Failing Our Students: Moral Integrity and Grade Inflation
by A. Botein-Furrevig, Ph.D.
In Garrison Keillor’s mythical town of Lake Wobegon, the men are strong, the women are beautiful, and the children are above average. Judging by college transcripts nowadays, it seems that our children are indeed Wobegonians. Our finest universities admit that an overwhelming percentage of their students are earning…make that “receiving”… A’s. The argument that Ivy League students are above the norm — and hence the abundance of A’s — does not ring true. When an overwhelming majority of students in any classroom achieves the highest grade, one must question whether the work and evaluative criteria are demanding enough. By definition, an A means that the student has demonstrated consistently superior performance and subject mastery; the question thus becomes this: Are most students today brighter than those of past generations? Most academics and parents will attest to the shift in subject matter that has given birth to an impoverished generation of students who are not exposed to the great literary, philosophical, and artistic minds of our civilization. Many traditional Liberal Arts programs have been debased and reinvented by liberal thinking and politicized curricula. While we can debate the subjectivity and meaning of “smart,” it is a tangential argument—perhaps today it is just easier to be “smart.”
Critics blame less challenging courses and relaxed grading policies on faculty hoping for favorable student and administrative evaluations—full-time faculty on the tenure-track, and the ever-increasing shadowy brigade of adjunct faculty seeking reemployment. Inarguably, grade inflation and issues of job security are linked. Simply said, there needs to be more accountability.
At the end of the day, the greatest culpability lies with the institutions of higher learning themselves, which operate as businesses whose consumers—the students—need to be kept satisfied. In a 21st century university that emphasizes the bottom line, the tendency to water down coursework and even ignore academic dishonesty on the part of students are inevitable. Both represent growing and disturbing trends seeped in a culture marked by a sense of entitlement and liberal ideology, the predictable by-products of the “feel-good” culture of the 60s. However, today’s politically correct dual mantra of diversity in curricula and admissions should apply to grading, as well.
In primary and secondary schools, the pernicious practice of social promotion, coupled with pressure from administrators and parents account for the studies indicating that far too many of our children are graduated with severe academic deficiencies, false expectations, and a distorted sense of what they can accomplish. As a community college professor, I see more and more incoming freshman each semester who lack competency in basic writing, reading, math, and critical thinking, yet many of these students had impressive report cards in high school. Admittedly, remediation has always been central to the mission of community colleges, but when the number of developmental courses increases sharply, the proverbial red flag should go up.
An exemplar for other universities to emulate, Princeton University should be lauded for its recent ground- breaking grading reforms. At the end of the day, the true mission of a college education is to arouse and nurture a life-long love of knowledge and learning. A college education instills, by example, intellectual excitement and a strong work ethic.
