Student Misconceptions About Grades Lead to Disputes With Professors
Or:
American Universities, Where All The Students Are Above-Average
Weird.
Allegedly, many students believe that they should get good grades merely for working hard and/or completing the assigned course work.
There's actually some unclarity in what some of the interviewed students say, but I don't have time to address that right now.
One problem, IMHO, is that this is the way high school works, and so it's reasonable for students to have these expectations. Sadly, it's also the way many college classes work. At my own institution--which is not excellent, but is better than pretty good--76.5% of students in lower-division classes get either 'A's or 'B's. Only a little over 17% get 'C's. The upper-division numbers are worse, though I can't remember them off the top of my head.
For a long time I wondered why I had so many whiny students. Turns out that the answer is: I'm giving them normal grades when they've become accustomed to inflated ones. It's not exactly their fault--I'm the one who's out of step with the mainstream. (Query for readers: should I switch to the prevailing standards?)
Perhaps we should give out two different grades--one for working hard and doing the assigned work, and another that actually indicates accomplishment. Of course there's actually no way to grade how hard they work, and no one would care about that grade...but it might satisfy students who want such a grade, and make it painfully clear that the actual grade assesses actual mastery of the material.
As I've said in the past, it's the students I feel sorry for in all this. They're being systematically mislead about their abilities. Unfortunately, so is society at large--it's more difficult for grad schools, law schools, med schools etc. to determine who's really talented. Almost everyone who tries hard is getting high grades. This is largely because many profs are too wimpy to withstand their students' displeasure about grades.
Grade inflation is a real problem. Some universities are already addressing it. The others need to get on it soon.
Or:
American Universities, Where All The Students Are Above-Average
Weird.
Allegedly, many students believe that they should get good grades merely for working hard and/or completing the assigned course work.
There's actually some unclarity in what some of the interviewed students say, but I don't have time to address that right now.
One problem, IMHO, is that this is the way high school works, and so it's reasonable for students to have these expectations. Sadly, it's also the way many college classes work. At my own institution--which is not excellent, but is better than pretty good--76.5% of students in lower-division classes get either 'A's or 'B's. Only a little over 17% get 'C's. The upper-division numbers are worse, though I can't remember them off the top of my head.
For a long time I wondered why I had so many whiny students. Turns out that the answer is: I'm giving them normal grades when they've become accustomed to inflated ones. It's not exactly their fault--I'm the one who's out of step with the mainstream. (Query for readers: should I switch to the prevailing standards?)
Perhaps we should give out two different grades--one for working hard and doing the assigned work, and another that actually indicates accomplishment. Of course there's actually no way to grade how hard they work, and no one would care about that grade...but it might satisfy students who want such a grade, and make it painfully clear that the actual grade assesses actual mastery of the material.
As I've said in the past, it's the students I feel sorry for in all this. They're being systematically mislead about their abilities. Unfortunately, so is society at large--it's more difficult for grad schools, law schools, med schools etc. to determine who's really talented. Almost everyone who tries hard is getting high grades. This is largely because many profs are too wimpy to withstand their students' displeasure about grades.
Grade inflation is a real problem. Some universities are already addressing it. The others need to get on it soon.
posted by Winston Smith at
9:36 AM
12 Comments:
Kee-rist. I remember getting multiple grades, just like you propose ... in elementary school! (I think I got breakdown grades in middle school, but there was an overall grade as well.)
Don't complain, rant! It seems like it's time for another installment in ...
Dutoitification of the American Student!
And perhaps you can write it pseudonymously for the college paper...
-mac
As one of your ex-students, I remember being a bit upset when I got a less-than-stellar grade in my first "real" phil class. I worked really hard in that class but admittedly still needed a lot of growth. I think your thorough comments and regular encouragement showed that you recognized my hard work. An inflated grade would not have challenged me to continue seeking improvement. I'm glad you gave me a 'C' in my first class. For me, it increased the value of the higher grades I received later.
That said, I do hope you are easier on your gen-ed students!
Hmmmmm....rant you say?
Interesting...
A for effort!
Maybe we should just do pass/fail. Is it actually possible to measure fine distinctions between, say, a 90 versus a 95? Sure, you can write a test and distribute the points to that degree, but are you actually measuring understanding? Does someone who got an A actually understand the material 5% more than someone who got an A-? What does it even mean to quantify a student's level of understanding in that way?
I'm mostly just bloviating, but at the same time I think these are reasonable questions that should be answered but typically aren't. It seems to be taken for granted that the 100-point system that maps to letter grades is the best way to measure student outcomes, but did we come to that decision in a rational way or are we just following an arbitrary tradition? I strongly suspect it's the latter.
To my knowledge, curricula are defined as a set of topics that the students need to understand. In the world of private sector employment, we define goals and apportion bonuses based on whether and how many of those are met (unless we work for AIG, apparently). Why not do the same for education? Assign point values to each section of the curriculum for the class, based on importance of that section in context of the overall goals of the class, then grade each section on a pass/fail basis.
Or something. I mean, you could model this within the current point system, but I think it's a distraction from the essential goal, which is that you need to know whether a student understands the material or not. I don't know that it's necessarily possible to get as granular as current grading systems do without just introducing a bunch of noise (did the student have a bad lunch that day and can't concentrate, is the question worded poorly in a way that confused some students but not others, etc., etc.) and doesn't reflect any real gradations in understanding.
This also seems to be a reflection of a larger problem, which is that many places, both colleges and employers, have so many more applicants than positions that even if they only look at the top 1% they're still overwhelmed by the number of people they have to sift through. It's tempting at that point to try to make the distinction between a 90 and a 91, even if there's no real difference between those two students, just for the sake of cutting down the applicant pool even further...
Joshua--
Does it really matter if you can't distinguish between an A and an A- in all cases? In the sciences, it's fairly easy--by the time students have taken several tests, it's usually pretty easy to determine where to "break" the grades, given a preferred distribution. (And the results are generally about what the TAs expect.
Where answers are in essay form, not so much.
But the difference between an A and A- isn't going to matter for your grade point average, so there's no reason to complain either. The difference between an A and a B should be pretty clear, on the other hand. I certainly never argued with professors or high school teachers about them, anyway. And I certainly didn't complain about the Cs. I knew I'd earned them. (God, did I ever hate Greek Philosophy.)
-mac
mac: That's part of what bugs me about it. Why make the A/A- distinction at all if it doesn't show up on the GPA? And you still have to decide what's a B+ versus an A-.
Even in the sciences, I don't think the distinction is particularly meaningful. You can measure it, sure. That's trivial. But I don't think it means anything.
The higher level schools use their GPAs to defent their "brand". For the same job or spot in grad school, a VCU 3.5 might be able to beat out a Yale 2.5. But if everyone at Yale has a 3.5, then their placement record will continue to be better. If VCU counters with grade inflation of their own, so much the better, since prospective employers will have almost nothing to go on beside the recognizabilty of the school.
Grade inflation is great for undermining the basis of comparison that makes a genuine meritocracy possible, helps to ensure that the highest positions are filled with graduates from a few schools, and still *looks* meritocratic. Everybody (in the ivy league) wins!
I had a professor at the same institution as you (Different department) who was also unwilling to inflate grades and I must say, I worked harder in his class than most to get my grade, but I felt much better about the grade I got than in many of my regular social science classes where my B was a forgone conclusion.
The professor for this particular class had no set grade scale. Rather he was an expert at making the results of his tests an almost perfect bell curve. He took that center point and made that a C. Then from there assigned the As, Bs, Ds, and of course the many fails that resulted in massive hate from the masses in his class.
The average that came out to be a C for my class was something like a 60. Now I must say it did seem to me that he was making the tests so hard to prove he was smarter than us as when he reviewed the tests he was always like "How didn't you all get that". That was a major annoyance but the forced work to get a good grade was just fine by me.
I'm another a former student of our esteemed host. Since graduating (Math & Philosophy) I spent some time substitute teaching in public schools, and have since gone on to grad school (Math, at a different institution), and have taught several 100 level courses. My experience suggests the following hypothesis:
Grade inflation is the result of Degree inflation, which is the result of the abysmal state of public education (i.e. grades K-12).
That is, students graduating from high schools these days lack many skills necessary for a successful and productive experience at higher institutions, and have been taught that their education is the responsibility of the instructor and the school system. In other words, if they haven't learned the material then their teachers have failed to do their job. This may be due to the repeated calls for 'accountability' from government and community organizations, e.g. No Child Left Behind & SOL's. Further, whereas university-level studies were once for the ambitious, intelligent, and fastidious, modern institutions have begun accepting far too many under-qualified applicants (driven in part by the desire for larger revenues through tuition).
The result: an undergraduate degree is worth less than in the past. Adjusting for inflation, I'd suggest the following equation:
1970 High school diploma = 2009 Bachelor's degree
It's probably an over-simplified appraisal, and my experience/expertise is minimal, but seems highly plausible from what I've seen so far, i.e. I can recall nothing that would contradict these assertions.
P.S. Have college students always been this terrible at writing essays? Or even coherent sentences? Who's writing the essays on their applications?
P.P.S. I'm compelled to add that I've exhibited many of the faults I mention above, e.g. reluctance to seek extra help/information/source material even when interested, and an underdeveloped work ethic. After all, I am a product of the public school system. Hence, I thought intellectual curiosity amounted to wanting the professor to say more the topic (as opposed to, you know, going to the library and looking it up myself). I didn't fully realize how lazy I had been until I started grad school, where those attitudes just don't work.
P.P.P.S. Might grade inflation have some relationship to relativism? (In the popular, non-technical sense, e.g. "This is my opinion, and you have to respect my beliefs.") That is, could this be a symptom of a larger problem where the passion/commitment to a point of view is confused with (or even more important than) the actual truth?
As a holder of a 1976 high school diploma, I'm skeptical. There's some real sample bias in my experience, but suburban Massachusetts high schools do far and away more today than Tennessee high schools have ever done.
Only one equivocal data point, but in 1976, the claim would have been that a 1950 high school diploma was as good as a 1976 college degree.
I don't think there was a golden age.
Taylor--
I gave you a 'C'??? I find that difficult to believe! Are you sure?
Josh--
Where the #@!! are you? I see you're still alive, which is good. Ben speculated that you were in grad schools somewhere, so that is apparently so. Math, thank God! I was worried it might be another life wasted on philosophy... Send me an e-mail!
p.s.: You owe me a paper, m*^#@& f#@%@&.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home