Inflated grades are welcomed by most students and lamented by most professors, but regardless of one's opinion on the matter, everyone agrees that things have changed. In 2001, grade inflation made national news as a Harvard dean released data showing that 49 percent of undergraduate grades that year were As, as opposed to 23 percent in 1986. At Amherst, statistics are similar, as around 40 percent of students have GPAs of 3.67 (i.e., A-) or higher, and 95 percent of GPAs are at least a 3.0. "When I started [over 30 years ago] the average GPA was probably a B. Now it's an A-," Registrar Gerald Mager told The Student earlier this year.
It doesn't take an A student to realize why undergraduates appreciate getting good marks. Graduate schools receive a report elucidating the true average grade at an applicant's college thereby rendering inflation meaningless; however, job recruiters generally do not have access to such information, meaning that an A- at the College sounds better than a lower, but just as average, GPA at another school.
On the other hand, the affection professors and administrators feel for pre-inflation grading is less transparent. Part of the issue is the hegemony enjoyed by the traditional marks of A, B, C. Many people forget that using "A, B, C" to denote "great, good and average," respectively, is just as arbitrary as A, A-, B+ or even X, Y, Z. Furthermore, a Harvard report from 1894 cautioned professors that grading was becoming too lenient, and research shows that grades rose as much from 1933 to 1967 as they did from 1967 to present. It is simply nonsensical for professors to regret rising grades due to a sentimental affinity for the mythical "good old days."
Another concern is that unlike the economic inflation, grades have an upper limit. If grade inflation continues endlessly, every student would graduate with a 4.0, thereby making grades irrelevant. In other words, when grade inflation leads to what is known as grade compression, we have a problem. But looking at the College's academic summary, one can still see a distinct curve alive and well in the grading spectrum (see chart at left). Without question, grades at the College today still separate the wheat from the chaff.
Arbitrary or not, some will always see grade inflation as the enemy. But lone professors (or even small groups of them) who deflate the grades in their classes in order to combat inflation accomplish nothing but the punishment of their students. If institutions are bent on fighting grade inflation, the only equitable way it can be accomplished is school-wide, but faculty members are unlikely to support mandated grading curves. Furthermore, if the rest of America's academic world suffers from grade inflation, "correcting" it at any one institution may cause an uproar from unhappy parents and students.
In the long run, grade inflation is neither good nor bad; and ironically, it only becomes dangerous when we forget how arbitrary grades are to begin with. Hopefully, bright academic minds at Amherst and elsewhere will stop wasting time and thought on this perceived threat, and focus more on teaching and learning.
Ed. Note: The Amherst Student will only publish anonymous submissions in cases in which the contributor's point of view may jeopardize his or her academic wellbeing. Anonymous pieces printed under the discretion of the The Student and are held to the same standards as traditional submissions. We encourage readers to respond to this piece in the form of a Letter to the Editor, but if one prefers to contact the writer directly, The Student will forward any such commentaries to the author.