Grading and Grade Inflation at
Georgia Tech
Preliminary Report to the Executive Board
March 11, 2003
Grade Inflation Defined
The upward shift in the grade point average
(GPA) of students over an extended period of
time without a corresponding increase in
student achievement.
Goldman, L. 1985. “The Betrayal of the Gatekeepers: Grade
Inflation.” Journal of General Education 37 (2): 97-121
Methodology
• Extensive study of literature
• Survey of peers and other institutions of
higher education
• Statistical analysis of Georgia Tech data
– Focus on undergraduate level only
– Historic perspective
– In-depth study of last 10 years by department
Georgia Tech’s Peer Institutions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
CalTech
Carnegie-Mellon
Cornell
Johns Hopkins
MIT
Northwestern
Stanford
NC State
Penn State
Purdue
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Texas A & M
UC-Berkeley
UCLA
Florida
Illinois-Urbana
Michigan
Minnesota
Texas
Washington
Virginia Tech
Other Institutions Reviewed
• University of Arizona
• University of North CarolinaChapel Hill
• Harvard University
• Louisiana State University
• Hood College
Peer Review
• Surveyed 10 peers for recent grade inflation
studies at their own institutions
• Compiled grading definitions, including the
use of plus/minus systems, at all 20 peers
• Review of grade inflation studies at other
institutions, most notably UNC-Chapel Hill
and Harvard
Of the 10 Peers Surveyed…
• Five had conducted studies on grading and
grade inflation
• These five “studies” ranged from the effects
of a plus/minus grading system to charts
showing SAT score plotted against GPA
• Interesting responses from Berkeley and
MIT regarding need to do such studies
Grade Definitions at Peers
• Most use 4.0 scale
• Standard: A = Excellent, B=Good,
C=Satisfactory, D=Poor/Passing,
F=Failure
• CalTech and MIT use Pass/Fail in
freshman year
• 14 peers use some form of plus/minus
grading system
Cause for Alarm?
• At Princeton, the median GPA for the class of
1973 was 3.09; in 2000 it was 3.36
• At Dartmouth, the average GPA has risen from
2.70 to 3.33 from 1967 to 2001
• At Harvard, over the last three years, more
than 50% of the grades awarded have been A’s
• At Georgia Tech, the average overall GPA in
Fall 1985 was 2.59; last Fall, it was 2.86
Fall 2002
Fall 2001
Fall 2000
Fall 1999
Fall 1998
Fall 1997
Fall 1996
Fall 1995
Fall 1994
Fall 1993
Fall 1992
Fall 1991
Fall 1990
Fall 1989
Fall 1988
Fall 1987
Fall 1986
Fall 1985
Fall 1984
Fall 1983
Fall 1982
Fall 1981
Fall 1980
Fall 1979
Fall 1978
Fall 1977
Fall 1976
Fall 1975
Fall 1974
Fall 1973
Fall 1972
Georgia Tech GPA
Georgia Tech Undergraduate GPA
Fall 1972 through Fall 2002
3
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
Georgia Tech
University of Washington
University of Florida
Princeton
University of NC-Chapel Hill
Texas A&M
Purdue University
Harvard
Fall 2002
Fall 2001
Fall 2000
Fall 1999
Fall 1998
Fall 1997
Fall 1996
Fall 1995
Fall 1994
Fall 1993
Fall 1992
Fall 1991
Fall 1990
Fall 1989
Fall 1988
Fall 1987
Fall 1986
Fall 1985
Fall 1984
Fall 1983
Fall 1982
Fall 1981
Fall 1980
Fall 1979
Fall 1978
Fall 1977
Fall 1976
Fall 1975
Fall 1974
Fall 1973
Fall 1972
GT vs. Other Institutions
Comparison of Georgia Tech Undergraduate GPAs vs. Other Institutions
Various Time Frames
3.6
3.4
3.2
3
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
Harvard’s Solution: Policy Change
• 15-point grading scale became the more
common 4-point scale
• Honor degrees will be awarded to a limited
percentage of each graduating class (20%
summa cum laude and magna cum laude
combined and 50% overall)
Where does Georgia Tech stand?
Georgia Tech Undergraduate Grade Distribution
FY 1992-2001
60,000
A
B
C
D
F
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
A
B
C
D
F
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
39,951
44,928
29,479
8,118
3,851
42,747
44,663
28,040
7,379
3,418
43,446
44,099
27,214
7,266
3,706
43,673
44,118
26,003
7,203
4,012
43,502
43,506
26,165
7,558
4,262
43,319
42,592
24,928
6,903
3,834
45,520
42,047
24,373
7,031
3,695
49,873
45,734
26,743
7,636
4,241
35,730
32,997
19,618
6,165
3,880
38,898
34,979
19,533
5,820
3,732
*Audit, Incomplete, Satisfactory Completion, Unsatisfactory Completion, and Withdrawn were not included in this data.
Student Expectations
Fall 2000 Freshmen
Anticipated
GPA
All
3.5-4.0
40.6%
3.0-3.4
53.3%
2.5-2.9
5.6%
2.0-2.4
0.2%
< 2.0
0.3%
Cumulative Spring 2001 GPA
< 2.0
2.0-2.4 2.5-2.9 3.0-3.4 3.5-4.0
11.4%
11.4%
16.1%
27.1%
34.1%
12.0%
19.0%
24.9%
24.3%
19.8%
7.9%
42.1%
23.7%
23.7%
2.6%
0.0% 100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Input Dynamics: High School GPA
and Admissions Index
Freshman Cohorts
Fall 1993-Fall 2002
High School GPA, Georgia Tech GPA, and Admissions Index
4
3.9
GT GPA
HSGPA
Admissions Index
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
Correlation Between GT GPA and HSGPA
3.4
3.3
3.75
3.2
3.1
3
3.70
2.9
2.8
3.65
HS GPA
2.7
2.6
3.55
3.50
2.8
2.85
2.9
2.95
GT GPA
3
3.05
3.1
Fall 2002
Fall 2001
Fall 2000
Fall 1999
Fall 1998
Fall 1997
Fall 1996
Fall 1995
Fall 1993
Fall 1994
2.5
3.60
Freshman Cohorts
Fall 1993-Fall 2002
High School GPA by Ethnicity
4
Asian
3.9
Black
Hispanic
Multi-racial
White
All
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
Fall 2002
Fall 2001
Fall 2000
Fall 1999
Fall 1998
Fall 1997
Fall 1996
Fall 1995
Fall 1994
Fall 1993
3
Incoming Student Performance
2002 Freshman Cohort
Fall 2002 GT Cumulative GPA
4
1994 Freshman Cohorts
Fall 1994 GT Cumulative GPA
4
3.5
3
2.5
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
2
0
2
1.5
2.25
2.5
2.75
3
High School GPA
1
0.5
0
2
2.25
2.5
2.75
3
High School GPA
3.25
3.5
3.75
4
3.25
3.5
3.75
4
Georgia Tech Undergraduate Grade Distribution
Fiscal Year 1992, 1999, 2001
A
37.2%
A
31.6%
B
35.6%
B
34.1%
C
23.3%
F
D 3.0%
6.4%
C
19.9%
A
37.8%
FY 1992
FY 1999
F
3.6%
B
34.0%
D
5.7%
C
19.0%
FY 2001
F
D 3.2%
5.7%
Georgia Tech 1000 Level Grade Distribution
A
31.8%
Fiscal Year 1993, 1999, 2002
A
33.8%
F
3.6%
D
6.2%
B
35.4%
F
4.5%
D
7.0%
C
23.1%
B
33.4%
FY 1993
A
36.5%
F
4.8%
D
6.6%
B
33.4%
FY 2002
C
18.6%
C
21.2%
FY 1999
Georgia Tech 4000 Level Grade Distribution
F
1.5%
D
3.3%
A
42.0%
Fiscal Year 1993, 1999, 2002
C
16.5%
F
1.5%
D
2.9%
C
14.0%
A
47.3%
B
34.2%
B
36.6%
FY 1999
FY 1993
F
1.0%
D
2.0%
C
11.8%
A
51.9%
B
33.4%
FY 2002
1000 Level Grade Distribution (%)
College
Georgia Tech
Architecture
Computing
Engineering
Ivan Allen College
Sciences
FY
A
B
C
D
F
1993
31.79%
35.43%
23.06%
6.16%
3.57%
2002
36.53%
33.39%
18.63%
6.60%
4.85%
Increase or Decrease
4.74%
-2.04%
-4.43%
0.44%
1.28%
1993
53.39%
31.05%
12.74%
1.45%
1.37%
2002
79.30%
15.55%
3.60%
0.41%
1.13%
Increase or Decrease
25.91%
-15.50%
-9.14%
-1.04%
-0.24%
1993
29.30%
31.67%
22.46%
9.47%
7.10%
2002
26.92%
29.92%
21.72%
10.79%
10.65%
Increase or Decrease
-2.38%
-1.75%
-0.74%
1.32%
3.55%
1993
36.97%
34.22%
19.44%
5.71%
3.66%
2002
41.67%
41.51%
13.81%
1.67%
1.35%
Increase or Decrease
4.70%
7.29%
-5.63%
-4.04%
-2.31%
1993
30.06%
42.03%
22.34%
3.87%
1.69%
2002
40.46%
40.80%
13.97%
2.80%
1.96%
Increase or Decrease
10.40%
-1.23%
-8.37%
-1.07%
0.27%
1993
30.60%
31.40%
25.15%
8.04%
4.80%
2002
33.96%
31.04%
21.59%
8.20%
5.21%
Increase or Decrease
3.36%
-0.36%
-3.56%
0.16%
0.41%
4000 Level Grade Distribution (%)
College
Georgia Tech
Architecture
Computing
Engineering
Ivan Allen College
Management
Sciences
FY
A
B
C
D
F
1993
42.00%
36.63%
16.48%
3.34%
1.55%
2002
51.88%
33.38%
11.77%
1.99%
0.98%
Increase or Decrease
9.88%
-3.25%
-4.71%
-1.35%
-0.57%
1993
36.02%
36.30%
20.65%
4.98%
2.05%
2002
44.39%
34.24%
15.87%
3.52%
1.98%
Increase or Decrease
8.37%
-2.06%
-4.78%
-1.46%
-0.07%
1993
45.14%
34.84%
14.91%
2.39%
2.73%
2002
51.38%
31.89%
13.52%
2.14%
1.07%
Increase or Decrease
6.24%
-2.95%
-1.39%
-0.25%
-1.66%
1993
42.54%
36.13%
16.84%
3.20%
1.29%
2002
50.49%
33.47%
13.25%
2.06%
0.73%
Increase or Decrease
7.95%
-2.66%
-3.59%
-1.14%
-0.56%
1993
52.52%
32.91%
11.09%
2.12%
1.37%
2002
61.45%
29.90%
6.66%
0.61%
1.38%
Increase or Decrease
8.93%
-3.01%
-4.43%
-1.51%
0.01%
1993
27.50%
42.53%
25.07%
3.92%
0.98%
2002
43.13%
37.92%
14.69%
3.32%
0.94%
Increase or Decrease
15.63%
-4.61%
-10.38%
-0.60%
-0.04%
1993
40.05%
34.95%
17.01%
5.30%
2.69%
2002
51.76%
32.60%
10.59%
2.70%
2.36%
Increase or Decrease
11.71%
-2.35%
-6.42%
-2.60%
-0.33%
Average
Textile and Fiber Engr
Public Policy
Psychology
Physics
Modern Languages
Mechanical Engineering
Mathematics
Materials Science & Engr
Management
Literature, Comm & Culture
International Affairs
Industrial & Systems Engr
Hist, Technology & Society
Electrical & Computer Engr
Fall 1993
Economics
Earth & Atmospheric Sci
Civil & Environmental Engr
Chemistry and Biochemistry
Chemical Engineering
Biology
Aerospace Engineering
Naval Science
Music
Military Science
Industrial Design
Health & Performance Sci
Computer Science
City Planning
Building Construction
Architecture
Air Force Aerospace Stud
4
Fall 2002
3.75
3.5
3.25
3
2.75
2.5
2.25
2
Average
Textile and Fiber Engr
Public Policy
Psychology
Physics
Modern Languages
Mechanical Engineering
Mathematics
Materials Science & Engr
Management
Literature, Comm & Culture
International Affairs
Industrial & Systems Engr
Hist, Technology & Society
Electrical & Computer Engr
Fall 1993
Economics
Earth & Atmospheric Sci
Civil & Environmental Engr
Chemistry and Biochemistry
Chemical Engineering
Biology
Aerospace Engineering
Naval Science
Music
Military Science
Industrial Design
Health & Performance Sci
Computer Science
City Planning
Building Construction
Architecture
Air Force Aerospace Stud
4
3.75
3.5
3.25
3
2.75
2.5
2.25
Fall 2002
2
Average
Textile and Fiber Engr
Public Policy
Psychology
Physics
Modern Languages
Mechanical Engineering
Mathematics
Materials Science & Engr
Management
Literature, Comm & Culture
International Affairs
Industrial & Systems Engr
Hist, Technology & Society
Electrical & Computer Engr
Fall 1993
Economics
Earth & Atmospheric Sci
Civil & Environmental Engr
Chemistry and Biochemistry
Chemical Engineering
Biology
Aerospace Engineering
Naval Science
Music
Military Science
Industrial Design
Health & Performance Sci
Computer Science
City Planning
Building Construction
Architecture
Air Force Aerospace Stud
4
Fall 2002
3.75
3.5
3.25
3
2.75
2.5
2.25
2
Implications?
STUDENTS
SCHOOLS
EMPLOYERS
Report Outline
• Scope and Definitions
• Grading at Georgia Tech
– Opinions
• Analysis of Peer Institutions
• Discussion
– Sources
– Implications
– Remedies
• Conclusions and Bibliography
Conclusions?
• Statistically, there is grade inflation
• Peer comparison does not indicate cause for
alarm
• Quality of incoming students is increasing
• Lower level courses: quality of student
experience
• Impact of tenure status of the instructors
• Non-uniform departmental distribution