Article Preview
TopIntroduction
Research shows that grade inflation weakens the integrity of academics in colleges and universities (Blum, 2017), it involves re-ranking, and impacts earnings (Nordin, Heckley, & Gerdtham, 2019). It also provides a mismatch in the labor market resulting in students who are highly skilled being harmed (2019). University leadership can partner with academic administrators to develop policy, training, and best practices that diminish or completely abate the inflation of grades (Blum, 2017). The purpose of this review is to examine the problem of grade inflation by discussing the ethics of grade inflation, who is affected, how this became an issue as well as discussing possible solutions and a recommended course of action.
Grade Inflation
Research indicates that 42 percent of student end of course grades at four-year institutions are A’s (Mansharamani, 2016). Even more concerning, a total of 77% of college student grades were either an A or a B (2016). Even though not all faculty practice grade inflation, most academics are aware of this practice and recognize it as an issue that must be addressed.
Students are also largely aware as well, as they recognize the difference in grading from instructor to instructor. University leadership can partner with college administrators to guide, consult, and eliminate this unethical practice. When considering this issue, ethical considerations must also be discussed including rights and responsibilities of those involved, issues of fact and social constraint, etc. All of this must be within the context of relevant ethical theory.
Issues of Fact and Social Constraint
A review of the literature reveals some issues and constraints that result from grade inflation. These include job mismatch, end of course surveys, faculty performance management, and rank and tenure. Job mismatch exists when an employee is offered a job that does not match with the employee qualifications as indicated by the student’s grade performance. In other words, the employee had received grades that did not match with mastery of the content. As a result, this leads to decreased productivity in the workplace because the employee actually lacked the competency that the grade would support (Baird, 2019).
End of course surveys appear in the literature as an issue related to grade inflation. Kahl (2020) posits that contingent faculty sometimes feel pressured to inflate grades so that students provide positive end of course surveys. High marks on end of course surveys, in turn, may allow the contingent faculty member to continue to receive contracts. Kahl explains that often, end of course surveys are among the few methods of evaluation used for part-time and adjunct faculty thereby leaving the adjunct and part-time faculty pre-disposed to grade inflation. Stroebe (2020) echoes these concerns and goes further to suggest that student evaluations can encourage poor teaching and in turn contribute to grade inflation. In a sense, explains Stroebe, students need good grades, and faculty need good student evaluations; as a result, student evaluations give students the power to shape faculty grading behavior (2020).
Faculty performance management and promotion (rank and tenure) are also issues that should be considered in the discussion of grade inflation. Rather than (or in addition to) reliance on end of course surveys and student evaluations, administrators can engage in the use of teaching evaluations as part of the performance management process (Baird, 2019; Kahl, 2020; Stroebe, 2020) as well as for evaluation of faculty for rank and tenure promotion (Kahl, 2020).