

Recent trends in grade inflation at American universities - ajdecon
http://www.gradeinflation.com/

======
timtadh
The most important line in the paper:

"As a rough rule of thumb, the average GPA of a school today can be estimated
by the rejection percentage of its applicant pool: GPA = 2.8 + Rejection
Percentage /200 + (if the school is private add 0.2)"

Interesting the more students a school rejects the higher its GPA seems to be.
To say it another way, the more selective an institution is the higher the
GPAs. ie. If you get smarter students, they tend to have higher GPAs. Example
my econ professor has been looking at the actual distribution of performance
in his class. He does not find a bell curve. Additionally he asserts there is
no reason to expect a bell curve in a college course, as students tend take
courses they are both interested in, and good at. The consequence, since you
don't have an even distribution of stupid students to smart students, you
won't have an even distribution of grades.

~~~
goodside
The problem (or at least the obvious problem) is not that some schools have
higher GPAs than other schools, but that average GPA has been increasing over
time at a rate that cannot plausibly be explained by improvements in
performance.

~~~
DrSprout
It depends on enrollment at the institutions in questions. If overall
enrollment has not increased in step with population, then it makes sense that
the quality of the students at the most selective schools has increased.

------
tseabrooks
When I was a grad student, 2 years ago, I was the teaching assistant for
Operating Systems. I was responsible for all the grading in the class and the
professor told me to give everyone A's no matter what on the assignments and
quizzes. Most of the students had little to no understanding of the material.
The professor said he was up for tenure that year and he was afraid that if we
handed out bad grades the students poor evaluations of him would keep him from
getting tenure.

I wonder if universities put to much stock in the opinions of the students.
I'd imagine that the professors eveluations would be heavily skewed towards
the negative if they grade their students performance accurately. I'd expect,
if grades were some how a normal distribution which they probably weren't,
that the students doing poorly in the class would give the prof low marks and
the students doing well would give the prof _meaningful_ marks - some
percentage of which would be negative.

~~~
DrSprout
Student evaluations are there to determine how effective the professor is at
teaching. Only talking to the students the professor succeeded at teaching
gives you a completely skewed and overly rosy perspective.

Also it may surprise you that some people have such poor self-esteem that they
will in fact take on blame themselves for their failings, even when an
objective analysis might show that another professor could have made that
student succeed.

Conversely, a high performer might falsely believe that their success occurred
in spite of the professor's incompetence, when the professors actions were a
key part of the student's success.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Student evaluations may be there to determine that, but they don't do an
effective job.

If you make the class difficult, students will hate you. If you are easy, they
like you. There are a few other tricks you can do to get better evaluations:
sympathy, good looks, and jokes.

It doesn't matter if they learn more in your class than they would elsewhere,
since we don't measure learning. If we really wanted to determine how
effective the professor is, we would standardize exams and compare student
performance across sections. We don't do this, probably because we don't
really want to know the results.

~~~
DrSprout
Standardized tests stunt the curriculum, forcing an inflexible notion of what
is worth knowing onto students. How, for example, do you have a standardized
test to judge undergraduate research? Doing something absolutely absurd based
on a fundamentally untrue proposition, so long as you put a lot of effort and
thought into it, is an essential part of the academic endeavor. (The key of
course being that there is no such thing as a fundamentally untrue
proposition, and one can start with a premise generally believed false to
produce a useful result which proves the premise true.)

Peer review and student evaluations together give a much better picture of a
professor's ability, and recognize that professor's ability to truly challenge
students, not merely parroting the general wisdom. Obviously, there are
inviolable facts, and it's important to recognize them - but learning is more
than understanding that which is generally accepted to be true.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Standardized tests don't stunt the curriculum, they merely define it. They
force an "inflexible notion of what is worth knowing" only as much as a
syllabus does.

For example, I'm forced to teach eigenvalues, but I don't get to teach about
linear programming, even though I think linear programming is well worth
knowing. That's because eigenvalues are on the syllabus, but not linear
programming. This would not change if someone else, rather than me, designed
my final exam.

All standardization does is give you a mechanism for comparing my students to
yours.

Obviously you don't use a standardized test for research credits. But you do
use it for already known material taught in class. In fact, many graduate
schools do exactly this - the standardized exams are called "written
qualifying exams."

------
yummyfajitas
Good to have statistics to back up my anecdotal observations.

My hypothesis about the cause: students complain more than they used to, and
professors cater to them. Student evaluations amplify this: the common formula
is "2 points easiness, 2 points sympathy, 1 point good looks."

(Evaluations are out of 5 points.)

I received the following complaint this semester: "Linear algebra is supposed
to be an _easy A_! But people are failing!" Linear algebra is the first class
where you do proofs and see abstractions like vector spaces. It's meant to be
a weed-out course. Some profs remove all the proofs and just teach you to
multiply matrices, which is indeed an easy A.

Interesting fact: there was a much bigger spike in grade inflation during the
Vietnam war. Professors graded more easily at that time to allow students to
remain in college and escape the draft.

~~~
yesimahuman
I don't know how I feel about this. Many of the students probably took Linear
Algebra because they believed it would be a way to satisfy their electives
without messing up their grades and thus their future. They were thinking
about other things than your class. Also, you don't really know anything about
your students and what path they might be on. For example, I'm taking an
elementary level class right now _because_ it's easy and I have one more
requirement left and I am graduating this semester and have a startup on my
mind.

University is incredibly valuable but the idea that it's the only thing in a
student's life is just not true anymore (if it ever was). Even with amazing
grades you will lose out to those with experience.

I'm not saying these classes are worthless, and I value highly the things I've
learned that I wouldn't have otherwise. I just don't know what the solution
is. I feel like society has destroyed our students' ability to make university
their life. Trying to force the students to dedicate their lives to your
elective class is just not realistic and you are focusing on the wrong group.

~~~
yummyfajitas
If you want a certification without knowledge, go to the University of
Phoenix.

It's completely unreasonable to expect one of the most fundamental math
courses (taught at a top 5 applied math school) to be an easy A. Particularly
when the students are business, econ, CS and physical science majors, some of
whom plan to work on a trading desk.

A specific complaint: I showed how to use linear algebra to construct
synthetic derivatives (e.g., build a bull spread or iron condor from puts and
calls). One of the _business majors_ complained to me that it wasn't in the
book and was too hard.

~~~
yesimahuman
I think you're missing my point. While many kids in your math class might need
linear algebra in the future, there are many classes that don't adequately
prepare you for study in that field yet expect that you _are_ , in fact, on a
major path in that field.

This just isn't true for many cases and you can't expect students to not be
turned off by this. At the same time, learning that you _don't_ know anything
about a certain field is incredibly enlightening and makes you realize you
aren't an expert in that field, it's just unreasonable to expect students to
risk messing up their future in their field of study over a class that isn't
relevant.

In hindsight, Linear Algebra was a bad example of irrelevance.

------
yequalsx
I teach at a public institution of higher learning. Over the past 30 years
funding per student has declined. This causes a shift in perception. Society
is no longer my client as a result of this shift in funding. My clients are
the students and the students want to pass. This pressure to pass people is
especially present in adjuncts and the use of adjuncts has dramatically
increased.

~~~
bokonist
_Over the past 30 years funding per student has declined_

Source? According to this paper: "From 1970 to the present, state support for
higher education has generally kept pace with both enrollment growth and
inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index."
<http://www.sheeo.org/about/paulpres/Baruch%20College.pdf>

~~~
yequalsx
Your source is hardly a valid one. It gives statistics but does not cite the
source of the statistics.

The paper you cited contains statements like this:

"Increases in net tuition have significantly, but not completely replaced the
decline in state support per student from 2001 to 2005. In 2001 total revenue
per FTE was $10,100 in 2005 dollars, essentially an all time high. It dropped
8.8% to $9,212 by 2005. While this is a material decrease from the high point
in 2001, it is roughly the level of funding available in the early 1990s. "

The author thinks that since the funding per FTE student in 2005 is roughly
the same as in the early 90's there has been no decline. This is an
astoundingly bad conclusion. There is a thing called inflation. There is no
reason to believe that since $9,000 per student was spent in the early 90s
then this same amount ought to be adequate in 2005.

The author also writes:

"This amounted to about $10,000 per FTE student in financial aid, half grants
and half loans and work study."

See, he counts as part of his funding per student debt that the student
acquires in order to attend school. When a student acquires debt to pay for
his/her tuition then this can't be counted as part of government funding for
higher education. The only part of this debt that can be counted is the
reduced cost in interest payments due to any federal guarantees of such loans.

In another place the author writes:

"The State Higher Education Finance study, done annually by SHEEO, shows “net
tuition” (tuition revenues less waivers and student aid from state and
institutional sources) has grown from 22% of total expenditures in 1981, to
26% in 1991, to 37% in 2005. This is a worrisome trend. "

Later the author writes:

"Increases in net tuition have significantly, but not completely replaced the
decline in state support per student from 2001 to 2005. "

It's a bad paper and a bad source of information.

~~~
bokonist
So what is your source?

The author is controlling for inflation, that's why he says, _in 2005 dollars_
, meaning inflation adjusted dollars.

I don't think it's a particular good piece, since he doesn't cite the raw
sources, which is what I'd want to look at. But it's enough to question your
original statement that inflation adjusted, per student state funding of
education has decreased over the past thirty years. Do you have a better
source?

I do agree that net tuition has increased. But that's because the universities
have allowed costs to increase at a much greater rate than inflation. The
solution is to control costs, not to complain about under funding.

~~~
yequalsx
The author of the paper you cited explains that funding per student has
declined from 2001 to 2005. He says that in 2000 funding was at an all time
high. This is so because of the Clinton presidency and the economic boom.

Sorry, I didn't read the part of the 2005 dollars. I suspected but didn't find
it in the paper. I retract my paragraph that this relates to.

~~~
bokonist
You originally stated that, "Over the past 30 years funding per student has
declined". What is your evidence for this? The paper I cited states that
funding had no general trend over the time period, although with ups and downs
based on the economy (for instance it declined from 2001 to 2005).

------
chaosmachine
I have a theory about the second half of that graph.

<http://imgur.com/nmEsW.png>

I could be wrong, but surely home computer access plays a role in evening the
playing field and raising the bar.

------
jleyank
This is NOT a recent complaint. I went to college '74-'78, and they raised
Dean's List from 3.2 to 3.4 in 1978 to reflect grade inflation...

------
pw0ncakes
This also has a lot to do with the watering down and "subjectivization" (for
lack of a better word) of the humanities. Even at Harvard, which is notorious
for grade inflation, math and science courses still give Bs and Cs for
middling work (I know some very intelligent people who've received Cs in
physics and chemistry courses there). The inflation is mostly in the
humanities.

Also flagrant is the bifurcation of the economics major. There's a "serious
economics" track for those who want to go to grad school, involving quant
courses and math up to real analysis, and a watered-down/easy-A economics
track for the mediocrities who want to be investment bankers.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_There's a "serious economics" track for those who want to go to grad school,
involving quant courses and math up to real analysis, and a watered-
down/easy-A economics track for the mediocrities who want to be investment
bankers._

Fun fact: the I-banks don't even look at students who did the watered-down
track.

~~~
pw0ncakes
False. It's not like people put "watered-down track" on their resume, and most
investment banks don't ask for transcripts until after employment (as
verification; they fire you if you don't have one, but this is extremely
rare).

Investment banks don't care about intelligence so much as the ability to go
through hoops, follow orders, and game the system. In fact, if you look at
their preferences as far as analysts go, intelligence seems to be selected
against.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Most students list difficult courses on their resume. They also ask tricky
brain teasers on the first phone screen. It's not that hard to weed out the
dumb ones. Students on the watered down track will never get into the front
office.

I've gone on IB interviews myself, and I've spoken to students who've done the
same. They do focus on conformity and big company culture (I was definitely a
bad fit at Goldman), but they also aim for a great deal of intelligence.

I think you are basing your opinion more on politics and tribal identity than
on facts.

~~~
pw0ncakes
This is true of trader and quant interviews, but not when people are being
evaluated for "soft skills" departments like IBD and M&A.

A "tricky" brain teaser for IBD is: "What is the expected value of an 8-sided
die?" or "If the Euro is worth $1.50 and a dollar is worth 100 yen, what is a
Euro worth in yen?" Mathematically-illiterate but intelligent people (125 IQ;
Ivy League non-quant major) will sometimes get these wrong on occasion, but
they're not exactly hard questions by our standards.

DE Shaw quant interviews, on the other hand, are tough, but the average
wannabe banker will never get anywhere near one of those.

This is what an IBD or M&A interview will be like for the average HN reader:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0yQunhOaU0#t=0m51s>

As for intelligence in investment banking, it's an asset to be very smart
(135+) if you're looking to be a quant or a quant trader (floor trading is
dying) but it's generally to your detriment if you're looking for an analyst
position, because the smart people tend to fail when it comes to the
conformity aspect. If you tell a smart person that he needs to sacrifice his
weekend in order to have X finished by Monday morning, he'll probably do it,
but he'll ask (gasp!) why it was left on his desk on Friday afternoon instead
of delivered to him earlier... and you just don't ask such questions if you
want to make it in banking.

Analyst programs are designed to pick out people with an unconditional work
ethic: people who believe "deadlines are deadlines" and will never question
why the work needs to be delivered in the way specified at the time specified,
people who will toil for 100 hours per week and not care if their results are
ever used or even relevant. This process tends to select against intelligence.
Don't get me wrong: investment banks would obviously love to have someone with
a high IQ and that sort of obedient profile, but that's a very rare
combination. Not only that, but people with that sort of obedient makeup,
while sometimes smart, are never creative or passionate.

------
csmeder
Why did you start the graph at 2.6? I understand you want to prove your point,
but please don't lie with graphs.

~~~
sp332
Because otherwise the graph would be several thousand pixels tall?

~~~
csmeder
No, you could keep the graphs just as tall. However, it would show that this
trend is smaller than you are currently making it appear.

