Examining Grade Inflation in High School: My Daughter's Experience

[twofish-quant]

You're free to not believe me. But from the end of WWII until the late 1960's, when the Civil Rights Act made it an impossibility, the US government and academia had a very different attitude towards developing education than the egalitarian model seen today.

You are in a forum with scientists that are used to asking for evidence whenever a claim is made. What you've just said is not good enough for much of anything.

It was rather rare for people to graduate from high school until WWII.

http://faculty.smu.edu/millimet/classes/eco4361/readings/intro/goldin.pdf

And the attitude until the 1960's was that certain people with high melanin content just shouldn't get an education.

 

[twofish-quant]

The US is in a strange situation: on one hand, egalitarianism is pushed constantly, on the other hand, the public schools suck despite all the money poured into them, but the universities are the best in the world.

US public schools are actually rather good. One thing that I find is that people that believe otherwise tend to either have very little experience with schools in other countries, or when they do they do apples versus oranges comparisons in which the best schools in other countries are compared to average or below average US schools. There's also the tendency to use rather bogus statistics to compare countries.

Egalitarianism looks pretty awful if you think that you are going to be in the top of the heap. Once you find out that you are not, it looks pretty good. I'm all for egalitarianism because I doubt I'd be able to get the chances that I got in the US in most other countries.

 

[twofish-quant]

Don't you get differentiated by your SAT scores? Isn't that what really matters?

Not really standardized test schools are only one small part of college admissions. They aren't the end all and be all of college admissions.

 

[twofish-quant]

I went to a talk at a math conference that showed textbook excerpts and syllabi from the 50s, 70s, and 00s at that university. I was shocked at how easy the material was -- you could take Calculus III for 400-level credit, or an introductory astronomy class for 300-level credit. In fact, in the 50s at this (good) university, you could graduate with a math degree (B.A., not B.S.) without taking Calc III. Now it's extremely rare for a math major to take the class later than freshman year! Also, a math major could get college credit for taking Algebra II...

I did a mini-research project on how the physics and engineering curriculum at MIT has changed since the mid-19th century, and I found essentially the same thing. Looking back at the curriculum in 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940, and 1960, I was quite surprised at how low the standards where. It wasn't until the 1960's that you had something that resembled the curriculum that you have today.

One thing that I noticed was how much a lot of the improvement was due to better teaching methods. Someone in 1920 just knew less about how to teach calculus than someone in 1960 or 2000.

Personally, I'm all for grade inflation. Anything that makes grades bogus and meaningless is a good thing, IMHO.

 

[G037H3]

You are in a forum with scientists that are used to asking for evidence whenever a claim is made. What you've just said is not good enough for much of anything.

It was rather rare for people to graduate from high school until WWII.

http://faculty.smu.edu/millimet/classes/eco4361/readings/intro/goldin.pdf

And the attitude until the 1960's was that certain people with high melanin content just shouldn't get an education.

I asserted a cultural/political opinion, these are impossible to 'replicate', as history is impossible to replicate. The "social sciences" are politicized by the leading school of thought, which has been for the longest time, the Frankfurt School and the results of such.

 

[twofish-quant]

I asserted a cultural/political opinion, these are impossible to 'replicate', as history is impossible to replicate.

That's a philosophical position which I very strong disagree with. It's impossible to replicate the big bang, but that doesn't mean that you can't make empirically grounded statements about it. My own philosophical tradition comes from the evidential school of Confucianism which views social history as just a part of the history of the universe.

One interesting philosophical problem is the problem of replication, and I've found that being an astrophysicist helps me think about economic issue. I can't replicate the financial crisis of 2008. On the other hand I can't replicate the creation of the earth. So how do I make well-grounded statements about the formation of the earth?

The "social sciences" are politicized by the leading school of thought, which has been for the longest time, the Frankfurt School and the results of such.

I happen to be a strong fan of the Frankfurt School especially Jurgen Habermas, and I think you are strongly mischaracterizing what they believe. Curiously, I became a fan of the Frankfurt School and various post-modernist schools of thought, after I read Alfred Bloom and Dinish D'Souza trash them, and I figured that I ought to just go and *read* works from the Frankfurt School, and I found that what Habermas talks about really made a lot of sense to me. I ended up with a much more positive opinion of Derrida than I did with Alan Bloom.

I mentioned elsewhere that I'm an ardent Marxist, and being an ardent Marxist is why I ended up on Wall Street.

 

[twofish-quant]

One reason I hate grades as much as I do, is that I got ranked lower because I did things like go to the library and read up on post-modern critical theory rather than study harder to get that extra three points on the physics exam. Something that I disliked about my high school and undergraduate years, was that you got docked points if you did some reading that wasn't on the assigned curriculum.

One thing that I found once I got to graduate school and the work place is that things didn't work that way. You don't get an assigned reading list. People expect you to figure out stuff on your own. You do get "graded" in some sense at the end of the year (i.e. how much your bonus is), but there isn't a piece of paper that says how that number is calculated. A fair amount of how much you get depends on politics both at the micro-level and the macro-level. So learn politics...

Something that I did learn from reading all those critical theorists is how power works. If I'm a janitor and I say "grades are bogus" then well boo hoo on you. If I'm a hiring manager with access to money and jobs and I say "grades are bogus, and I want to hire people who think that grades are bogus" then people *will* take me seriously and rearrange the curriculum to fit the objective realities of money and power.

See how reading Karl Marx is useful?

 

[Dr Transport]

Aren't honors classes the main reason for GPA's above 4.0? At least at the high school my kids went to, a A in an honors class was a 5.0 and a B a 4.0, while normal classes used 4.0 for an A and 3.0 for B (along with whatever + or minus, so a person could earn 4.0, 3.7, 3.3, 3.0, 2.7 in a class and so on).

Exactly, grade inflation at it's finest. I had to work like a dog to get B's in my honors classes in high school and they counted the same as any other course towards my final gpa. We didn't get extra compensation for trying to take harder courses, just more work and the satisfaction of passing them.

 

[Moonbear]

Exactly, grade inflation at it's finest. I had to work like a dog to get B's in my honors classes in high school and they counted the same as any other course towards my final gpa. We didn't get extra compensation for trying to take harder courses, just more work and the satisfaction of passing them.

I think the change was made to account for all that extra butt busting, so it didn't hurt you in competition for college admissions. When first cuts for admissions are based on just SAT/ACT scores and GPA, you could be hindering your honors students from getting into college if they only earn Bs because they are taking harder classes rather than if they just took the non-honors classes and got straight As. On the flip side, college admissions officers aren't stupid. When they see students with GPAs over 4.0, they know that school offers honors courses and that student took them. I actually thought it was an approach to limit grade inflation. In other words, teachers aren't pressured to curve the honors courses higher, but rather can be just as tough about assigning grades as they should be, and it doesn't ruin a good student's chances of getting into college.

What does it really matter what the overall scale is for the GPA? If the highest possible for an A in an honor's course is a 4.2 or 4.5, then the GPA is really a score out of 4.2 or 4.5, not 4.0.

I don't think that having different GPA scales is what people usually refer to as grade inflation, they usually refer to too many students being given As and Bs vs Cs and lower, and reducing the standards to earn those.

It's a pretty controversial topic. Here's an example...over the 3 years I've been teaching one course I teach, I've been tracking my student exam scores as I make various changes to the course. The overall class performance has been increasing significantly, particularly for those in the 3rd quartile of the class, with higher passing rates for the class. Some could look at those data and claim grade inflation. But, it's not. I have not changed the difficulty of my exams, and in fact, have made the course as a whole more challenging (my sophomore nursing students now are expected to answer in-class questions that I borrow from the material presented to the medical students, and score well on them). The students do better on exams because I have made changes to the course that help teach the material better and challenge them along the way to work harder. Another factor is that admissions to the school have gotten more competitive, so some of the students who were admitted the first year I taught, who failed the course or had to withdraw early to avoid failing, simply wouldn't have been admitted if they had applied in the current year. The admissions committee has decided it's better to admit a smaller class who all are capable of passing is better than admitting a larger class and having so many drop out or fail out after admission.

So, I'm cautious. It could be that so many students are getting such high grades because the teachers are passing out grades of A like free candy, or it could be that your daughter is fortunate to attend a school where the teachers really do a great job teaching and motivating the students to learn and study hard, so the students really are doing that well. This is of course the reason for standardized tests...as controversial as they are too, they tend to help provide a way to normalize for varied grading standards across schools.

 

[Feldoh]

Grade inflation sucks. I graduated with a GPA of 3.9-something. My high school schedule went something like:

Freshman:
Honors English
History
Algebra II
Biology
Spanish
Band

Sophomore:
Chemistry
Pre-calc
Honors English II
AP US History
AP World History
Spanish
Band

Junior:
AP Calc BC
AP Chemistry
AP Government
AP English (Lit)
Physics
AP Statistics
Band

Senior:
AP Biology
AP Physics C Mech & EM
AP English (Comp)
AP Comp. Sci.
Band
Calc III and Differential Eqns (At a nearby college)
AP Music Theory (Summer before senior year)

Anyways I got 2 B's in AP English and didn't not graduate with any school honors.

Our valedictorian had a 4.0, never took an honors class, never took an AP class. Senior year students can opt to leave school at 1pm instead of 3pm and just not have the 2 classes in the afternoon. Our valedictorian did just that.

Our salutatorian had like 1 B and was in the same boat as me and a few other people.

Needless to say we pretty much got shafted.

 

[jamesnb]

I teach high school physics and I don't participate in grade inflation. In spite of the student and parent whining, I don't give extra credit, partial credit, bonus questions. I don't let the students correct quizzes for a 70 and I don't curve grades. Sometimes I have a substitute question on tests that can replace an incorrect answer but nobody can get higher than a 100. When the students start whining about curving a test score, I tell them I'll start curving all of their grades up AND down so the class average is 75. They shut up for a while. I have about 8% of my students consistently score in the A+ range.
In Texas, a number of years ago, the courts ruled public universities had to accept any applicant who graduated in the top 10%. This has led to parents thinking their darling won't get into UT or A&M unless they are in the top 10%.
Likewise, the administration puts a lot of pressure on teachers to raise the grades of students with a 68 or 69 to passing because the failure rate drops the school's state ranking.
Finally, the State's Pedagogy Exam has a question to the effect that if the teacher gives a test and 80% of the class makes a 100, the teacher should: a. make the tests harder and challenge the students more, b. feel good because the teacher engaged the students and was able to deliver the material effectively... answer is... b. feel good.
We are moving to a State-wide End of Course Exam, which I think is good. This way there is some sort of accountability. I've had several students transfer from other schools with "A"s and struggle to get a "C" in my class. Once they woke up and realized they had to work in my class, their grades went up 10 points or so.
Maybe I'm too hard on them or maybe I'm a bad teacher or a mean teacher but I think if their transcript says Honors Physics and get a little bump to their GPA, they need to earn it.

 

[mege]

http://popecenter.org/clarion_call/article.html?id=2516

Recent article from a Ball State Univ. professor. (includes a chart comparing 1990 to 2009 grades in many classes)

If you poke around, popcenter.org and nas.org have other similar studies dealing with undergraduate grade inflation.

The immediate thing that stands out is that grades rose substantially between 1990 and 2009. Of the 26 courses, the percentage of A’s and B’s rose in 24. Grade point averages rose in 23 courses.

Just to cite one example from the table, in 1990, 52 percent of the students enrolled in Principles of Marketing received grades of A or B; by 2009, 80 percent received A’s or B’s.

 

[mathwonk]

Here is some anecdotal data, since my memory is fallible. I read some years ago in the Harvard alumni magazine an article on this subject. They reported that from the 1960's to the 1990's or so, the average grade at Harvard had gone from something like a C+ to roughly an A-. When then current students were asked about this possible sign of inflation, their response was that current students were smarter than earlier ones. However in the same period average SAT scores, which was then considered a sort of intelligence test, had actually gone down. I conclude that quite possibly a C+ student from the 1960's did indeed know as much as or more than an A- student from the 1990's.

One reason for this claim is that when a student receives a low grade for poor performance, I believe that student feels he has to improve. When a higher grade than deserved is given there is no such motivation. I myself experienced this. When poor performance caused me to be required to leave school and work in a factory for a year I definitely worked harder the next time around, and eventually realized my goal of becoming a mathematician. I also spent time in schools where grades were given easily and those years were essentially wasted ones lost from my useful life experience.

For more recent data, the Hope scholarship in Georgia provides some. A student gets the Hope is he/she has a B average in high school, and something like 90% of all entering freshmen have them. However after one year, most lose it in college based on the same criterion.Note: The Ball State article linked just above does not mention any math courses.

 

[hotvette]

Being that I started this thread more than a year ago (before my daughter applied to colleges) I thought I'd provide additional insight I've gained since then.

There actually is a lot of value in the higher GPA's due to AP courses, assumming the AP courses are truly higher level than the standard courses. It makes the kids with superior academic achievement stand out.

For top schools (i.e. Harvard etc.) grades win over outside activities (sports, community service, clubs) unless perhaps your sport skill is college level. The outside activities can be tie breakers, but the grades are more important. My daughter had a raw 4.0 GPA including a healthy number of AP courses, but kids with a heavier load of AP courses got into better schools. I think what the top schools are looking for are kids that have top grades AND a bunch of outside activities, but the top grades are mandatory.

I've talked with parents who sent their kids to college prep high schools who claim the prep school didn't in itself result in acceptances at better colleges. If anything, it may have been worse because they had such competition within the school for grades. Of course, kids with top grades at prep schools got into great colleges.

In the end the most important thing is a good match between your kid's skills, personality and aspirations and the school they go to. It is far better to thrive where you go (as long as you are challenged) than to be miserable at a school that isn't a good match.

 

[mathwonk]

"In the end the most important thing is a good match between your kid's skills, personality and aspirations and the school they go to. It is far better to thrive where you go (as long as you are challenged) than to be miserable a school that isn't a good match."

That sums it up well.

 

[ColonialBoy]

Proof?

Meh, your average 16yo needed to know a lot more in 1870.

http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/exhibits/exam/

 

[mathwonk]

the 10 year olds in my 2011 summer class could pass those mit exams. of course there had been over 100 years of inflation since euler. here is euler's algebra book which he wrote for his uneducated butler. it includes solving 3rd and 4th degree equations, more than we usually teach grad students today.

http://www.archive.org/details/elementsalgebra00lagrgoog

 

[twofish-quant]

Here is some anecdotal data, since my memory is fallible. I read some years ago in the Harvard alumni magazine an article on this subject. They reported that from the 1960's to the 1990's or so, the average grade at Harvard had gone from something like a C+ to roughly an A-.

Talking with a dean the story that I hear was that there was a lot of grade inflation in the 1960's. The problem is that if your grades were too low, you were likely to get kicked out of college, and if you got kicked out of college, then your draft deferment expired and you were on the next boat to Vietnam.

Since professors didn't a dead student fighting in a war that they disagreed with on their conscience, the grading standards were changed so that it was difficult to flunk out.

 

[twofish-quant]

Meh, your average 16yo needed to know a lot more in 1870.

http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/exhibits/exam/

The average applicant to MIT in 1870 was not your average 16 year old. Also I'm pretty sure that anyone that stands a change of getting admitted to MIT in 2011 would ace the algebra, geometry, and arithmetic section. It's probably much too easy.

 

[twofish-quant]

Also at MIT and at a lot of other universities, one of the goals of the faculty is get the students to *STOP WORKING*. If you put a lot of hypercompetitive students in one place, and make the grading hard, then what will happen is that you'll have students working themselves to points that are unhealthy.

Every now and then you need the faculty to tell students to *stop studying and get some sleep*.

 

[mathwonk]

That last comment reminds me of a student i had who fell asleep in my class. I went up to him and waked him up and after class asked him to think about whether he really wanted to be in the class.

Many years later he emailed me and recalled this event and told me he wanted to thank me since his conclusion was no he did not want to be in my class nor in school and so he dropped out. He became a successful cartoonist and wanted to let me know how influential I had been! I was not sure just how flattered to be by this but hey, his cartoons were pretty cool, arguably lots cooler than my math equations.,