Sunday, January 31, 2010
Type-A-Plus Students Chafe at Grade Deflation
Post Gazette: "When Princeton University set out six years ago to corral galloping grade inflation by putting a lid on A's, many in academia lauded it for taking a stand on a national problem and predicted that others would follow."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Oh boy, the GPA argument. Yes, grades are essential in an educational institution to see where people excel, and where others struggle. But what bugs me about this is the whole "He's from Brown and only has a 3.5, whereas I'm from Yale and have a 3.8". Unforunately, GPA's aren't a common national convention, because professors from different institutions all grade a little differently. GPA shouldn't define you as an individual, nor what you could potentially bring to a company. Yes, you may not want someone with a 1.5 working at a top-tier company, but you shouldn't define yourself based on a tenth of a percentage point. I suppose it is important to have a cut off for GPA's when applying to companies, but I sometimes worry what talent may be put into the trash because they have a 2.89 instead of a 3.0, and they don't even make it to first round of interviews.
I really think having a number system overall limits students and shifts the focus from producing quality work to worrying about a tenth of a point.
What drives me crazy are these students who are freaking out about not being considered because of a tenth of a point. What happened to being a well rounded person and being able to offer unique qualities that directly relate to the job you want, rather than a number saying if you're qualified or not.
Although I am not sure exactly how the employers in the U.S. actually assess their applicants by GPA, I am sure grading by numbers differs from school to school, even from teacher to teacher.
Actually, the similar case is also seen in the bad habits in Japan as well, which is I observe worse than the situation here. The companies still tend to select their candidates by the name of colleges, even if recently the quality of education and students does not necessarily correspond to the fame of the college.
So, an important thing to win this race is, if being judged by its number is the real world and if we believe we are smarter- I would rather like to say, more "potential"- students than those from any other colleges, we have to think about promoting ourselves in other smarter ways.
Are people really worried that they won't get a job because they graduated from Princeton with only a 3.5? There are so many other factors in job offers besides GPA; maybe students should be focusing on showcasing their abilities in other ways besides a 1-4 scale of good-studentness.
Plus, if it's true that this policy doesn't affect job placement, then it seems that the reason it rubs students the wrong way is because, ever since they were six, they were convinced that if they didn't get A's then they were failures. This is just silliness; those students need to reassess their ways of measuring success.
I don't agree with the method of grading that Princeton employs, but this is not the only place that has certain grading criteria. Many schools, even certain high schools, have certain grading scales that they abide by, and there isn't really a fool-proof way to make it "fair," although I do think that a person should get the grade they deserve, and shouldn't be docked simply because their professor has already handed out their quota of A's.
It seems to me that if grades are to exist, their function is to provide some rough, qualitative feedback to students. If the grade doesn't reflect the quality of their work, it serves no purpose as a teaching tool. Grade inflation is a problem, but more scary from my perspective is grade compression - the ABCDF scale is already quite coarse, and many classes are now graded more like AB(occasional C) further reducing the dynamic range of the evaluation. If grades are to be useful, an A should be meaningful as 'good' if not 'exceptional work' not simply an indication that a student showed up and turned in homework. Furthermore, I think anybody with any sense of pragmatism is aware that different professors' scales vary substantially, so comparing GPA's, especially between different institutions is a poor metric.
I definitely don't agree with Princeton's idea to just suddenly begin capping off A's. As someone who personally gets into a fit with herself over the most minute of grade changes, I can understand why these students are furious in realizing that their near-perfect assignments aren't being graded as such. If an A is deserved and an A isn't being given out simply due to rules and regulations, then the whole point of the change is ludicrous.
The only reason to change the doling out of good grades is to put higher expectations on everyone at the institution, not just those that are at the top and need their egos deflated. And as much as research might say GPA doesn't matter in the job market, I know plenty of people getting good GPAs at community college getting jobs over people with mediocre grades at more prestigious institutions.
While I definitely believe that grade inflation is a big problem in schools across the country at all education levels. I don't agree that capping the levels of As is the answer. The solution lies in making the criteria for As more strict. While the result may be the same, the philosophy behind the change is much different. By raising the criteria, you are saying that the expectation are being raised. If a cap is put on As, there is more competition between students as a result. The arguments about GPAs being comparable is a valid one, but I believe that people who actually look at GPAs know how to compare them and how to make them oranges and oranges.
While GPA’s are a measure of a student’s performance, they are a measure of that students performance, at that university, with the other students in his or her classes. Using GPA to brand someone as a “good-student” or a “bad-student” when it is not clear what this is in comparison to.
First of all, all grading is subjective, even math can be subjective to an extent, therefore comparison among different students is already not conclusive. Second, if some system like a GPA is to be at all effective, it needs to be universal. A 3.5 at one school needs to be equivalent to a 3.5 at another school. And while I am sure people who stare at GPA’s all day know what means what at each school, there are other negative effects. This includes students who work at school just to maintain a higher GPA. They are working to be better than others rather than better themselves.
I think this is made to be a much bigger deal than it really is. The need for a well-rounded education is substituted for having a better GPA no matter what it takes. I think that because of this mindset many people aren't where they should be scholastically and more importantly AS A PERSON because they're too worried about grades coming out of an Ivy League school. It's sad to see that making school harder and giving you more for your money is seemingly frowned upon and all the students do it complain about how hard life is as a result. In my opinion, you're paying a University to challenge you and broaden your horizons in ways you couldn't do on your own. Otherwise you should have just bought a How-To book and done it at home for free.
Post a Comment