MEMORANDUM
October 5, 1995
TO: Academic Affairs Committee, Faculty Senate
FROM: Ron Darby, Professor of Chemical Engineering
SUBJ: Grading Standards
1. It has become evident that a serious situation exists within our university that will probably result (if it hasn't already) in very serious adverse consequences relative to the credibility and reputation of this institution. The situation to which I refer has to do with the establishment, enforcement, and maintenance of reasonable standards of performance for students, and related qualifications for degrees from this institution.
2. According to the Texas A&M University Regulations, the various grades to be assigned by instructors are defined as follows, with regard to degrees of achievement:
A - ExcellentThe implication is that there is a direct correspondence between these grading levels and the levels of proficiency demonstrated by the students in the courses. Unfortunately, this is incorrect. It is painfully evident that a great many, and most likely the vast majority, of instructors on this campus consider the grade of C to be unsatisfactory, and assign other grades accordingly. As an example, I recently overheard two engineering instructors discussing a report submitted in an undergraduate course. The comments on the report were all quite negative, relating to the poor quality of the report, the inaccuracy of the information therein, etc. From these comments, I would have expected the report to be assigned a grade of F or, at most, D. However, the grade marked on the report was a B-!. Unfortunately, this is all too common, especially in courses concerned with communication skills such as English composition, technical writing, seminars, and courses with a heavy emphasis on report writing. The average grade assigned in many of these courses is a B+ or A- (indicating "Good" to "Excellent" performance), whereas we are frequently reminded by those in the "real world" that communication skills are probably the greatest weakness of most of our graduates! There are many more examples that one could cite, and there are various factors that contribute to this situation, which will be addressed below.
B - Good
C - Satisfactory
D - Passing
F - Failing
3. The decline in grading standards, or "grade inflation" as it is commonly called, is certainly not unique to A&M and, in fact, has for quite some time been recognized and lamented upon in various media. An excellent discussion of the situation was presented by John Leo in his essay "A for effort. Or for showing up", published in U.S. News & World Report, October 18, 1993 (copy attached). The situation in the public schools is even worse, as illustrated by the Sally Forth comic strip attached. A variety of factors contribute to this situation, which can be roughly summarized as pressure on instructors from both above and below. Pressure is continuously applied by students, who demand to be "given a good grade" so they can get a job or get into medical school. Also, administrators reward higher grades since they (at least some of them) believe that higher grades signify higher achievement by the students, which supposedly equates to greater teaching effectiveness. Also, higher grades promote better teaching evaluations (despite various claims to the contrary - more on this later), which supposedly reflect teaching quality. There is no doubt that higher grades make students happier, so they complain less, which makes administrators happy, who then hand out rewards accordingly. As Leo puts it, "Teachers find it easier to avoid the hassle and just give higher grades." Certainly, it is much easier (as well as more "rewarding") to "give" good grades than to demand that the students "earn" them!
4. One effect of caving in to these pressures is the ever-increasing grade spiral, fed both by the students and those who recruit them. Yes, it is easier to get a job if you have high grades. Many companies are reluctant to consider students who have below a B average (Why? Because they have found out that C is, in reality, "unsat"). Therefore, we "give" B's to students who haven't earned them, and the B average then becomes unrealistic. Companies will then demand an A average, etc. Where does this end up? The answer is, where all grades (except perhaps the very highest and very lowest) are essentially meaningless. And we are getting there, fast!
5. So, what's the problem? Why not just "give" high grades to all students who "go through the motions", and make everyone happy? After all, "everyone else is doing it", so why should we be different? Such a "head in the sand" attitude is representative of the approach taken to date on this problem (as well as many other problems). Well, there are a variety of very good reasons why we shouldn't, some of which are:
Truth in Advertising - We have advertised (see paragraph 2) that "A is Excellent" and "C is Satisfactory", and we award degrees to anyone who can achieve a C average or better. When we give A's for mediocre performance, and C's for unsatisfactory performance, we are lying through our teeth. Lying always has adverse consequences not the least of which is the loss of credibility, to say nothing of the consequenses of admitting that we have very low standards!
The Student Suffers - How can this be? Any student would be much happier with an A than with a C! However, if an A is "given" for mediocre work, and a C is "given" for unsatisfactory work, the message sent to the student is that he or she should not have to excel to reap the highest rewards, nor need she or he demonstrate minimum competence to be labeled "satisfactory". Unfortunately, these students will be in for a very rude shock when they leave the confines of the "hallowed halls", because in the real world "that dog won't hunt"!
The Instructor Suffers - What, you mean that the teaching award given for those excellent student ratings is "suffering"? Well, the short term effects might be positive, but in the long run the lower standards will mean less competent students, which will eventually reflect adversely back on the teacher (of course, it may take 10 to 15 years for that bird to come home to roost, and our instructor has probably flown the coop by then).
The Institution Suffers - The effect on the reputation of any university or institution with demonstrated low standards has got to be negative (see the essay by Leo).
The Employer Suffers - We graduate students with a label ("degree from A&M") that says this person has achieved at least a "satisfactory" competency level in his/her field, and should be qualified to be productive in that area. However, the C average which is the minimum required to satisfy this criterion is, in reality, "unsat" by our presently practiced standards. Thus, we are turning out a significant number of sub-standard "products" who are not able to perform at expected levels. This process not only hurts the employer, but the student, the institution, and the "teacher", as well.
The Citizens of the Great State of Texas Suffer - When the tax paying parents, who also pay the (ever increasing) bills for education, find out that the degree they have "bought" their little darlings is no guarantee of a job, and is just barely a " hunting license", they will be upset, and rightfully so (surprise!! this has already happened!)
6. Well, now that we have identified the problem, and spelled out its dire consequences, it behooves us (as responsible educators) to do something about it. This should be the responsibility of the Academic Affairs Committee of the Faculty Senate, and I am hereby challenging you to take on this task, study it (but not to death!), and recommend appropriate action for implementation. To help you out, I offer the following suggestion:
We should adopt "real world" standards for evaluating the performance of students, consistent with what they will experience after leaving school, and apply these to the definition of our grading scale accordingly. An excellent example to use for this purpose is form HR#94-180 (10-94) (copy attached), entitled "Employee Performance Evaluation". This form is intended to be used to evaluate each Texas A&M employee by his/her supervisor. I submit that most of the performance categories on this form, as well as the definition of the five levels of achievement in each category (translate: A,B,C,D,F) may be applied to the performance of students in courses just as well as employees on the job, with minor modifications ("sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander").With these grading guidelines, we could be assured that a definite correlation will be obtained between performance in school and performance on the job -- a correlation that at present is woefully lacking.
Society for A Return to Academic Standards
A Crude Approach for Correcting for Grading Bias in Higher Education
Last Updated: 14 November 1996
Send Comments To: donald.crumbley@tamucc.edu