Shouldn’t I get an “A?”
Robert T. Bailey1
Abstract
Grade inflation—the unjustified rise in student grade point averages over the past few decades—is a subject
of intense interest and concern at many higher education institutions across the United States. Statistics
indicate that the effect is real, and even engineering programs, often perceived to be among the most difficult
on campus, are not immune to this phenomenon. In this paper, we examine the possible causes of grade
inflation, identify its detrimental effects, and describe possible solutions, including an effort at the
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC) to engage the faculty at a grassroots level.
Introduction
Today’s institutions of higher learning serve multiple customers and provide a variety of services to society
as a whole. Nevertheless, a major component of their overall mission is still to educate students and to make
a definitive statement about how well these students have actually performed during their educational
endeavors (i.e., assign grades). Most institutions within the United States use some variation of a
“traditional” grading scale (A, B, C, D, F), with the A representing the highest level of achievement and the F
signaling failure to meet minimum standards for passing. The translation of these grades into a numerical
grade point average (GPA) is also a standard practice, whereby the following numerical weights (quality
points) are commonly used: 4.0 for A, 3.0 for B, 2.0 for C, 1.0 for D, and 0.0 for F. (Variations on this scale,
such as the addition of plus/minus grading, will be discussed later in this paper.)
Over the past 30 years, statistics from colleges and universities across the United States indicate that mean
GPAs2 have risen significantly (Beck, 1999; Zirkel, 1995). This phenomenon, often referred to as grade
inflation, is of concern to educators because it does not appear to be a result of increasing levels of aptitude
or performance (Beck, 1999; Zirkel, 1995; Olivares, 2001). Corresponding to this rise in GPAs, but perhaps
even more disturbing, is a rise in the percentage of A grades assigned. Levine and Cureton (1998) conducted
a comprehensive survey of 4,900 undergraduates from institutions ranging from two-year colleges to
research universities. They found that in 1969, seven percent of students received grades of A- or higher. By
1993, this statistic had increased to 26 percent. More recent data indicate that the percentage of A grades
has risen even more. Westfall (2000) reports that over 40 percent of the grades awarded at the University of
Illinois in 1999 were A’s. At Harvard, 46 percent of the undergraduate grades assigned during the 1996-97
academic year were A- or above. At the author’s own institution—the University of Tennessee (UTC) at
Chattanooga—the percentage of A’s increased from 31.4 in 1990 to 37.2 in 2000 (UTC, 2001a). Clearly, the
phenomenon of grade inflation has affected both public and private institutions alike.
1 College of Engineering and Computer Science, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, 615
McCallie Avenue, Chattanooga, TN 37403
2 Unless otherwise noted, the grade point averages listed in this paper refer to the average of grades
assigned for all courses within the indicated department, college, or university.
ASEE Southeast Section Conference
1
Because of the quantitative nature of work in mathematics, the physical sciences, and engineering, there is
some evidence that grade inflation has progressed more slowly in these areas (Zirkel, 1995; Wilson, 1999).
Thus, there may be a tendency to think that engineering curricula have somehow avoided grade inflation.
This does not appear to be the case. In a study of grades at Ohio University, Manhire (2001) found that the
mean GPA within the college of engineering rose from 2.73 in 1993 to 2.98 in 1999—an increase of over 9
percent. At the same time, the percentage of A’s increased from 25.8 percent to 37.7 percent. Other
institutions report similar trends, but there are exceptions. At UTC, the engineering GPA decreased slightly
from 2.85 in 1990 to 2.80 in 2000. Interestingly, the percentage of A’s increased from 33.0 to 35.3 percent
during this same period.
Based on the above information, it is evident that grade inflation has taken place at American colleges and
universities, and recent data indicate that it is still occurring. To better understand the reasons behind
grade inflation and the problems it creates, we first consider the process of assessment and grading in
general.
Assessment and Grading
Assessment of student performance is a natural and important part of the educational process. As stated by
Olivares (2001), “A critical aspect of the educational process is for students to differentiate what they know
from what they think they know.” The most brilliantly designed lectures, cooperative learning sessions,
educational materials, and exercises are wasted if real student learning does not take place. Thus, it is the
author’s belief that education is a partnership between the student and the instructor, with each assuming
certain responsibilities. One shared responsibility is that of assessment. Students should learn to assess
their own performance objectively so that they can identify weak areas and take steps to strengthen them.
Nevertheless, objective self-assessment is difficult, and the ultimate institutional responsibility for student
assessment rests with the instructor.
The Grading Scale
Grading is simply a standardized way of representing the assessed level of student achievement. Every
institution has its own descriptions of their grading scale; the scale used by UTC is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. The grading scale at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC, 2001b).
Grade
A
B
C
D
F
Description
represents superior performance in the course
represents commendable performance in the essentials of the course
represents acceptable performance in the essentials of the course
represents marginal performance below the accepted standards for university work
indicates unqualified failure and the necessity for repeating the course to obtain credit
It is interesting to examine the definition of the italicized word in the A description shown in Table 1
(American Heritage College Dictionary, 1997):
superior - of great value or excellence; extraordinary
Much of the concern about grade inflation has to do with whether students who receive A grades are truly
demonstrating superior work. By the definition above, an A should represent something of great value—
something not seen on a regular basis. If the majority of students in a course receive an A, it becomes
difficult to argue that this represents extraordinary work.
ASEE Southeast Section Conference
2
Grading Objectives
The conclusion above is subject to criticism if one considers a class composed entirely of top performers. This
leads to the observation that grading can be used to accomplish two separate objectives (University of
Colorado at Denver, 1997):
Objective 1 -
To measure student achievement relative to a defined set of skills or body of
knowledge (measurement against an absolute standard);
Objective 2 -
To measure student achievement relative to the performance of their peers.
Initially, it may seem that these objectives are very different and often at odds with each other. Consider
again a class composed entirely of strong students who all demonstrate a high level of mastery of the desired
skills or knowledge. If grades are assigned with objective 1 in mind, all of the students could be assigned an
A. If, instead, objective 2 is the focus of grading, some students that performed very well could receive C
grades simply because other students performed at an even higher level. Application of the so-called bell
curve, where a fixed percentage of students receive A’s, B’s, C’s etc., is one method often used to achieve
objective 2.
In practice, both objectives are important and need not be at odds. When setting the absolute performance
standards needed in objective 1, instructors should take into account (1) the level of performance that
students at their institution are historically capable of (both average and exceptional students) and (2) the
requirements of the subject at hand. If this is done with care, then meeting the second objective should also
be possible. That is, by setting the bar for an A high enough, but not unrealistically high, distinctions among
levels of student performance will appear naturally without having to force such distinctions with a fixed
curve. Unfortunately, achieving the right balance between these two factors is not an easy task. It is
particularly difficult to estimate the capabilities of the strongest students without some years of experience
with the particular student body. One must also be mindful of the expectations of employers regarding levels
of employee knowledge and performance in their field.
There is another good reason for trying to meet both grading objectives: Industry finds both types of
information useful. That is, employers want to know whether applicants are competent or superior, and they
also want to know how individuals stack up against each other. There is great interest in industry today on
teamwork skills, but graduating seniors still compete for positions. Since companies are prepared to invest
significant resources on new employees, they want to be able to make distinctions among the candidates.
College grades are one measure of possible future performance that employers can use to make informed
hiring decisions.
Difficulties in Assessment and Grading
Evaluating student performance fairly can be quite challenging. This is especially true when some of the
more modern and innovative educational strategies are incorporated into courses. More and more,
traditional lecture-and-test formats are being supplemented with or replaced by problem-based and/or
cooperative learning approaches. To develop the skills desired by employers and to meet new engineering
accreditation requirements, students are frequently required to work in teams on open-ended design
projects. In this kind of environment, it becomes very difficult to determine what constitutes superior versus
adequate versus inadequate performance. Making the finer distinctions necessary for assigning specific
letter grades is even more of a challenge. A more detailed discussion of these difficulties is beyond the scope
of this paper, but the interested reader should review the work of Davis (1999), University of Colorado at
Denver (1997), and Bailey et al. (2001) for information on successful strategies for assessment and grading.
ASEE Southeast Section Conference
3
The point here is that assessment and grading are difficult and challenging activities. The use of a
standardized grading scale provides a common framework for evaluating student performance and can yield
valuable information for employers.
Damage from Grade Inflation
Grade inflation is more than just an annoying artifact of the educational process. At a very basic level, it
undermines the ability of the higher education institution to fulfill a major component of its mission, i.e., to
make a definitive statement about how well students have actually performed during their educational
endeavors. Some of the more severe detrimental effects are listed below.
Devaluation of Superior Work. If A’s are awarded for work that is not truly superior, then students who
really do perform at an exceptional level are not receiving the recognition that they should. Experience
suggests that most of these top individuals will continue to perform at a superior level despite the fact that
others are receiving the same grade for lower-quality work. However, this does not alter the inherent
unfairness of the situation.
Lack of Useful Information for Employers. As grade inflation continues, the usefulness of the GPA in helping
employers to determine the level of candidate competency and to distinguish among candidates is
diminished. At some point, grades will become virtually useless as a measure of future performance.
Implications for Public Safety. After they graduate, engineering students will take on responsibilities for
analyzing, designing, and/or fabricating a wide variety of devices and systems to benefit humankind. The
unexpected failure of some of these devices or systems could have dire consequences including loss of human
life. By inflating grades, educational institutions imply a level of competence that may not exist. Students
who have never had to “get it right” to get an A may be ill-equipped to perform the critical tasks that
industry will ask of them. Most companies have processes in place to ensure that design flaws and incorrect
calculations and analyses are found before they become safety issues; however, a general decrease in
graduate competence due to grade inflation could increase the potential for unsafe products to make their
way to the public.
Causes of Grade Inflation
Many potential causes for grade inflation in higher education have been advanced in the literature, and
some are highlighted below.
The Vietnam War. Several investigators cite the Vietnam War as the event that ushered in the era of grade
inflation (Manhire, 2001; Minnesota State University, Mankato, 2001). Poor grades left male students
vulnerable to the draft, and sympathetic faculty apparently adjusted grades upward. Once the war ended,
the trend toward higher grades continued.
More-Qualified Students. One possible reason for continued grade inflation after the Vietnam war was that
students were simply getting better. Unfortunately, the statistics do not bear this out. Over the period from
1965 to 1980, grade inflation was acute while average SAT and ACT scores were in decline (Wilson, 1999).
Indeed, by 1991, the average verbal and math scores on the SAT had dipped significantly below those from
1969, and the College Board responded by artificially raising the mean scores (Zirkel, 1995). Even at
institutions where more selective admissions policies resulted in higher average ACT scores for incoming
freshman, the GPAs of students with the same ACT score were found to increase significantly between 1990
and 1998 (Beck, 1999). Thus, grade inflation cannot be attributed to having better-qualified students.
ASEE Southeast Section Conference
4
Innovative Educational Approaches. It was mentioned previously that the use of innovative educational
strategies such as problem-based and/or cooperative learning approaches and team-based design projects can
lead to difficulties in fairly assessing student performance. Faced with the enhanced level of subjectivity
associated with assigning grades based on these activities, faculty members may tend to give students the
benefit of the doubt, resulting in grade inflation.
Student Evaluations of Teaching. Since student evaluations of instructor performance have frequently
become a significant factor in decisions regarding tenure and promotion, it is postulated that instructors may
be giving higher grades to ensure more positive student evaluations (Minnesota State University, Mankato,
2001). Zirkel (1995) asserts that this is indeed the case. His conclusions are supported by Twitchell, (1997)
and Greenwald and Gillmore (1997). However, other researchers contend that the evidence for this is mixed
(Manhire, 2001; Westfall, 2000).
Student Retention. Funding for colleges and universities is directly tied to student enrollment. Therefore, in
addition to the institutional desire to succeed in the educational mission, there is also a strong institutional
desire to retain students to avoid loss of revenue (Westfall, 2000; Minnesota State University, Mankato,
2001). One way to retain students is to give them higher grades.
Grade Inflation Prior to College. Students arriving at colleges and universities are often used to receiving
high grades for less than superior work (Zirkel, 1995; Westfall, 2000). An instructor who imposes challenging
requirements often finds himself or herself dealing with a substantial number of student objections
regarding grading. Over time, it becomes easier to just lower the standards.
Competition Among Universities. Top universities compete against one another for top high school seniors.
Students who are used to getting all A’s may be reluctant to attend a university where grading is difficult
(Liebman, 1998).
Students as Consumers. Just as industry has focused on customer satisfaction to improve quality, so too has
higher education focused on satisfying its primary customers—the students. Unfortunately, the students are
also “products,” so using student satisfaction as a primary measure of quality has built-in weaknesses. Data
collected by Olivares (2001) suggest that even inflated grades are not inflated enough for students, who
indicated that they deserved a grade that was, on average, one-half letter grade higher than the one they
received. As stated by Manhire (1980), grade inflation may be a result of society’s “apparently growing belief
(misconception) that academic excellence is a commodity the university is able to bestow upon all students
regardless of their academic aptitude.”
Potential Solutions
Having established that grade inflation is widespread, even in engineering, and having noted its detrimental
effects, it is natural to ask, “What can be done about it?”
Plus/Minus Grading
One solution that has been proposed is the establishment of plus/minus grading (Minnesota State
University, Mankato, 2001). Many variations are possible, but one system is illustrated in Table 2.
Baker and Bates (1999) examined the numerical impact of the plus/minus system shown in Table 2 on
grades within the Management Department at the University of North Florida and found that it had no
effect on the aggregated mean GPA. This agrees with computer simulations conducted by Matthews (1997)
at Wake Forest. Interestingly, Baker and Bates also found that both the students and the faculty had a
negative opinion of the plus/minus system. Other institutions (e.g., the University of Missouri and the
ASEE Southeast Section Conference
5
University of Minnesota) implemented plus/minus grading systems for a variety of reasons including the
hope that it would combat grade inflation. However, no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that these
efforts had any significant impact on grade inflation (Baker and Bates, 1999).
Table 2. One possible plus/minus grading scale.
Grade
Quality Points
A
4.0
AB+
B
BC+
C
D
3.7
3.3
3.0
2.7
2.3
2.0
1.0
F
0.0
Inclusion of Additional Information on Transcripts
Another possible way to address grade inflation is to publish an overall class grade (or GPA) next to each
course entry on student transcripts. For example, if a student earned a B in a course where the average
grade was a B+, then the grade might appear as B/B+ or 3.0/3.3. In this way, the student’s level of
achievement could be compared with the class average. The thinking here is that employers could examine
transcripts to get the relative performance information that they want, and that this fact would discourage
students from seeking easy A’s and rewarding instructors who give them. Dartmouth implemented such an
approach in 1994, but Wilson (1999) reports that it has had no significant effect on curbing grade inflation.
Grassroots Faculty Involvement
UTC’s Academic Standards Committee wrestled with the problem of grade inflation during the 2000-2001
academic year. Research yielded no real success stories from other institutions’ attempts to deal with grade
inflation, so the Committee took a different approach. A letter was composed and sent out to each faculty
member. This letter described the problem and presented statistics to support the contention that grade
inflation was occurring at UTC. It then went on to encourage each department to meet and discuss a specific
list of questions regarding grade inflation, namely:
1) Are the departmental faculty, as a whole, comfortable with the current statistics and trends for the
department? If so, why? If not, what can be done?
2) How do faculty in your department interpret and differentiate among grades they award? Are the
criteria from the UTC catalogue used? (See Table 1.)
3) Does the percentage of A’s reflect the number of students who perform at a superior level in your
courses?
4) Is it acceptable for different sections of the same course to include radically different grading
policies and required levels of performance (academic freedom notwithstanding)? If so, why? If not,
what can be done to avoid this situation?
ASEE Southeast Section Conference
6
Departments were especially encouraged to include adjunct faculty in these discussions, since many faculty
members indicated that adjust faculty could be contributing disproportionately to grade inflation.
The heart of this approach was the belief that grade inflation could best be stopped through a unified effort
at the instructor/departmental level. That is, if each faculty member took an introspective look at their own
grading practices and then discussed their beliefs with their peers, a kind of grassroots movement could
take root to curb grade inflation. Anecdotal feedback to the Committee indicates that many constructive
departmental discussions took place, but it remains to be seen whether this approach will bear fruit.
Conclusions
Statistics indicate that grade inflation is pervasive in American colleges and Universities; even challenging
engineering programs are not immune to this phenomenon. Grade inflation brings with it several
detrimental effects, most notably, a weakening of the ability of the institution to fulfill one of its central
missions: making a definitive statement about how well its students have actually performed during their
educational endeavors. Some possible solutions have been described, including a grassroots effort at UTC,
but to date, no published studies have indicated any significant success in stopping grade inflation.
References
American Heritage College Dictionary (1997), 3rd Edition, Houghton-Mifflin Co., Boston, Massachusetts.
Bailey, R. T., C. M. Wigal, and R. U. Goulet (2001), “Peer Evaluation in Senior Engineering Design,” in
Proceedings of the 2001 ASEE Southeastern Section Annual Meeting, Charleston, SC, April 1-3, 2001.
Baker, H. E., and H. L. Bates (1999), “Student and Faculty Perceptions of the Impact of Plus/Minus Grading: A
Management Department Perspective,” Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, Volume 10, Number 1,
pp. 23-33.
Beck, B. (1999), “Trends in Undergraduate Grades,” Association for Institutional Research in the Upper
Midwest 1999 Fall Conference, St. Paul, Minnesota, retrieved from
http://wiscinfo.doit.wisc.edu/obpa/grades/UG_grades.htm.
Davis, B. G. (1999), Tools For Teaching, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California, 1999.
Liebman, A. (1998), “When Every ‘A’ is Easy.” ARGOS—The E-Journal of FAST, Fall 1998, Vol. 1, No. 3.
Levine, A., and J. S. Cureton (1998), When Hope and Fear Collide: A Portrait of Today’s College Student,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California, 1998.
Manhire, B. (2001), “The Current Status of Academic Standards in Engineering Education at Ohio University,”
in Proceedings of the 2001 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Session 1360, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Matthews, R. (1997), “Evaluation of Effect of the Plus/Minus Grading System: A Computer Model,” Wake
Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Minnesota State University, Mankato (2001), “Grade Inflation,” Center for Faculty Development, Minnesota
State University, Mankato, Minnesota, retrieved November 9, 2001, from http://www.mnsu.edu/cenffd/.
ASEE Southeast Section Conference
7
Olivares, O. J. (2001), “Making the Grade has Never Been Easier: The Rise of Grade Inflation in the American
Academy,” Texas Education Review, Fall 2001, retrieved from
http://www.educationreview.homestead.com/GradeInflation.html.
Westfall, J. (2000), “The Rate of (Grade) Inflation.” The Daily Illini Online, December 6, 2000, retrieved from
http://www.daily illini.com/dec00/dec06/news/printer/news01.shtml.
Wilson, B. P. (1999) , “The Phenomenon of Grade Inflation in Higher Education,” Meeting of the Governor’s
Blue Ribbon Commission on Higher Education, Longwood College, April 8, 1999, retrieved from
http://www.frontpagemag.com/archives/academia/wilson04-13-99.htm.
Twitchell, J. B. (1997), “Stop Me Before I Give Your Kid Another ‘A’,” Washington Post, June 4, 1997, p. A-23.
University of Colorado at Denver (1997), “Assessment of Our Students—Grading in General,” Office of
Teaching Effectiveness, Nutshell Notes, Volume 5, Number 1, retrieved from
http://thunder1.cudenver.edu//OTE/nn/.
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC) (2001a), Letter from the Academic Standards Committee to the
faculty, September 28, 2001.
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC) (2001b), University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Undergraduate
Catalogue 2000-2001, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Zirkel, P. A. (1995), “Grade Inflation: A Problem and a Proposal,” Education Week, March 8, 1995, retrieved
from http://www.educationweek.org/ew/ew_printstory.cfm?slug=24zirkel.h14.
ASEE Southeast Section Conference
8
Robert T. Bailey
Dr. Bailey is an assistant professor of engineering at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC). He
received his B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in mechanical engineering from University of Florida, the latter in
1991. Before coming to UTC in 1999, he worked in industry for over 8 years, serving as a Senior Program
Officer for the National Research Council, as a Senior Engineer and Branch Manager for Science
Applications International Corporation (SAIC), and as a Senior Engineer with Westinghouse Savannah
River Company. His primary areas of interest and expertise include thermal/fluid system analysis (predicting
behavior under off-normal, transient conditions), quantitative risk assessment (QRA) and safety enhancement
of engineered systems and industrial processes, computational fluid dynamics (CFD), and application of
computer technology to engineering education.
ASEE Southeast Section Conference
9