Grade Inflation, Ethics, And Engineering Education

An overview of grade inflation in American higher education is presented and its ethical implications are examined and found to be troubling. A synopsis of the ethical ethos of engineering is provided and an account is given of corresponding expectations regarding ethics instruction in engineering education. Because it is unethical, grade inflation is contrary to the ideals and goals of engineering education; and recommendations are proffered accordingly. I. Grade Inflation in American Higher Education Grade inflation is very much like price inflation which, is the general rise in the average price of a basket of goods. Price inflation is measured by taking the same physical quantity of items and measuring the price of those goods periodically. Because the physical items being measured do not change, an increase in prices will indicate inflation, which affects monetary value only. Grade inflation exists when the value of grade point averages increases with no change in the real physical attributes of what the grades are measuring. In other words, grade inflation refers to an overall rise in grades with no commensurate increase in quality of courses or academic achievement. Grade inflation is ubiquitous in American higher education. Its contemporary causes (i.e., since the 1960s) are reported to be the Vietnam War, and “...white professors, imbibing the spirit of affirmative action....” Peter Sacks attributes its continuation to the increasing influence of postmodernism on American society. Professor Valen E. Johnson corroborates this in his recently published book about grade inflation, where he states that postmodernist faculty are “much less likely to assign poor grades.” There is considerable literature against postmodernism, which is generally associated with the humanities (Figure 1). Other grade-inflation causes proffered include the growing consumer mentality of students, the corporate-management style leadership culture pervasive in higher education nowadays with its attendant commercialization of higher education (including for example the evaluation of teaching by students as customers/consumers of higher education), and the misperception that over-grading enhances student self-esteem. 22, 26 * Also see Riesman regarding this impetus. † For example, see the references cited in Manhire. P ge 945.1 Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright 2004, American Society for Engineering Education Figure 1. Humanities (Reprinted with permission of Nick D. Kim) Grade inflation is widely reported in the literature; and virtually all reports of it are critical. A comprehensive overview of grade inflation is given in the CQ Researcher and Professor Johnson’s book provides a thorough quantitative study of the subject. In addition, circumstantial evidence has been reported which suggests that grade inflation has encroached upon engineering education. 30-35 It has recently been reported that at Northwestern University’s McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 48 percent of grades are in the A range and 86 percent are in the A-B range; and even more important with respect to this article’s theme, “Stephen Carr, McCormick’s associate dean for undergraduate engineering, said the school’s faculty has discussed grade inflation and decided there was nothing wrong with it.” II. Grade Inflation Is Unethical Ethics is “The discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation.” This definition is consistent with that found in philosophy and the (axiomatic) principle that: “Certain aspects of right and wrong exist objectively, independent of culture or per* See for example the references cited in Manhire. P ge 945.2 Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright 2004, American Society for Engineering Education sonal opinion.” The intention herein is to describe grade inflation by way of language that is “unambiguously ethical in the sense of expressing straightforward judgements of right and wrong.” Trenchant testimony condemning grade inflation includes the following: In a recent report issued by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, grade inflation was deemed unethical: The main plea is to be clear about professional standards and obligations and to bring practices into line with these standards. The selection of a standard will necessarily be an individual matter—individual for each college or university, department, and faculty. The present system is flawed. The ethics of professional conduct demand that we—as faculty members—seek the best solutions for our institutions. According to Yale University Professor Stephen L. Carter, grade inflation is uncivil: Civility allows criticism of others, and sometimes even requires it, but criticism should always be civil. This proposition helps explain why grade inflation is not only dangerous but actively uncivil: When college professors give easy grades, we show that we do not respect our students enough to face their fury or disappointment. We make no sacrifices on their behalf but instead require sacrifices of others, both the exceptional students, who are unable to distinguish themselves because the merely fair students earn grades every bit as good, and the marginal students, who believe they know more than they do because we gift them with grades their work does not earn. In his book Grade Inflation, Professor Valen E. Johnson of the University of Michigan describes the following “alarming” implications of grade inflation regarding student course selection (and student evaluation of teaching, SET): An instructor who grades stringently is not only less likely to receive favorable course evaluations, but is also less likely to attract students (another indication of poor teaching?). Because most departments are hesitant to devote teaching resources to undersubscribed classes, this means that stringently grading instructors are also less likely to have the opportunity to teach specialized courses in their academic area. And of course, to the extent that personnel decisions at an institution are based on teaching effectiveness, or at least on the institution’s perception of teaching effectiveness, stringently grading faculty are less likely to be promoted, to receive salary increases, or to be tenured. Harvard University drew considerable international (and surely unwanted) press attention to itself as a result of the recent and highly publicized grade-inflation scandal there. Harvard Magazine * As opposed to the language of values, as described by Olafson. P ge 945.3 Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright 2004, American Society for Engineering Education lampooned Harvard for its lax academic standards and the political cartoon shown in Figure 2 appeared in newspapers across America. Grade inflation is so severe at Harvard University that one might mockingly conclude that Harvard is setting the standard for grade inflation; it has become the epitome, i.e.; laughingstock, of the phenomenon, against which the rest of higher education may be compared. The cynical/satirical press attention grade inflation is receiving of late does not bode well for those universities following Harvard’s lead, especially those state-support schools that wish to maintain public trust and respect for their academic programs. Figure 2. Harvard (Reprinted with permission of Scripps Howard News Service) Harvard University Professor Harvey C. Mansfield, a longtime critic of grade inflation, has said the following about grade inflation there (and elsewhere): You often hear that it’s very hard to get into Harvard, but not very hard once you’re there. That is a truth you hear from Harvard students; it is only beginning to reach the Harvard faculty. The faculty for the most part does not realize quite * As public awareness of grade inflation grows, it may very well reach a threshold where it fuels public support for political action along the lines described in Professor Dziech’s polemic "Why Academe Gets No Respect.” P ge 945.4 Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright 2004, American Society for Engineering Education how easy Harvard is now. It thinks only of the difficulty of getting into Harvard, arising from the fact that merit, and not family wealth, is now the predominant factor in admission. Thus, essentially all Harvard students are bright. But are they equally bright? Grade inflation is a statement that they are. Having spoken on the subject, I do not want to repeat the arguments. To sum them up: Grade inflation may once have had the idea behind it that grading is an undemocratic act of oppression by teachers over students, but nobody now advances that stale claim from the 1960s. Grade inflation has become a thoughtless routine convenient for professors, students, parents, and administrators, in which an individual professor overgrades his students as unconsciously as a parent might spoil his children. It is hard now for professors to be hard on students. It is hard for them to give demanding assignments, make unsympathetic comments, enforce deadlines, and be sparing of praise and difficult to impress. It is not that students are not respectful of professors. They are sometimes just short of worshipful; they are far from denouncing and protesting the authority of the older generation as they used to do in the 1960s. But the respect of students for professors is now exceeded by the respect of professors for students, which does come from the 1960s. And it is not that professors are devoted to their students in gratitude for their students’ respect. Their devotion is limited by their failure, on principle but also for their convenience, to consider what is good for students. What is good for studen