A grade-inflated solution

Duke may be in the Final Four, but according to former professor of hydrology Stuart Rojstaczer, it doesn’t even belong in the Sweet Sixteen.

Rojstaczer, a well-known critic of grade inflation, was not talking about NCAA basketball. He was referring to his “Sweet Sixteen” bracket of tough-grading universities, recently published on his Web site, www.gradeinflation.com.

Princeton and M.I.T., however, did make the cut. Responding to concerns like those from Rojstaczer, Princeton University embarked on a policy of grade “deflation” six years ago, making it the only one among its peer institutions to do so. Under the policy, Princeton directs professors to issue only a certain percentage of A’s and B’s in classes. Despite a Jan. 29 New York Times article citing general student dissatisfaction with the policy, administrators there remain unapologetic.

The debate over grade inflation is not new. It owes to the well-documented evidence demonstrating a significant increase in grades at universities nationwide. During the last 20 years, for example, the average GPA has increased by 0.21 at private schools and 0.16 at public schools across America.

Rojstaczer writes that Duke has shown the greatest grade inflation among institutions nationwide, increasing by more than 1.0 over the last 50 years. Although he attributes this in part to Duke’s historically low grades, he questions whether the increase can be explained purely by this factor alongside increasing student quality.

Sure enough, the 2003 Provost report showed that rising SAT scores only account for about half of Duke’s actual grade inflation. Meanwhile, Rojstaczer’s Web site reports that the average GPA at Duke was about 3.44 in 2007. Columbia’s average GPA in 2006 was 3.42. Yale’s average in 2008 was 3.51. So this is not a Duke-specific phenomenon.

The problem, according to Rojstaczer, is that grade inflation cheapens education.

“In this culture, professors are not only compelled to grade easier, but also to water down course content. Both intellectual rigor and grading standards have weakened,” he writes. “The evidence for this is not merely anecdotal. Students are highly disengaged from learning, are studying less than ever, and are less literate. Yet grades continue to rise.”

These are serious concerns, and Rojstaczer supports them with extensive social science research.

But these problems are notoriously difficult to solve and not amenable to blunt force approaches like Princeton’s. Grade inflation did not emerge consciously out of some new institutional consensus among universities or academics. Instead, it has been a general, unexplained trend, reflecting broader changes in ideas about differentiation in achievement.

Unilateral action to address the issue, then, can only disadvantage graduates angling for position in a competitive job market. Princeton officials can deny this all they like, pointing to the lack of evidence for the new policy’s harmful effects as a testament to its success.

Common sense says otherwise. It is wishful thinking to believe that a measure systematically reducing student GPAs will not have an adverse impact on graduates just because the university sends a letter of explanation along with its transcripts. Princeton should know better. Employers, who already skim resumes, are unlikely to read a several-hundred-word missive on Princeton’s grading policies while sorting through a stack of applications.

The only way to confront such a challenge is through a collaborative effort between Duke and its peer institutions. Barring this, reform must be gradual and cautious.

Harmonizing standards for excellence across (and within!) academic departments at Duke would be a good start. It’s no secret that two A’s within the same department can signify very different levels of achievement. Enforcing more strictly the idea that certain grades convey certain levels of competence may do more to restore confidence in academic rigor at Duke than any other mechanism.

There is of course also the option of increasing academic standards in courses known for handing out free A’s. If a lack of intellectual engagement is the concern, making students work harder for their grades may be a plausible remedy.

Still, Princeton’s one-size-fits-all approach would prove problematic, not least due to statistical variation. Some classes may have zero students that perform at an A level. Others could have 20.

Besides, there’s no rush to solve the problem now. When grades at Duke cease to meaningfully differentiate between students, employers and graduate schools will let the University know and Duke will take appropriate action. We have a ways to go before we reach that stage.

Duke’s approach so far—avoiding a rush to conclusions—should earn it high marks from students. Let’s hope it doesn’t botch them by buying into the wisdom of a Princetonian misstep.

Vikram Srinivasan is a Trinity senior. His column runs every other Thursday.