Grade Inflation

[DGS49]

Home

ACT is a mission-driven nonprofit organization. Our insights unlock potential and create solutions for K-12 education, college, and career readiness.

leadershipblog.act.org

Today, for the umpteenth time I heard a neighbor talking about her daughter, the genius, who had a QPA of 4.[something]. I am sick to death of hearing this nonsense. What, exactly, does it accomplish other than helping teachers avoid fights with disappointed parents? When, if ever, do the little darlings enter the Real World?

When I was in HS in the mid-60's, my school gave grades in percentages, to which were attached letter grades. Check it out:

A - 93-100% (which didn't exist because the forms had only two digits)
B - 85-92%
C - 75-84%
D - 70-70-74%
F - 69% or lower. You had to repeat the class or be expelled from the school.

The local public schools gave letter grades along the same scale. 69% and below was a failing grade. The HIGHEST QPA was 4.0, which happened occasionally but was a true accomplishment.

In my parochial school, which had some admittance standards (about half of applicants were accepted), the average QPA was probably 2.5 (C+). In regular public schools, it was 2.0.

Students in college used to speak of a "grading curve," in which most students were expected to get a 'C' and if the curve was not "normal," students complained to the Dean(s) - and usually got nowhere unless that teacher was doing that regularly over a period of years. I took a German class at Pitt in 1967 in which 10 of 14 students failed, two passed with D's, and the other two were German speakers just there to get some easy credits.

I went to college over a period of several years, from '67 through '78. When I started at the University of Pittsburgh, half of any freshman class was expected to fail out before graduating. When I went back after my years in the Army, it had become virtually impossible to fail out. Between dropping classes where you expected a failing grade, testing after the term to improve a grade, and re-taking the course, the only way you could fail out was if you simply didn't give a shit and allowed it to happen. The presumed reason for this change in grading philosophy at Pitt was the Vietnam War. Professors didn't want to be put in the position of giving failing grades, causing someone to fail out, and ultimately to get killed in Vietnam. Professors are generally pussies, for those who haven't noticed.

But that doesn't explain the dramatic change in K-12 grading. I won't say that grades are meaningless, but high grades are simply ordinary, and don't indicate any special level of accomplishment.

Grade inflation is a symptom of a larger problem. Academic integrity is totally compromised in most public schools. Students are rewarded for being mediocre and IT SEEMS TO AN OUTSIDER that real demands are rare. Most male students NEVER study and still graduate with a three point GPA or better.

But maybe I'm wrong. Please feel free to disagree and explain where I went off the rails.

 

[odanny]

I went to a two year community college and all of the classes were taught as challenging. Grades were not given away freely, in most classes. Many of these students were trying to get into the Univ. of Illinois, and some of them took summer classes there while on summer break from U of I.

I then went to Southern Illinois Universty's off-campus program to get my bachelor's.

I'm proud of my community college degree, but am almost embarrssed by my SIU degree, knowing how little I had to do to get it. The teachers didn't want conflict in grading and were more than happy to make a boatload of money to visit upstate and teach for easy money, it was only part time for them. Many of them were employed full time somewhere else near, or in, St. Louis, and since having a Master's were allowed to teach these classes. I heard that the program has since gotten more difficult for students but I doubt that much more difficult.

If it's true on the college level, just forget about high school. You want to learn something, your parents send you to a private school. You have to pay extra to learn anything.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Home

ACT is a mission-driven nonprofit organization. Our insights unlock potential and create solutions for K-12 education, college, and career readiness.

leadershipblog.act.org

Today, for the umpteenth time I heard a neighbor talking about her daughter, the genius, who had a QPA of 4.[something]. I am sick to death of hearing this nonsense. What, exactly, does it accomplish other than helping teachers avoid fights with disappointed parents? When, if ever, do the little darlings enter the Real World?

When I was in HS in the mid-60's, my school gave grades in percentages, to which were attached letter grades. Check it out:

A - 93-100% (which didn't exist because the forms had only two digits)
B - 85-92%
C - 75-84%
D - 70-70-74%
F - 69% or lower. You had to repeat the class or be expelled from the school.

The local public schools gave letter grades along the same scale. 69% and below was a failing grade. The HIGHEST QPA was 4.0, which happened occasionally but was a true accomplishment.

In my parochial school, which had some admittance standards (about half of applicants were accepted), the average QPA was probably 2.5 (C+). In regular public schools, it was 2.0.

Students in college used to speak of a "grading curve," in which most students were expected to get a 'C' and if the curve was not "normal," students complained to the Dean(s) - and usually got nowhere unless that teacher was doing that regularly over a period of years. I took a German class at Pitt in 1967 in which 10 of 14 students failed, two passed with D's, and the other two were German speakers just there to get some easy credits.

I went to college over a period of several years, from '67 through '78. When I started at the University of Pittsburgh, half of any freshman class was expected to fail out before graduating. When I went back after my years in the Army, it had become virtually impossible to fail out. Between dropping classes where you expected a failing grade, testing after the term to improve a grade, and re-taking the course, the only way you could fail out was if you simply didn't give a shit and allowed it to happen. The presumed reason for this change in grading philosophy at Pitt was the Vietnam War. Professors didn't want to be put in the position of giving failing grades, causing someone to fail out, and ultimately to get killed in Vietnam. Professors are generally pussies, for those who haven't noticed.

But that doesn't explain the dramatic change in K-12 grading. I won't say that grades are meaningless, but high grades are simply ordinary, and don't indicate any special level of accomplishment.

Grade inflation is a symptom of a larger problem. Academic integrity is totally compromised in most public schools. Students are rewarded for being mediocre and IT SEEMS TO AN OUTSIDER that real demands are rare. Most male students NEVER study and still graduate with a three point GPA or better.

But maybe I'm wrong. Please feel free to disagree and explain where I went off the rails.

You are simply making gross assumptions based on comparing it to the good old days, which really weren't. I graduated high school with a 3.57 GPA and ranked 32nd in a class of almost 500. That GPA was accomplished by taking every advanced class the school had to offer except Biology II which would simply not fit in my schedule. I attained enough credits to graduate in three years, something none of my classmates accomplished. The people who received the same diploma I did, took Mickey Mouse math instead of Calculus. They took PE classes for 4 years where only one was required instead of every science class that was offered, save one. People got scholarships to college with their higher GPA but lower quality education, while I was always an alternate, meaning I would have to pay my own way in hopes of having someone drop out. I joined the Navy instead of going to college and enlisted in the toughest program they had.
After my Navy career, I became a teacher, and 21 years later I retired without seeing any evidence of this so-called grade inflation by any teachers. I respectfully disagree with your assessment.

 

[wamose]

Home

ACT is a mission-driven nonprofit organization. Our insights unlock potential and create solutions for K-12 education, college, and career readiness.

leadershipblog.act.org

Today, for the umpteenth time I heard a neighbor talking about her daughter, the genius, who had a QPA of 4.[something]. I am sick to death of hearing this nonsense. What, exactly, does it accomplish other than helping teachers avoid fights with disappointed parents? When, if ever, do the little darlings enter the Real World?

When I was in HS in the mid-60's, my school gave grades in percentages, to which were attached letter grades. Check it out:

A - 93-100% (which didn't exist because the forms had only two digits)
B - 85-92%
C - 75-84%
D - 70-70-74%
F - 69% or lower. You had to repeat the class or be expelled from the school.

The local public schools gave letter grades along the same scale. 69% and below was a failing grade. The HIGHEST QPA was 4.0, which happened occasionally but was a true accomplishment.

In my parochial school, which had some admittance standards (about half of applicants were accepted), the average QPA was probably 2.5 (C+). In regular public schools, it was 2.0.

Students in college used to speak of a "grading curve," in which most students were expected to get a 'C' and if the curve was not "normal," students complained to the Dean(s) - and usually got nowhere unless that teacher was doing that regularly over a period of years. I took a German class at Pitt in 1967 in which 10 of 14 students failed, two passed with D's, and the other two were German speakers just there to get some easy credits.

I went to college over a period of several years, from '67 through '78. When I started at the University of Pittsburgh, half of any freshman class was expected to fail out before graduating. When I went back after my years in the Army, it had become virtually impossible to fail out. Between dropping classes where you expected a failing grade, testing after the term to improve a grade, and re-taking the course, the only way you could fail out was if you simply didn't give a shit and allowed it to happen. The presumed reason for this change in grading philosophy at Pitt was the Vietnam War. Professors didn't want to be put in the position of giving failing grades, causing someone to fail out, and ultimately to get killed in Vietnam. Professors are generally pussies, for those who haven't noticed.

But that doesn't explain the dramatic change in K-12 grading. I won't say that grades are meaningless, but high grades are simply ordinary, and don't indicate any special level of accomplishment.

Grade inflation is a symptom of a larger problem. Academic integrity is totally compromised in most public schools. Students are rewarded for being mediocre and IT SEEMS TO AN OUTSIDER that real demands are rare. Most male students NEVER study and still graduate with a three point GPA or better.

But maybe I'm wrong. Please feel free to disagree and explain where I went off the rails.

Don't forget that teachers will sometime give higher grades than were earned just to make their teaching ability look better than it actually is. Public schools today pretty much blow. MAGA

 

[Flash]

Home

ACT is a mission-driven nonprofit organization. Our insights unlock potential and create solutions for K-12 education, college, and career readiness.

leadershipblog.act.org

Today, for the umpteenth time I heard a neighbor talking about her daughter, the genius, who had a QPA of 4.[something]. I am sick to death of hearing this nonsense. What, exactly, does it accomplish other than helping teachers avoid fights with disappointed parents? When, if ever, do the little darlings enter the Real World?

When I was in HS in the mid-60's, my school gave grades in percentages, to which were attached letter grades. Check it out:

A - 93-100% (which didn't exist because the forms had only two digits)
B - 85-92%
C - 75-84%
D - 70-70-74%
F - 69% or lower. You had to repeat the class or be expelled from the school.

The local public schools gave letter grades along the same scale. 69% and below was a failing grade. The HIGHEST QPA was 4.0, which happened occasionally but was a true accomplishment.

In my parochial school, which had some admittance standards (about half of applicants were accepted), the average QPA was probably 2.5 (C+). In regular public schools, it was 2.0.

Students in college used to speak of a "grading curve," in which most students were expected to get a 'C' and if the curve was not "normal," students complained to the Dean(s) - and usually got nowhere unless that teacher was doing that regularly over a period of years. I took a German class at Pitt in 1967 in which 10 of 14 students failed, two passed with D's, and the other two were German speakers just there to get some easy credits.

I went to college over a period of several years, from '67 through '78. When I started at the University of Pittsburgh, half of any freshman class was expected to fail out before graduating. When I went back after my years in the Army, it had become virtually impossible to fail out. Between dropping classes where you expected a failing grade, testing after the term to improve a grade, and re-taking the course, the only way you could fail out was if you simply didn't give a shit and allowed it to happen. The presumed reason for this change in grading philosophy at Pitt was the Vietnam War. Professors didn't want to be put in the position of giving failing grades, causing someone to fail out, and ultimately to get killed in Vietnam. Professors are generally pussies, for those who haven't noticed.

But that doesn't explain the dramatic change in K-12 grading. I won't say that grades are meaningless, but high grades are simply ordinary, and don't indicate any special level of accomplishment.

Grade inflation is a symptom of a larger problem. Academic integrity is totally compromised in most public schools. Students are rewarded for being mediocre and IT SEEMS TO AN OUTSIDER that real demands are rare. Most male students NEVER study and still graduate with a three point GPA or better.

But maybe I'm wrong. Please feel free to disagree and explain where I went off the rails.

Desegregation means you have to dumb down the classes so the goddamn Negros can graduate, doncha know?

 

[Libby von H]

Home

ACT is a mission-driven nonprofit organization. Our insights unlock potential and create solutions for K-12 education, college, and career readiness.

leadershipblog.act.org

Today, for the umpteenth time I heard a neighbor talking about her daughter, the genius, who had a QPA of 4.[something]. I am sick to death of hearing this nonsense. What, exactly, does it accomplish other than helping teachers avoid fights with disappointed parents? When, if ever, do the little darlings enter the Real World?

When I was in HS in the mid-60's, my school gave grades in percentages, to which were attached letter grades. Check it out:

A - 93-100% (which didn't exist because the forms had only two digits)
B - 85-92%
C - 75-84%
D - 70-70-74%
F - 69% or lower. You had to repeat the class or be expelled from the school.

The local public schools gave letter grades along the same scale. 69% and below was a failing grade. The HIGHEST QPA was 4.0, which happened occasionally but was a true accomplishment.

In my parochial school, which had some admittance standards (about half of applicants were accepted), the average QPA was probably 2.5 (C+). In regular public schools, it was 2.0.

Students in college used to speak of a "grading curve," in which most students were expected to get a 'C' and if the curve was not "normal," students complained to the Dean(s) - and usually got nowhere unless that teacher was doing that regularly over a period of years. I took a German class at Pitt in 1967 in which 10 of 14 students failed, two passed with D's, and the other two were German speakers just there to get some easy credits.

I went to college over a period of several years, from '67 through '78. When I started at the University of Pittsburgh, half of any freshman class was expected to fail out before graduating. When I went back after my years in the Army, it had become virtually impossible to fail out. Between dropping classes where you expected a failing grade, testing after the term to improve a grade, and re-taking the course, the only way you could fail out was if you simply didn't give a shit and allowed it to happen. The presumed reason for this change in grading philosophy at Pitt was the Vietnam War. Professors didn't want to be put in the position of giving failing grades, causing someone to fail out, and ultimately to get killed in Vietnam. Professors are generally pussies, for those who haven't noticed.

But that doesn't explain the dramatic change in K-12 grading. I won't say that grades are meaningless, but high grades are simply ordinary, and don't indicate any special level of accomplishment.

Grade inflation is a symptom of a larger problem. Academic integrity is totally compromised in most public schools. Students are rewarded for being mediocre and IT SEEMS TO AN OUTSIDER that real demands are rare. Most male students NEVER study and still graduate with a three point GPA or better.

But maybe I'm wrong. Please feel free to disagree and explain where I went off the rails.

I was a college teacher.
You have to analyze a problem at the appropriate lever. And that level is the education of the teachers!! DO they even have the depth that would be able to discriminate better from worse grades.I say "no" look at Jill Biden's TERRIBLE dissertation for her degree. and though her husband is the worst President in American History, number 4 or 5 would be the only Presidential PhD holder Woodrow Wilson

Let's just take Civics and American History as a test case
" A 2016 American Council of Trustees and Alumni report showed that, even though nearly all twelfth-grade students took a course in civics, less than a quarter of them passed a basic examination at “proficient” or above. The crisis extends to higher education as well. In a survey of over 1,000 liberal-arts colleges, only 18 percent include a course in U.S. history or government as part of their graduation requirements. "