Let me be uncharacteristically not-cynical for a moment.
This Inside Higher Ed article about Stuart Rojstaczer’s latest grade inflation project suggests three possible reasons grades have crept higher: professors are sucking up to the students who write their evaluations, trying to help them do well after school or indulging their sense of entitlement. What about the idea that students might be doing better? Just saying!
posted by Linda Perlstein at
12:09 PM
4 Comments:
It's a nice thought, but as the article by Healy and I note:
The cause of the renewal of grade inflation, which began in the 1980s and has yet to end, is subject to debate, but it is difficult to ascribe this rise in grades to increases in student achievement. Students’ entrance test scores have not increased (College Board, 2007), students are increasingly disengaged from their studies (Saenz et al., 2007), and the literacy of graduates has declined (Kutner et al., 2006). A likely influence is the emergence of the now common practice of requiring student-based evaluations of college teachers. Whatever the cause, colleges and universities are on average grading easier than ever before.
SAR
Well, I was kidding, sort of. Yes kidding, in that I doubt students are better now, but no kidding in that I think this concept must at least be addressed in such a story, if only to be dismissed.
Well the reporter did cover the "other side." That "other side" says grades aren't rising and anyone who says they are either doesn't have the right data or is fudging their data. That other side has a population of one. It's kind of like the flat earth society. It' a joke, really. But she did cover it.
But you're right, there is another "other side" that says, sure, grades are rising but it's because students are all better than they used to be. You get that a lot from college provosts and presidents who want to cover their behinds. My old boss has even been quoted as saying that students are more serious than when he was in school, which is a hoot. But why would a reporter want to quote someone who is obviously willing to say anything to cover up a problem? I'm not a reporter, but wouldn't someone want to stick to credible resources?
Whoops. It's "sources." Wouldn't a reporter want to stick to credible resources?
Post a Comment
Considerate comments are welcome. Uncivil remarks will be deleted. Anonymous comments -- including those unaccompanied by the author's first and last name -- are not permitted.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home