Interesting. I'm surprised at some of the schools that have less grade inflation than Mudd.
I think part of our perception on grade inflation has to do with the fact that virtually everyone who comes into Mudd had much higher grades in highschool. There's an expectation that, if Mudd weren't beating us down with really high standards, everyone who does any work for their classes would be getting a 3.5 minimum.
I think the big unknown factor in this discussion is relative student quality. Has the percentage of the population getting any post-secondary education expanded during the course of this survey? Even if many of these students are attending community colleges and attendance at four-year colleges has remained constant, this may be a sign that education has become more democratized, with more people who are good at school (as oppposed to just being children of middle- or upper-class families) getting degrees and raising average student quality. For Mudd in particular, it's almost impossible to assess how much of this is grade inflation and how much improved student quality. Anecdotal evidence indicates to me that getting into "selective" colleges has become much more competitive in recent years, which should mean the students doing so are better; but there are lots of possible confounding factors, and I don't have any hard evidence. As to whether this phenomenon has increased Mudd's average student quality, who knows?
I'm leery of the author's explanation that grade inflation is all due to easier grading and coursework, but I definitely think that's part of the explanation. Requiring colleges to both teach and evaluate the results of their teaching creates an obvious conflict of interest, and I'd be shocked if the results weren't very biased.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-05-07 08:09 pm (UTC)I think part of our perception on grade inflation has to do with the fact that virtually everyone who comes into Mudd had much higher grades in highschool. There's an expectation that, if Mudd weren't beating us down with really high standards, everyone who does any work for their classes would be getting a 3.5 minimum.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-07 08:36 pm (UTC)I think the big unknown factor in this discussion is relative student quality. Has the percentage of the population getting any post-secondary education expanded during the course of this survey? Even if many of these students are attending community colleges and attendance at four-year colleges has remained constant, this may be a sign that education has become more democratized, with more people who are good at school (as oppposed to just being children of middle- or upper-class families) getting degrees and raising average student quality. For Mudd in particular, it's almost impossible to assess how much of this is grade inflation and how much improved student quality. Anecdotal evidence indicates to me that getting into "selective" colleges has become much more competitive in recent years, which should mean the students doing so are better; but there are lots of possible confounding factors, and I don't have any hard evidence. As to whether this phenomenon has increased Mudd's average student quality, who knows?
I'm leery of the author's explanation that grade inflation is all due to easier grading and coursework, but I definitely think that's part of the explanation. Requiring colleges to both teach and evaluate the results of their teaching creates an obvious conflict of interest, and I'd be shocked if the results weren't very biased.