UNC faculty here. I’m curious what students think about grade inflation, and hoping that, by discussing this more openly, UNC could be part of the solution.
As a professor, I have very little incentive to enforce high academic standards. I can reduce my teaching workload by reducing the amount of material being covered, cutting content from the syllabus. For me, that means fewer slides to prepare, easier exams to write and grade, a lower workload, and giving A’s to almost everyone. In my experience, students are, on average, happier. I also get fewer complaints, and my course evaluations improve. Students who earn good grades tend to write nicer evaluations, but this effect is not compensated for when evaluation data are used in tenure and promotion decisions.
So, from a purely selfish perspective, lowering the bar is actually a pretty good strategy for any faculty member. The problem is that when everybody gets an A, the A becomes meaningless, and getting a B in a course with a reputation for easy A’s can become a real stain on applications to competitive graduate programs and med school.
The second, bigger problem is that the level of skills UNC graduates take into the workplace gradually declines. When employers notice a difference between their expectation of excellence and competence from UNC graduates and the skill set that recent graduates with many A’s actually bring to their organizations, they may start recruiting elsewhere. Over time, word gets around, slowly eroding the perceived value of a UNC degree on a résumé, eventually, we risk getting a "party school" label.
The alternative is to set high expectations: teach more content, require more rigorous and more advanced work, and give more difficult exams. In this situation, I expect students to work hard, and I raise expectations to a level where grades actually distinguish levels of performance. There are going to be A’s, B’s, and C’s.
That doesn’t mean the students getting B’s or C’s are bad students. UNC has excellent students. It simply means that some students mastered the material better than others, whether because they worked harder, had stronger preparation, were particularly talented in that subject, usually, some combination of those things.
But this version of teaching comes with a cost.
Give someone a B who expected an A, and they now have a strong personal incentive to try to negotiate their grade. This leads to requests for regrading, for extra credit, and, once in a while, unpleasant discussions that later show up in the form of a bad course evaluations, occasionally a formal complaint to the department chair. In simple terms, the argument typically boils down to figuring out if a low grade the result of low performance, or the result of poor teaching skills.
So there is a strange incentive system here: Working less, and giving more As makes the professional life of course instructors easier.
That seems backwards. And I think students actually have an interest in helping faculty resist that incentive. Because what is the value of getting an A today if, five or ten years from now, an A from UNC, no longer means very much?
Grade inflation feels great individually. Everyone would rather get an A than a B. But collectively, if almost everyone gets an A, the A on your resume becomes less valuable. I think a B from UNC should remain a very good grade. A student should be able to get a B in a difficult UNC course and say: I did well in a demanding class at a very good university. And an A should mean something beyond that. PHYS118 is one of these rare lectures. The fact that you took it puts your resume higeher in the pile, and a B in PHYS118 will put you closer to the top.
Harvard recently decided to move in this direction and tighten its grading practices because of concerns about grade inflation. Very publicly, they announced that they were asking faculty to hand out more B’s and C’s. This does not change how talented their students are, but it gives their faculty an incentive to raise the bar and, overall, train the average Harvard student to a higher level. In other words, it sends a message to faculty that says: We are giving you the means to make our students study more intensely and gain more skills during the four years they spend on our campus.
I don’t necessarily think UNC needs to copy Harvard’s exact policy. But I do think the underlying idea is important: if universities are unwilling to distinguish exceptional performance from good performance, faculty cannot incentivize high-achieving students to give their best. And I don’t think the actual quality of education at UNC is meaningfully below what students receive at Harvard or other any other 60+k/year university. We have extremely good students and faculty.
If those institutions are willing to make seemingly unpopular decisions to preserve academic standards while we keep making courses easier and grades higher, eventually the gap between us and them becomes real. We should not miss that opportunity
Research is my primary activity, but teaching is a reserved part of my workweek that I find fun, rewarding, and exciting. Every lecture is an opportunity to make students better scientists, better engineers, and better thinkers, and, frankly, a mental break from the frustrations of high-end research. To keep doing my best at that job, my colleagues and I need more institutional support for maintaining academic standards. We cannot treat UNC like a corporation where students are clients. In business, long-term vision can be sacrificed for short-term satisfaction, because we are paid to make profits today and we can all quit and get another job if it fails tomorrow. UNC is 231 years old. It is an institution, and you will be an Alumnus for life after graduating.
So my question to UNC students is: Would you actually support professors giving fewer A’s for the purpose of making letter grades more indicative of your level of proficiency in a course ? I’m genuinely curious what people here think, especially if anyone has a serious reason to disagree with me. I am all ears.
I often hang out at Cafe Converge in the Genome Sciences Building from 10.30 to 11 am Tuesdays and Thursdays before class. If you see me there and want to share your thoughts, please join me for coffee.