Editorial: Reexamining grade deflation

The University’s grading policy states: “We want to emphasize that any student who does A-range work should receive an A-range grade. Under no circumstances should any faculty member fail to give an A to a student who deserves it.” The experience of the student body is contrary to this, however. Many professors begin courses by telling students the number of A’s given will be constrained by the University’s policy, and they sometimes even codify that statement into the syllabus. Such grading is a misapplication of the policy, as the quota is intended to limit the number of A's given at the department level rather than the course level. This misapplication of the grading policy by professors on a class-by-class basis makes it likely that students may not be given grades that accurately reflect the quality of their work. If a professor limits at the start of a course how many A’s will be given, he or she is likely not grading each student’s work based solely on its merits. Instead, such a professor is grading with an eye toward meeting the allotments of the grading policy, which is contrary to the stated intentions of the policy.

The logic of grade deflation also invites a sense of direct competition against classmates. If only the top 35 percent of a class can get a top grade, helping to bring someone up to the level of understanding or analysis that is shared by the top 35 percent would jeopardize one’s own chance of getting an A-level grade. This disincentivizes cooperation among students. Sharing notes, forming study groups and tutoring peers are all things that students could use to gain a greater understanding of the material but are contrary to individual incentives under the grading policy. Given Princeton’s ostensible commitment to academic cooperation among undergraduates, it seems odd that the University has instituted a policy that directly undermines incentives to cooperate.

These poor incentives are especially present in introductory-level classes, as many departments lower the allotment of A-range grades to 30 percent or even 25 percent so that they can give 40-plus percent A’s in higher level classes. It is unfounded to think that fewer students are doing well in introductory courses, especially because the work is often easier. Princeton prides itself on being a liberal arts institution that encourages students to explore new fields and consider all concentrations. But here, too, the grading policy undermines one of Princeton’s philosophical commitments. If a student knows that introductory courses are graded especially harshly, he or she will be less likely to explore departments outside of his or her academic field. This not only limits exploration on the course level but also on the department level — any non-A grade in an introductory course would likely deter students from pursuing the department further.

Furthermore, the resulting lower GPA of Princeton students limit job opportunities and academic pursuits. The existence of GPA cutoffs for graduate schools, fellowships, internships and jobs limit some Princeton students from even pursuing them, and those that do pursue such opportunities have the extra challenge of a lower GPA than competitors from peer schools. While large institutions likely have knowledge of Princeton’s grading policy and thus evaluate its students accordingly, smaller firms, either because of their size or lack of information-gathering resources, are less likely to have this knowledge. Their ignorance will penalize Princeton students who have lower GPAs than they might otherwise have. True, Princeton sends a letter explaining a grading policy along with official transcripts, but that letter may not compensate for the lower GPA and is inadequate because often employers do not ask for transcripts; instead, they may only ask for resumes that indicate a student’s GPA.

Finally, the grading policy was instituted with the expectation that our peer schools would soon institute their own policies dedicated to curbing grade inflation. That expectation has been proven false. Since the policy’s institution in 2004, our peer schools have not engaged in similar initiatives; Yale is only now considering the issue of grade inflation, and it is unclear what form of policy it may institute. Just as Princeton revisited its early action policy in light of its failure to elicit similar policies from our peer schools, so too it is time to revisit grade deflation because of its failure to influence the policies of other universities.

Grade deflation affects the everyday lives and post-graduation plans of Princeton students in real ways, and it is important that discussions about the disadvantages of the policy continue. The Board believes that repealing the policy would be a sound change. But, short of that, the policy might also be improved by ensuring that professors apply it appropriately, by increasing the allotted number of A’s or by increasing the time span over which departments must achieve the required grade allotments. While these policy suggestions are tentative, the Board firmly believes that they represent possible paths forward and urges students to continue challenging the policy.