employees.</p>
<p>My point is, you're glorifying the usefulness of a GPA way, way beyond it's actual usefulness. Not only is it not uniform (and never will or could be), it's not even that powerful a predictor of, frankly, anything. GPA is already a dicey, mixed bag metric. So why pretend that it's any more useful than it is?</p>
<p>In fact, it would be far more meaningful if my system was used and grading rubrics/expectations were clearly outlined for each course. Average score for the class isn't helpful-- everyone may have done well. Curves aren't helpful-- if this particular year students were not as good as years past the threshold for an A changes significantly to the detriment of those taking the class and those evaluating. Standards for each year are meaningful and transparent and describe precisely what is expecting to earn a certain grade.</p>
<p>Grades are nonsense almost always and do not provide any of the information most people typically assume they do.</p>
<p>Modest,</p>
<p>I realize grades have evolved into a shorthand tool for adcoms and recruiters to eliminate 80-90% of aspirants to a job/internship/grad school slot, but it is what it is. They can then take the remaining 10-20% and actually get to know them.</p>
<p>Do you think these recruiters/adcoms have time to interview every aspirant?</p>