Tips from the AEJMC Teaching Committee

AEJMC Plenary — Grade inflation: Does ‘B’ stand for ‘Bad’?

(Article courtesy of AEJMC News, July 2011 issue)

Grade inflation. Now that’s a prickly subject.

Some cite the Vietnam War as the beginning of grade inflation. Students – and professors – were rebelling against the war, and grades were raised so young men could avoid the draft by maintaining their student deferment. Others point to graduate programs where a “C” is a failing grade, a standard which may have passed down to undergraduates.

Every faculty member has a story. There’s the “My parents paid for an A” saga. Really, I had a student say that. My response: “I think you owe your parents a refund.” I was new to teaching and, perhaps, too honest. But that was the mentality at the private university where I was teaching at the time. Now I realize it was a push for grade inflation.

Grade inflation – that upward shift in GPAs without a similar shift in what was learned – seems to be systemic. And wherever the grade inflation debate surfaces, many questions bubble up.

Why are grades inflated? Do we, as faculty, fear poor student evaluations? Or do we have so many spinning plates that we can’t spend the time grading – and giving detailed feedback – to justify lower grades?

Is an “A” the trophy entitled millennials expect for showing up, similar to the trophies they received in elementary school for being on the team, no matter the record?

Is the earned grade worth the harassment from students – and sometimes their helicopter parents? Do you wait until the last minute to post your grades, then bolt from campus before anyone can find you?

Even more basic, does grade inflation exist? Or are reports of grade inflation inflated?

The Standing Committee on Teaching has been kicking the grade inflation topic around and realizes this is an issue for all of us – whether you’re in a public or a private school, a big or a small program. We plan to tackle the grade inflation quagmire in our plenary session titled The Lake Woebegone effect: Are all our students above average?

The session will kick off with Stuart Rojstaczer, a Ph.D. from Stanford and former Duke University professor who is the founder of GradeInflation.com, a website that publishes research on grading. Dr. Rojstaczer has written extensively about higher education, including articles in The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Chronicle of Higher Education.

In addition, a panel also will share perspectives on grade inflation – as junior and senior faculty, as an administrator and as a student. Then we’ll open the floor for Q&A so you can join in the discussion.

We hope you’ll learn both the myths and facts associated with grade inflation. For example, do tough teachers receive bad student evaluations? Or higher? Is rigorous grading related to how much our students learn? If students work, and have less time to study, are their grades higher or lower?

And we’ll address other concerns: What will my chair and dean think of me if I’m tough? Will they support me, or cave to student demands? Should we expect more of our students? Should our classes be more rigorous? Will they meet the challenge?

This is especially relevant to those of us in journalism and mass communication programs. What do we teach in journalism? Writing. Above all else, we are writers. And to be a writer you have to be a critical thinker that requires complex reasoning. So we, professors of journalism, have a tough job.

You’ll hear solid advice gleaned from other experts that will point the way to possible solutions. Don’t miss this thought-provoking plenary session at 10 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on Thursday, August 11. We anticipate a packed house and hope you’ll join the conversation.

Now for a bit of wisdom from a cartoon that’s taped to the wall of our copy room. The name of the strip is missing, but the message is clear. The setting is the exchange between a young student and a person sweeping the floor.

Student:                “Isn’t the customer always right?”
Reply:                    “Right.”
Student:                “So Mrs. Olsen is always wrong and I’m always right.”
Reply:                    “Wrong.”
Student:              “I’m the student! I’m the customer!”
Reply:                    “Wrong.”
Student:                “I’m the product, aren’t I?”
Reply:                    “Right.”

We want our students – the products of our programs – to be the writers and thinkers for the next generation. We hope this plenary strengthens your understanding of why “tough is good” – leading to stronger “products” for a better future.

By Sheri Broyles, Chair
University of North Texas
AEJMC Teaching Committee