Grade inflation seems to be a recurring favorite among politicians, journalists and educational critics, specially when discussing colleges. Reportedly, the number of high grades goes up year after year and so the obvious inference is that courses are easier, standards are falling or both. Yet the only reports I recall reading are always about top schools like Harvard, Cambridge and Oxford. Perhaps the smart are getting smarter.
Harvard reportedly accepts only 5% of applicants and Oxford 18%, although Harvard receives 40,000 applications compared to 19,000 at Oxford and one can reasonably assume more unsuitable applicants to the former. Applicants are likely to come from the upper ranges of student performance and in turn, acceptances are likely to come from the upper ranges of applicants. Thus an average incoming GPA of 4.0 (or close to a 6.0 on a weighted scale) is going to be the norm.
And this leads to the conundrum. If a student coming in to a school has straight As, and s/he continues to perform at the same level, then s/he will continue to have straight As. If an entire cohort comes in with straight As, then conceivably they will continue to receive straight As, so an A at Harvard should be the norm.
If Harvard were to rank its students, ie grade relatively, then some students will score an A and some a C and conceivably some a D. Likewise with "grading on a curve" where performance levels and the numbers of each grade awarded are predetermined irrespective of reality. Of course this is problematic where, for example, an assessment has 100 correct answers and everyone scores 95 or higher. Furthermore, how do you compare an A in Literature, Art or Music with an A in Math, Physics or statistics?
If Harvard were to adopt a relative- assessment approach, then a D grade from Harvard could conceivably be equal to an A from the University of X. And of course, the student with the Harvard D would possibly not accept this leading to rebellion and to litigation.
At school level, a national or international standard like A-Levels of Cambridge solves this. Students can have a 4.0 GPA from their school, when compared to that local pool, and then two APs with a total score of 5, or three A-Levels with DDE when compared to the larger pool. I used to make this argument to parents all the time when they questioned an internal grade or report card and this is one of the reasons why I support dual-enrolment.
However, universities set their own standards and students do not take common national or international assessments.
Another implication of the increasing selectivity50+ year- of competitive schools is that it was easier in the past to enter. I know a 60+ year-old teacher who went to Stanford in the early 70s. In those days, there were no GPAs, no SATs, no application essays; he recalls that almost everyone who applied was accepted. None of his children went to Stanford and he is confident that if he were to apply today, neither would he. Another 50 year-old who also went to Stanford got in on SATs in the high 1300s whereas today, 1500 would be needed just to have your letter opened and she tells me that she has had many students smarter than her and better prepared than her who were not accepted.
I also serve on a couple of advisory committees for my local state university which of course accepts all local high school graduates who apply to its undergraduate programs. However its graduate programs are competitive and selective and multiple courses do not contain a single of its own graduates.
I do not think grade inflation or "As like candies" is a thing, at least when discussing these top, selective universities. I do think that what has happened is that their students are smarter, and that the As are earned and deserved.
**Questions or comments below. Please add your email address in the box to the right for new post announcements,**
Further reading
No comments :
Post a Comment