TABLE OF CONTENTS |
FRONT PAGE
| NEXT ARTICLE |
PREVIOUS ARTICLE |
UNC HOMEPAGE
It was billed as an intellectual lunch, but the topic -- grade inflation
-- was loaded enough to make for a full-course meal. The lunch ended with some
tough questions left to chew.
On one end of the rhetorical table was Boone Turchi, an economics
professor who argued that grade inflation is a serious problem that requires
prompt attention. Turchi defended the conclusions of a report prepared by the
Faculty Council's Educational Policy Committee.
On the opposite end of the debate was Ed Neal, the director of faculty
development at the University's Center for Teaching and Learning.
Neal scoffs at the idea that grades, once upon a time, accounted for
something more meaningful and true than they do now. Such talk, he said, was
analogous to people talking about the good old days when a dollar was worth a
dollar. But there has never been a "gold standard" of grades, Neal said. Grades
are not like currency that can be precisely measured.
"Grades have never reflected a standard measurement of anything," Neal
said.
And studies show that the grade point averages that undergraduates carry
when they leave the University are not predictors of how far they will go in
life.
Caught in the middle of the debate were Annie Peirce and Michael Hoffman,
two undergraduate students who said they feared their careers could get caught
in the fix.
Hoffman fears that adjusting the average grade point average downward from
3 to 2.7 would damage a student's ability to get admitted to a graduate school
or get a job. Hoffman also feared that a tougher grading policy would create
cut-throat competition that would pit student against student and students
against faculty.
Hoffman said the controversy over grade inflation at the University
already has generated bad press, and he is concerned that the controversy could
damage the University's national reputation.
Peirce, on the other hand, agreed that grade inflation is a problem but
argued that the University lacks the national stature to lead a national effort
to correct it. Peirce worries that tougher grading would force many students to
give up their involvement in other activities such as athletics and clubs. She
argued that the University seeks to create a well-rounded person and such a
person isn't developed by just studying books.
Turchi responded to the students point by point.
First, he said, there may be a misconception that graduate schools and
employers look blindly at grade point averages while considering nothing else.
They consider the quality of the institution a person graduates from along with
a host of other factors.
Turchi also rejected Peirce's assertion that Carolina lacks the prominence
to lead a national effort to end grade inflation. Former Chancellor Michael
Hooker, before he died, talked about leading a consortium to develop rigorous,
well-defined grading standards that could be made into a national standard. It
could still be done, Turchi said.
Turchi also dismissed the notion that making grades more realistic would
harm relationships between and among students and faculty. To the contrary,
Turchi said, there could be more mutual respect between students and faculty by
erasing the cynicism of knowing too many students are getting grades that they
have not really earned.
Turchi said the committee is not asking that a quota be set limiting the
number of high grades, nor is it requiring that every class have an even
distribution of grades. Instead, it is asking that departments do a better job
of regulating professors who habitually grade too high, recognizing that all
professors will have some classes where there will be aberrations of higher
grades.
From 1987 to 1998, the percentage of A's received by undergraduate
students increased from 23.4 to 38.
Ed Carlstein, a professor and director of undergraduate education in the
statistics department, said the increase of A's over such a short period of
time was unrealistic and that something has to be done to correct it. If the
trend continues, the point will be reached where nearly everyone gets an
A.
But Abigail Panter, an associate professor of psychology, said she is not
yet convinced that the higher number of A's and B's is unrealistic. Panter said
she would like to see data from other universities before she makes up her
mind.
Both Neal and Turchi ended the discussion as firmly rooted in their
convictions as when it began.
Said Turchi: "Ed doesn't see much use for grades at all. He doesn't see
much of a problem. We just disagree altogether."
Neal, in his ending remarks, quoted what Benjamin Bloom has to say about
grading on a curve. Said Bloom: "The normal curve is a distribution most
appropriate to chance and random activity. Education is a purposeful activity
and we seek to have students learn what we would teach. Therefore, if we are
effective, the distribution of grades will be anything but a normal curve. In
fact, a normal curve is evidence of our failure to teach."
Other lunch discussions
The grade inflation debate was the first
in a Lunch Discussion Series sponsored
by the Intellectual Climate Implementation Committee and the Office of the
Director of Distinguished Scholarships and Intellectual Life.
All faculty, staff and students can take part in the series, which will be
held the fourth Friday of each month through May in Room 210
of the student union from noon to 1:30 p.m. Coffee, lemonade and light
snacks will be
provided. Attendees are welcome to bring lunch.
Remaining discussions:
* March 24: "Faculty, staff, and student
collaboration: Whose intellectual climate is it?" Jeffery Beam, botany
library.
* April 28: "Student satisfaction and our campus budget: Tying the
intellectual climate
to UNC General Administration's assessment goals." Abigail Panter,
psychology.
* May 26: "Computers enhance the intellectual climate? Not a chance!"
Celia Hooper, Division of Speech and Hearing Sciences, allied health
sciences.
For more information, contact Libby Evans
at 2-6344 or evans@unc.edu
Scholarly Communication Working Group
Faculty, staff and students also can take part in Scholarly
Communication Working Group discussions at noon in the second-floor
conference room in Davis Library.
Upcoming programs:
* March 14: "Distance Learning in the UNC System." Diana Oblinger, UNC
General Administration.
* April 11: "Digital Library Projects
at UNC-CH."
For more information, contact Carolyn Kotlas at 2-9287 or
kotlas@email.unc.edu or see http://ils.unc.edu/schol-com/programs.html
TABLE OF CONTENTS |
FRONT PAGE
| NEXT ARTICLE |
PREVIOUS ARTICLE |
UNC HOMEPAGE