<p>There is no panacea, my S received the worst of the two approaches to grading in a single academic year. For one class, he received a B+ even though his combined scores where 94.5% (out of 100%) because the prof graded on a curve, and a B in another class even though he had the highest score in the course (88%), because the prof did not. S took it in stride and said he would just have to ratchet it up a bit now that he is coming to understand the rules, ...there aren't any. As he said, know thy environment and adjust accordingly. By the way, he loved both courses.</p>
<p>Yup, so if Cornell decides to take some serious action to curb grade inflation, you may see much more than a GPA which is "a bit lower." Of course, if they do decide to take some action, it is likely to be more in line with Princeton. They had lots of attention with a goal of reducing A's from about 45% to 35%. They are sure not talking about cutting back A's to 10 or 20% and throwing in a lot of C's.</p>
<p>it seems as if a bit of a disconnect has developed within this conversation. few here seem to be advocating the arbitrary deflating of grades in order to achieve a more proper distribution. in other words, it is indeed true that it doesnt make much sense to go give a student who has mastered the material before him a 'c' grade. the question that arises in my mind is why it has gotten to the point where everyone has mastered the material in the first place.</p>
<p>im sure everyone here who has taken more than a semester or two of college courses has a very good understanding of how wildly both expectations and grades can vary within a school, even within different sections of a course at a school. not surprisingly, the most memorable and beneficial classes were often those that found themselves on the 'challenging' part of the spectrum.</p>
<p>so why not simply challenge all professors to reach for this standard of educational excellence? why not expect more out of students in EVERY class, 'more' being an amount that would result in a more normal distribution of grades? yes, this means that much more will be expected at harvard than the local community college. but isnt that the point? i actively avoided the 'easy' professors at my school; my parents werent paying for me to get a 4.0 without challenging myself.</p>
<p>is this perhaps a somewhat naive view of the real world? sure. does it mean that harvard grad who get a 2.5 will be doomed for life? i think we would be underestimating americas businesses and graduate schools to think so. and hey, at the very least it would return some normalcy to college paranoia. harvard would be a place for the best and brightest to challenge themselves academically... not a perceived ticket to wealth. the problem, of course, is that in this rankings-obsessed age schools will be pretty hard-pressed to create disincentives to attend.</p>
<p>Null discussions such as these are the reason why so many schools, including prestigious ones such as Yale Law School, have abandoned grades in favor of written evaluations.</p>
<p>As a student of New College of Florida, I can attest to the fact that written evaluations are more useful than letters or numbers: They specifically enumerate one's strengths and weaknesses, and they strive for objectivity in a way that cannot be conveyed by the traditional grading system/scale.</p>
<p>The lack of grades at New College, moreover, does not hurt our graduates' chances of getting into the most prestigious graduate schools. Grad schools care about the quality of your work, professor recommendations, and GRE scores more than GPA, which they already understand to be a biased indicator.</p>
<p>I dunno Josh
Evergreen also doesn't have grades- and since some grad schools have so many applicants there has to be some way to sort initially- it may hurt some candidates applying to some schools- schools like the UW state cut off numbers to apply to some of their grad programs.</p>
<p>Reed at least does have grades- they just don't routinely discuss them and you have to request to see them.</p>
<p>It's always seemed to me that the goal of a good teacher is for everyone to master the material. While, I like the idea of recognizing excellence, I'm definitely against curves just for the sake of a curve - no matter what the class size is.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>The lack of grades at New College, moreover, does not hurt our graduates' chances of getting into the most prestigious graduate schools. Grad schools care about the quality of your work, professor recommendations, and GRE scores more than GPA, which they already understand to be a biased indicator<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I wouldn't count on it. UC Santa Cruz tried the "written evaluations instead of grades" experiment and stuck with it for decades. But in the the end they had to start giving grades -- not because they wanted to but because their students demanded it. They were having difficulty when it came time to apply to grad or professional school. Many grad schools just didn't know what to make of the evaluations.</p>
<p>
S's prof announced that the median grade on a test was "a very respectable 66/100" and that the top grade was 85. Would a grade that would normally convert to a D+ be considered "very respectable? Only if the prof knew that the students were not expected to answer all questions.
And I suppose it's my background as a science major that makes me see a test with a low average score as far preferable to one with a high average score. </p>
<p>Classes with high average test scores have always made me very nervous -- there's very little room for error, and an incorrect answer on one question can mean the difference between letter grades. Given a choice between taking a test with an average of 90 (SD 5) and one with an average of 60 (SD 15), I'll take the second one every time.</p>
<p>MIT has a policy to never allow curves to hurt students -- if a test's average is 97, then everyone can get an A. As you might imagine, things of that nature rarely occur.</p>
<p>I think that a major driver of the commotion at Harvard stemmed over the fact that somewhere around 90% of graduates receive Latin Honors. While I agree that the students there are going to be particularly gifted, I don't believe that is a sound reason for the grade distribution to be so skewed--there has to be some differentiation between students. IMHO, when you evaluate someone's undergrad work (for grad school admissions, for example), you need to bits of information--their school's name and their GPA. The school should give you an indication of who the student is working with and the GPA should give you an indication of where they stand amongst their peers. That doesn't seem to be the general practice, however, and no one wants to be the one to give or receive a C these days no matter what school.</p>
<p>As for dealing with classes where everyone masters the material, I think that curving down is a temporary solution--if students are consistently handing in A level work, then the class needs to be restructured to include tougher and more advanced material.</p>
<p>As for BU, as a recent graduate I can tell you that certain schools (not all) at BU do have strict grading practices (though not necessarily policies) and I think that it's a good and a bad thing. For one, I can honestly say that I earned my GPA and I feel that a lot of other schools dilute the value of their own degrees by grading too liberally. On the other hand, though, I do feel that the grading practices do hurt students when looking for their first job and applying to grad school, although (at least in my experience) employers seem to be impressed with the structure of some of BU's programs and some of the things students do in their four years.</p>
<p>It's hard to prove whether or not delfation exists because only partial data has been released. While the average GPA doesn't seem that bad, I would like to point out that the cutoff for the top 5% in the mangement school (also the cutoff for Summa Cum Laude) was a 3.58 this year, which sounds a bit low to me. The highest GPA of my graduating class was a 3.8. I think that the problem may be that the distribution of the grades clusters too much around a 3.0. If BU, for instance, gave out Bs to 100% of its class while another comparable school gave out 50% As and 50% Cs, the overall average GPA would be the same; however, when the top student from BU competes for a job against the top student from that second school, he will be looked down upon because of his lower GPA despite the fact that they may have worked equally as hard during their undergrad years.</p>
<p>The commotion at Harvard was indeed due to the fact that 90% iof students were receiving Latin Honors. But that was not associated with grade inflation per se. The chief cause was that many chose to write a senior thesis and that the combined thesis grade and GPA was set too low. Raise the qualifying GPA and the percentage of Latin Honors was halved, in line with other schools. The GPA itself did not necessarily have to change to achieve that goal.</p>
<p>Mollie:</p>
<p>I agree. A test where everyone gets an A is probably too easy--at least for that class. But a test that has been deliberately made more difficult should be scored accordingly. If the prof expects that students will be able to answer only 75% of the questions in the allotted time--whether or not they know the materials, and some do answer 75%, they should not be given a score of 75/100, usually the equivalent of a C. Levels of difficulty of tests are not set in stone. This is where math/sciences tests can be just as "subjective" as tests in the humanities and social sciences.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Grade deflation sounds like a good thing until it happens to you. <<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Isn't this the truth!! </p>
<p>I remember thinking that you had to be really outstanding to get an A in a class at an HYPS institution, but then you really had to work to get a C at the same institutions (lazy, unmotivated, don't go to class, etc.). The former may be true, but I'm not so sure about the latter anymore (based on my D's experience...).</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>For a class of 500 students a bell curve would more likely be appropriate, assuming again that the class is randomly drawn from the larger population - which is tends not to be true at high-end schools.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Speaking of randomly drawn--I remember a calculus class I had in college--a big one with hundreds of students. The teacher was awful, the tests were hard, and the bottom third of the class dropped it. The guy still graded on the curve even though the sample was definitely skewed. Burns me up still to this day...</p>
<p>When I attended LAC #1, freshman biology met on Saturday morning at 8 a.m., and they took attendance, and graded on a straight curve based on the number of folks who originally registered. They absolutely needed to get rid of 70% of the premeds, and this was their way of doing it quickly. I wasn't a premed, and got a C+! (I felt very guilty afterwards. ;)) The really sad part is that at least half of those who didn't continue would be great doctors today had they attended a second-tier state university.</p>
<p>Then let me tell you about the time I walked to and from school through the snow five miles uphill....</p>
<p>"If the prof expects that students will be able to answer only 75% of the questions in the allotted time--"</p>
<p>It seems to me that on something like a math test - this means those who can work fast get As those who are just as smart, but not as quick get Bs or worse. What's fair in that? Why not decide how much math you were supposed to learn in the course and test for that? Period.</p>
<p>joshnewcollege, I don't really think Yale has abandoned grades very much at all. Like most law schools, GPA and the LSAT are the keys, but certainly you're right in the factors such as letters of rec play huge roles in the best of law schools, more significant roles than at anything outside of the top three.</p>
<p>I think some people here don't have much of an understanding of how graduate schools pick their students, and have only a limited understanding of how professional schools do. Not that I am an expert, let me share what I understand. Most law schools are essentially GPA + LSAT score, most med school basically GPA and MCAT score. Business schools weigh heavily towards life and work experience and GPA can be essentially mitigated completely, and they take into account the GMAT score. Within academic graduate school in the humanities and social sciences, GPA is factor which allows your application a serious reading or not, which qualifies you and most certainly does not admit you- letters of rec are key, writing samples, and statement of intent, among a few other things. Also, publications and scholarship are somewhat important. GREs are of marginal importance. As far as I understand it for the sciences, research is very important, as is GPA and letters of rec. GREs are somewhat important. Academic graduate schools (what I call graduate schools, which I distinguish from professional schools) are looking to admit future colleagues and those with potential to research, not grade-whore drones.</p>
<p>Also, how fair an assumption is it that someone who is near the bottom of the Harvard or other elite college class could go to "a state school" (which I imagine includes everything from William and Mary, Berkeley, U Va, U Mich, UNC Chapel Hill, UCLA, U Wisconsin, to all those considered lesser, the former category some people seem to forget) and be amazing. There are a lot of factors- for instance, if one is surrounded by slackers, I think one is more likely to slack. While there are good chances that those who get into the most elite private schools would excell in most places, it's not assured, and perhaps they'll find less friendly profs, or boredom with such easy material, or difficulty with being weeded out of harsh curves, etc.</p>
<p>Say "they'll know your GPA means more" all you want, but US NEWS is omnipresent.</p>
<p>yale LAW school doesnt have grades-- they consider grades for admissions of course, but once you get in, there are no grades during law school</p>
<p>I am talking about to retain their spot in US News based on their admissions. US News doesn't record "3.2 UChicago, 3.2 Pton, 3.9 H, etc."</p>
<p>I think most of us do understand the importanct of GPA's. That is why I have some reservations about grade deflation. Maybe grad schools do make some allowance for students graduating from schools with grade deflation, but I doubt it. Are they going to look at the A student from Harvard and think that 90% of the Harvard grads have A averages? Would they instead pick the student from U Chi with substantially lower grades - but who really worked and learned more?</p>
<p>By the way I believe I said that the bottom students at the HYPS could be amazing at almost any State U. I certainly would not include UMich, U Va and other great State U's. My D is considerably below the bottom of HYPS. Her SAT's, grades, and ranking place her in the bottom 25% at JHU. She works real hard to get a B average. Last year she took a course at a State U and had no problem getting an A. She is taking summer courses at another State U and should have no problem getting A's. At least based on the course descriptions and levels, these courses at the State U's are equivalent to the courses at JHU. If she applies to grad school, which will look better - near straight A's from a State U, or a B average from JHU? Maybe her JHU grades will increase, but with the number and difficulty of courses she plans to take next year, I doubt it.</p>