Notes: The sample includes GPAs only of public institutions. The sample for each conference average is at least 50% of all institutions affiliated with that conference.
Showing posts with label grade inflation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label grade inflation. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Chart of the Week: GPA by Athletic Conference
Average college grades vary widely by athletic conference affiliation. While the average GPA at Pac-10 schools (e.g., UCLA and the University of Washington) is a whopping 3.22, the average GPA at Conference-USA schools (e.g., the University of Houston and Southern Miss) is 2.85, as this chart demonstrates.
Notes: The sample includes GPAs only of public institutions. The sample for each conference average is at least 50% of all institutions affiliated with that conference.
Notes: The sample includes GPAs only of public institutions. The sample for each conference average is at least 50% of all institutions affiliated with that conference.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Student Evaluations, Grade Inflation, and Declining Student Work Effort
by Richard Vedder
The Chronicle's Susannah Tully has brought my attention to a great article in the prestigious Journal of Political Economy by Scott Carrell and James West dealing with professorial approaches to teaching, student evaluations and student performance. It seems professors who do more than teach the basic bare-bones knowledge and are in some sense more rigorous tend to get poorer student evaluations (no surprise there). The less rigorous professors even get good performances out of their students in the courses taught but those students subsequently, in follow up courses, do poorer than the more rigorous professors who do more than teach to the standardized test. Sounds reasonable to me.
This got me thinking more about student evaluations and some other evidence. Specifically, I would note that student evaluations began to become popular during the 1960s and early 1970s as a common evaluation tool for faculty. I would also note that most of the great grade inflation in America has occurred since evaluations began, with national grade point averages probably rising from the 2.5 or 2.6 range in about 1960 to well over 3.0 today (admittedly, this is based on limited but I believe likely correct evidence). Professors to some extent can "buy" good evaluations by giving high grades, so the evaluation process is probably a major factor in grade inflation.
So what? What difference does it really make if the average grade is a B- or C+ instead of a B or B+? This is where another working paper of the National Bureau of Economic Research comes in. Philip Babcock and Mindy Marks present evidence in Working Paper 15954 that in 1961, the average student spent 40 hours a week engaged in their studies—attending class and studying. By 2003, this had declined by nearly one-third to 27 hours weekly.
One advantage of getting old is that you gain some historical perspective, and I have been in higher education for over a half of century and believe that Babcock and Marks are right. Students do less reading, less studying, even less attending class than two generations ago. Why? They don't have to do more. With relatively little work they can get relatively high grades—say a B or even better. And student evaluations are one factor in explaining the underlying grade inflation problem. Go to the campusbuddy.com Web site and see for yourself evidence on the grade-inflation phenomenon. The colleges of education, which in my judgment should be put out of business (topic for another blog), are the worst offenders, but the problem is pretty universal.
College is getting more expensive all the time—and students are consuming less of it per year as measured by time usage. The cost of college per hour spent in studying is rising a good deal faster than what tuition data alone suggest. Why should the public subsidize mostly middle-class kids working perhaps 900 hours a year (half the average of American workers) on their studies?
What to do? We could move to reduce the impact of student evaluations, or even eliminate them. One reason for their existence—to convey knowledge to students about professor—is usually met separately by other means, such as the RateMyProfessors.com Web site. Alternatively, colleges could by mandate or the use of financial incentives encourage faculty to become more rigorous in their grading. If state subsidies started to vary inversely in size with grade-point averages, state schools would quickly reduce grade inflation. In any case, we need more research into WHY students today are working less. But I would bet a few bucks that grade inflation and student evalauations are part of the answer.
The Chronicle's Susannah Tully has brought my attention to a great article in the prestigious Journal of Political Economy by Scott Carrell and James West dealing with professorial approaches to teaching, student evaluations and student performance. It seems professors who do more than teach the basic bare-bones knowledge and are in some sense more rigorous tend to get poorer student evaluations (no surprise there). The less rigorous professors even get good performances out of their students in the courses taught but those students subsequently, in follow up courses, do poorer than the more rigorous professors who do more than teach to the standardized test. Sounds reasonable to me.
This got me thinking more about student evaluations and some other evidence. Specifically, I would note that student evaluations began to become popular during the 1960s and early 1970s as a common evaluation tool for faculty. I would also note that most of the great grade inflation in America has occurred since evaluations began, with national grade point averages probably rising from the 2.5 or 2.6 range in about 1960 to well over 3.0 today (admittedly, this is based on limited but I believe likely correct evidence). Professors to some extent can "buy" good evaluations by giving high grades, so the evaluation process is probably a major factor in grade inflation.
So what? What difference does it really make if the average grade is a B- or C+ instead of a B or B+? This is where another working paper of the National Bureau of Economic Research comes in. Philip Babcock and Mindy Marks present evidence in Working Paper 15954 that in 1961, the average student spent 40 hours a week engaged in their studies—attending class and studying. By 2003, this had declined by nearly one-third to 27 hours weekly.
One advantage of getting old is that you gain some historical perspective, and I have been in higher education for over a half of century and believe that Babcock and Marks are right. Students do less reading, less studying, even less attending class than two generations ago. Why? They don't have to do more. With relatively little work they can get relatively high grades—say a B or even better. And student evaluations are one factor in explaining the underlying grade inflation problem. Go to the campusbuddy.com Web site and see for yourself evidence on the grade-inflation phenomenon. The colleges of education, which in my judgment should be put out of business (topic for another blog), are the worst offenders, but the problem is pretty universal.
College is getting more expensive all the time—and students are consuming less of it per year as measured by time usage. The cost of college per hour spent in studying is rising a good deal faster than what tuition data alone suggest. Why should the public subsidize mostly middle-class kids working perhaps 900 hours a year (half the average of American workers) on their studies?
What to do? We could move to reduce the impact of student evaluations, or even eliminate them. One reason for their existence—to convey knowledge to students about professor—is usually met separately by other means, such as the RateMyProfessors.com Web site. Alternatively, colleges could by mandate or the use of financial incentives encourage faculty to become more rigorous in their grading. If state subsidies started to vary inversely in size with grade-point averages, state schools would quickly reduce grade inflation. In any case, we need more research into WHY students today are working less. But I would bet a few bucks that grade inflation and student evalauations are part of the answer.
Friday, April 23, 2010
What Private College Tuition Really Buys You
by Daniel L. Bennett
CCAP has been recently been blogging on the matter of grade inflation (here, here and here). While CCAP has been looking specifically at the Colleges of Education in an effort to examine the trickle down effects into our K-12 education system, we are not the only ones investigating grade inflation. Research from Stuart Rojstaczer and Christopher Healy have uncovered some interested data which helps explain what one really gets for their money when choosing to attend a selective private college over a public one. They found that:
CCAP has been recently been blogging on the matter of grade inflation (here, here and here). While CCAP has been looking specifically at the Colleges of Education in an effort to examine the trickle down effects into our K-12 education system, we are not the only ones investigating grade inflation. Research from Stuart Rojstaczer and Christopher Healy have uncovered some interested data which helps explain what one really gets for their money when choosing to attend a selective private college over a public one. They found that:
Currently at private colleges and universities in our database, the average GPA is 3.3. At public schools, it is 3.0In other words, private college tuition is buying, on average, higher grades, admission to top professional and graduate programs, and a cut in line for job openings, according to Rojstaczer and Healy.
Since the evidence indicates that private schools in general educate students no better than public schools...private schools are apparently conferring small but measurable advantages to their students by more generous grading. Private schools also have on average students from wealthier families, and the effect of our nation’s ad hoc grading policy is to confer unfair advantages to those with the most money.
It is perhaps easy to see why graduates from certain private schools dominate placement in top medical schools, law schools, business schools, and why certain private schools are overrepresented in Ph.D. study. They grade easier and there is a tendency for graduate schools, professional schools, and some employers to confer extra stature to those who have attended selective private schools. Also, the fact that students from private schools tend to come from wealthier homes means they can stay in school longer.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Grade Inflation -- Another Look
by Christopher Matgouranis
Recently CCAP has begun to address the issue of grade inflation in American higher education, specifically examining its prevalence in Colleges/Departments of Education. We are currently working on a more expansive study. Combing through aggregate grade data on the website Campusbuddy.com, CCAP (specifically Chris Denhart and Michael Malesick) has been examining grade inflation across four separate disciplines as well as university-wide data. Continuing with past research, the field of education is a main focus and is examined along with economics, English, and physics. To date, data from more than 60 schools has been gathered. These schools are located across the country, ranging from nationally ranked state flagship universities (ex. University of Michigan) to regional state schools (ex. Central Michigan University).
Two separate indicators of grade inflation were analyzed. We looked for the average departmental/college grade point average, as well as the percent of “A” grades given in each field. The first chart depicts the average GPA, while the second shows “A” grade distributions.
Our findings are quite close to our initial estimates. Fields such as physics and economics are far behind the university averages in our sample, while English roughly keeps pace with the university, both in average GPA and “A” grade distribution. We are not making any claims that grade inflation does not exist in these disciplines—in fact, historical data show otherwise. Simply, these departments may be roughly keeping within the limits of the historical trends.
Education programs’ rampant grade inflation is an entirely different animal. Average GPAs are well over a half point higher than the university average and they also give nearly twice as many 'A' grades. This difference would be even more striking if education statistics were not included in university-wide averages, as education programs often comprise a considerable portion of the entire university.
As previous posts indicate, grade inflation within education programs can, and is, leading to serious systemic educational problems. Marginal students receive outstanding grades, often learning little. It may also be that the good students are gaining little from these programs as well. Perhaps there may be a better path towards becoming a primary or secondary school teacher. Students could forgo majoring in education and instead major in a more rigorous program (physics, economics, etc.). In order to become a teacher, they would be required to earn a teaching certificate on top of their bachelor’s degree. This route will provide a more thoroughly educated teacher, unlike many of the supposed “A” education majors currently being sent out into our K-12 schools.
CCAP will continue to examine grade inflation throughout the university system as a whole. Stay tuned.
Recently CCAP has begun to address the issue of grade inflation in American higher education, specifically examining its prevalence in Colleges/Departments of Education. We are currently working on a more expansive study. Combing through aggregate grade data on the website Campusbuddy.com, CCAP (specifically Chris Denhart and Michael Malesick) has been examining grade inflation across four separate disciplines as well as university-wide data. Continuing with past research, the field of education is a main focus and is examined along with economics, English, and physics. To date, data from more than 60 schools has been gathered. These schools are located across the country, ranging from nationally ranked state flagship universities (ex. University of Michigan) to regional state schools (ex. Central Michigan University).
Two separate indicators of grade inflation were analyzed. We looked for the average departmental/college grade point average, as well as the percent of “A” grades given in each field. The first chart depicts the average GPA, while the second shows “A” grade distributions.
Our findings are quite close to our initial estimates. Fields such as physics and economics are far behind the university averages in our sample, while English roughly keeps pace with the university, both in average GPA and “A” grade distribution. We are not making any claims that grade inflation does not exist in these disciplines—in fact, historical data show otherwise. Simply, these departments may be roughly keeping within the limits of the historical trends.
Education programs’ rampant grade inflation is an entirely different animal. Average GPAs are well over a half point higher than the university average and they also give nearly twice as many 'A' grades. This difference would be even more striking if education statistics were not included in university-wide averages, as education programs often comprise a considerable portion of the entire university.
As previous posts indicate, grade inflation within education programs can, and is, leading to serious systemic educational problems. Marginal students receive outstanding grades, often learning little. It may also be that the good students are gaining little from these programs as well. Perhaps there may be a better path towards becoming a primary or secondary school teacher. Students could forgo majoring in education and instead major in a more rigorous program (physics, economics, etc.). In order to become a teacher, they would be required to earn a teaching certificate on top of their bachelor’s degree. This route will provide a more thoroughly educated teacher, unlike many of the supposed “A” education majors currently being sent out into our K-12 schools.
CCAP will continue to examine grade inflation throughout the university system as a whole. Stay tuned.
Monday, March 08, 2010
Hedonistic College Students
By Richard Vedder
I heard a few snickers in the audience during the debate over college attendance that McNeil-Lehrer Productions put on with the University of Virginia's Miller Center a week ago over my comment about "hedonistic college students." (The debate, by the way, will be shown on PBS stations over the nation, especially on March 17). Many people simply do not believe data from a variety of sources that suggest that college students, on average, only spend around three hours each weekday on "education", defined to include all aspects of college instruction. Indeed, if the numbers are to be believed, education takes up far less time of college students than those studying at the high school level.
To be sure, these are average statistics, and I know a lot of students who put vastly more time into their studies, including a majority of my Whiz Kids who make CCAP home. I suspect the average student at, say, Yale, study more per week than the average student at, say, my university (Ohio University). Nonetheless, an awful lot of students spend far more time in bars or "recreation" than studying.
There are many reasons for that, including a sharp decline in professorial expectations of students. But I think a paramount reason is simple: grade inflation. New findings (that Cliff Adelman challenges but which I think based on my own personal experience is probably about right) show that the average grade point average of college students is rising about 0.1 point per decade, going from roughly 2.5 in the 1950s to 3.1 today --and higher at the more elite, selective admission schools.
This grade inflation enormously reduces student incentives to study, to learn. It creates a problem in identifying excellence. It used to be that only 5 percent or less of students had 3.7 averages or above --now at some schools 30 percent do, and it becomes hard to distinguish the "extraordinarily good student" from the merely "somewhat above average" one. The ease of getting high grades is reducing the time that students spend studying, but increases the time spent drinking, playing recreational sports, and having sex. Some of our best and ablest Americans are under worked at a time when they should be working more hours than older Americans with less physical ability to endure a hard work routine.
What about a "grade inflation tax" on excessive behavior? What if state governments reduced subsidies to state universities by 5 percent for every .10 points the accumulative student grade point average exceeded 2.8? A school with a 2.7 GPA would get full subsidy, one with a GPA of 3.15 would lose 20 percent of its subsidy. In such a world, I suspect grade inflation would come to a grinding halt, that average hours spent by students on studies would rise, learning would be enhanced, etc. Why isn't it done? Because schools don't want to seem hard-hearted, don't want to lose a competitive advantage relative to other schools, and because they don't want to deal with student complaining, etc. In short, for all the wrong reasons. Hence the solution must come from the outside --dare I say the legislatures that provide a good deal of funds to many schools?
I heard a few snickers in the audience during the debate over college attendance that McNeil-Lehrer Productions put on with the University of Virginia's Miller Center a week ago over my comment about "hedonistic college students." (The debate, by the way, will be shown on PBS stations over the nation, especially on March 17). Many people simply do not believe data from a variety of sources that suggest that college students, on average, only spend around three hours each weekday on "education", defined to include all aspects of college instruction. Indeed, if the numbers are to be believed, education takes up far less time of college students than those studying at the high school level.
To be sure, these are average statistics, and I know a lot of students who put vastly more time into their studies, including a majority of my Whiz Kids who make CCAP home. I suspect the average student at, say, Yale, study more per week than the average student at, say, my university (Ohio University). Nonetheless, an awful lot of students spend far more time in bars or "recreation" than studying.
There are many reasons for that, including a sharp decline in professorial expectations of students. But I think a paramount reason is simple: grade inflation. New findings (that Cliff Adelman challenges but which I think based on my own personal experience is probably about right) show that the average grade point average of college students is rising about 0.1 point per decade, going from roughly 2.5 in the 1950s to 3.1 today --and higher at the more elite, selective admission schools.
This grade inflation enormously reduces student incentives to study, to learn. It creates a problem in identifying excellence. It used to be that only 5 percent or less of students had 3.7 averages or above --now at some schools 30 percent do, and it becomes hard to distinguish the "extraordinarily good student" from the merely "somewhat above average" one. The ease of getting high grades is reducing the time that students spend studying, but increases the time spent drinking, playing recreational sports, and having sex. Some of our best and ablest Americans are under worked at a time when they should be working more hours than older Americans with less physical ability to endure a hard work routine.
What about a "grade inflation tax" on excessive behavior? What if state governments reduced subsidies to state universities by 5 percent for every .10 points the accumulative student grade point average exceeded 2.8? A school with a 2.7 GPA would get full subsidy, one with a GPA of 3.15 would lose 20 percent of its subsidy. In such a world, I suspect grade inflation would come to a grinding halt, that average hours spent by students on studies would rise, learning would be enhanced, etc. Why isn't it done? Because schools don't want to seem hard-hearted, don't want to lose a competitive advantage relative to other schools, and because they don't want to deal with student complaining, etc. In short, for all the wrong reasons. Hence the solution must come from the outside --dare I say the legislatures that provide a good deal of funds to many schools?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
