Editorial and Dissent: Revisiting grade deflation

Majority: Against grade deflation

On Tuesday, this paper reported on the University’s enforcement of grade deflation. The Editorial Board believes that the University’s formal and informal enforcement mechanisms raise serious concerns about fair implementation of the policy. Moreover, the Board continues to believe that grade deflation harms students’ future prospects and our campus culture.

Princeton’s stated policy is that all students who deserve an A should receive an A. But the University’s enforcement mechanisms place significant pressure on professors to follow the 35 percent rule. Each year, professors receive a report detailing how their grading practices compare to their department and to the University as a whole. The University also relies on informal enforcement mechanisms. As professor Stanley Katz told the ‘Prince’ on Monday, former Dean of the College Nancy Malkiel used to visit the Wilson School once a year “and make it very clear that she was unhappy if [the school was] above the norm.”

This pressure trickles down. When the Dean of the College pressures a department to lower its grading distribution, department chairs in turn pressure professors. The Board fears that untenured professors feel obligated to closely follow the grading guidelines even when they believe their class has performed exceptionally well. When University administrators and the department leaders who control tenure decisions tell you to follow the rules, it’s difficult to say no.

Beyond these specific concerns, the Board strongly believes that the policy itself is misguided. Grade deflation hurts Princeton students applying to jobs and graduate schools. When employers and admissions committees use grade point average cutoffs, Princeton students with deflated GPAs miss the mark. Furthermore, graduate schools are ranked using the GPAs of their incoming class, giving them an incentive to discriminate against Princeton students with deflated grades. Whatever evidence the University presents to counter this claim, one point should remain clear: No one benefits by graduating with a lower GPA.

The greatest harm of grade deflation is to our campus culture. The perception that we are in competition with one another for a limited number of As — true or not — makes students more competitive and less willing to experiment with their course choices. Even if grade deflation does not cost a single student a job or a spot in graduate school, the effect on the campus culture should be reason enough to abandon the policy.

What of the claimed benefits? The University tells us that students deserve signals from professors about the quality of their work. But it’s hard to believe that students learn more when a paper comes back with a B on top rather than an A. Real learning comes from the feedback professors provide, not the letter grades they assign. The University tells us that grade deflation creates an even playing field across departments. We don’t deny this claim. However, the narrow benefits of standardization are significantly outweighed by the harms of the policy.

In 2004, the University told us that our peer institutions would soon follow. In 2012, we continue to walk this road alone. With Dean Malkiel gone, it’s time to recognize that grade deflation has failed.

Dissent: For grade deflation

Grades should reflect the quality of an individual’s work relative to his or her peers. Matriculating students understand Princeton’s commitment to a uniform and transparent grading policy that embraces this aim. The majority opinion asserts that grade deflation harms our campus culture. This is misstated. A tough but standard grading metric stresses the rigorous exchange of intellectual ideas rather than overemphasizing grade-based performance as an end.

The rationale for relative grading in fact answers the majority opinion’s demand that students receive signals from professors about their input in classes. Grades complement implicit and contextual feedback by relating how well a student performed compared to a professor’s expectations.

Under current policy, individual departments come up with specific distributions that make sense across all their course offerings. The historical 35 percent standard is a flexible, three-year average that doesn’t impose any strict demands on any one particular course. Over time, it accounts and allows for natural variability while serving its role as a uniform benchmark.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Data from the University reveals the absence of any negative impact of grade deflation on students’ post-graduation plans. Professional-school and graduate-school admittance rates remain high. In fact, more and more students enter competitive industries such as finance and consulting. Furthermore, grade deflation does not seem to harm Princeton students’ chances at winning competitive scholarships, as this year alone, seven students won a Rhodes or Marshall Scholarship.

The majority opinion is correct in worrying that Malkiel’s informal enforcement mechanisms have a dominant, negative effect on certain lecturers. While many practical details under the status quo warrant change, Princeton’s commitment to uniform grading standards embraces the correct pedagogical philosophy. It fosters a rigorous and intellectual approach to learning that leaves a beneficial mark on graduates of this University.

Signed,

Xiang Ding ’13

Jonathan Sarnoff ’12