Thanks To Grade Inflation University 'Cum Laude' Honors Are Now Meaningless

In May, 2013, I cited a study by Stuart Rojstaczer and Christopher Healy, published in the prestigious Teachers College Record , revealing that about three-fourths of all grades awarded at university level are “A”s or “B”s.   As I observed at the time, this makes those As and Bs next to useless precisely become of the very commonality. An 'A' used to stand for academic excellence, but it can't if so many are getting them! It also renders the achievements of truly exceptional students ho-hum. How in the world can they truly stand out if middling or loser students get the same grades they do? It's preposterous!

I went on to point out that if one went back to the mid 1960s such a college level grade anomaly would not be found, unless it was at some "Flunky U" or maybe a junior college. What did one find, say at Loyola University- New Orleans, or the University of South Florida?  Well, the proportion of As were fairly stable at about 10 percent, with Bs at 20 percent, and 'gentleman's Cs' right at around 40 percent where they ought to be.  Hence, in a General Physics class of 400 students - say at USF-  one expected to see maybe 40 As, 80 Bs, 160 Cs, 80 Ds and 40 Fs.

In other words, grade frequency conformed to the standard Gaussian distribution or normal curve. Similarly, at the other end of the curve Ds would make up 20 percent and Fs 10 percent. Even in the typical astronomy class, say astrophysics - the grade distribution tended to follow the same pattern. So for maybe 10 students in AST 443, 1 would receive an A,  two got Bs, four received Cs,  two received Ds and there was one F.

But what do we find today? Barely 5 percent Ds, if that many,  and zero percent Fs! Essentially, college teachers today - tenured profs as well as adjuncts- have given away the "grade store" and sold out . This has occurred either from capitulating to threats of bad teacher evaluations, or kowtowing to pesky ass parents who insist Junior and Missy not be docked points on a critical test.

So, given this shabby situation it's no surprise one reads (e.g. 'You Graduated Cum Laude? So Did Everyone Else',  WSJ, p. A2, July 3):

"Honors designations have become close to the norm at many top schools, according to a Wall Street Journal review of the criteria for earning honors and the percentage of the senior class that got the designation in the top 50 of the WSJ/Times Higher Education Ranking.

The share increased to 44 % from 32%  in the past decade at USC, which requires a GPA of at least 3.4 for the lowest honor- cum laude- and to 44 % from 39 % at Lehigh where students need at least a 3.4."

Adding:

"At Wellesley College, 41 percent of this year's graduating class completed their degrees with Latin honors which means  GPA of at least 3.6"

Meanwhile, at Middlebury College  the proportion of students graduating with Latin honors was "north of  50 percent this spring" - which is ridiculous.

We are also informed "most elite schools cap the share of graduating class that can receive academic honors"  but "the caps vary widely".   For example, from 25 % at Columbia, to 60 % at Harvard. Again, this is preposterous, but at least Harvard re-calibrated from its "91 percent in 2001, highlighted in a Boston Globe article about generous honors policies".

And my essential point, reinforced in spades (ibid.):

"Academic researchers say the uptick is a sign of grade inflation, not smarter students."

Correct, because you simply cannot get that many smarter students! In many ways this farcical phenomenon resembles the claimed "Flynn effect" where most Americans are allegedly getting smarter and smarter each year as gauged by standard IQ tests. The phenomenon of incrementally increasing IQ first circulated in 1984, following a study in that year by James R. Flynn, purporting to show that citizens in advanced nations like the U.S. have experienced massive IQ gains over  time.

Thus Americans – for example – have gained 3 IQ points per decade from the early 1900s to today, as reflected in both the Stanford –Binet and Wechsler Intelligence scales. By another test’s standards (the Raven’s Progressive Matrices) – for which scores go back to people born in 1872- the gains disclosed amount to 5 IQ points per decade. So a guy with the same genetic background who was born in 1910 and had an IQ of 100 then, would attain an IQ of 160 by 1970 thanks to the Flynn effect, or equal to the (accepted) IQ of Einstein. Of course, the Flynn effect is supposed to apply to a statistical ensemble, not individuals - but I use the example of an individual measure over decades to make the point the claim is nonsense.

Even if we just stick to ensembles, it is foolish. Using the Raven’s and scored against today’s norms,  our ancestors in 1910 would have an average IQ of 70, or about moron level. By comparison, our mean IQ today – that is, disclosed within the ‘hump’ portion of a Gaussian distribution – would range from 130 to 150 depending on the test. For reference, 130 basically gets you into Mensa (accepting the top 2% of IQs) and 150 marks you as a “genius”. Are we all geniuses on our way to becoming Über-Geniuses? I don’t think so!  Neither are all the cum laude honors recipients at Harvard really cum laude quality.  They achieved that honor via a skewed grading system.

Most importantly, the ranks of neither Mensa or Intertel have increased markedly - nor have the potential members who would be accepted.  (Taking into account all those who've no interest in joining either one). Select a random sample of the populace, say 10,000 or 50,000 – and dispatch them to sit the Mensa and Intertel IQ tests. Those making the cut will still be only 2% and 1%, respectively, as has been the case for decades.  You will not find 50 percent getting through, or even 20 percent.

And you will certainly not find the mammoth proportions now receiving cum laude honors! An anomaly that suggests that either the courses taken are way too easy, or the professors - TAs are marking assignments, exams too easy.

Make no mistake, because of grade inflation, students use 'Rate My Professor' to  avoid professors who believe the grade of “C” is the average grade and who set up standards that require students to do more than show up, read a couple of hundred pages, and answer a few questions. This then translates into fewer students in the more rigorous courses that also feature more no nonsense profs.

Now, it's true some departments traditionally grade tougher than others, say like science and engineering departments. In my experience and at least through 1985, all tended to have lower overall grade averages than those in social sciences and humanities. The reason is that they adhered to rigorous Gaussian curve models for each test and homework grades.. If then 50 people took a class, say in complex algebra, and the grades ranged from a maximum of 80-85%  - which 5 got, and a minimum of 40 -45% which another 5 received, then those limits defined the extent of As and Fs, respectively.  The large central tendency bunch (say 28 in number)  that scored between 50% and 70% would ALL receive Cs,  no question. All the rest would get Bs and Ds, depending on whether they fell between 70 and 79 or below 50.

By contrast to the above, we've learned that typical Education, Early Education programs tend to have the highest course grade averages. It’s not unusual for the average grade in elementary education courses to be an A-minus, and in secondary education to be a B-plus. That means either our future teachers are brighter than a supernova—or that their profs don’t know there are more than just two letters in the alphabet. More likely, it means very sub-average or average students are taking relatively easy courses. The proof of this? Looking at years of GRE  test scores taken by Ed. majors vs. those of science majors. In year after year, Ed.  major grads' GRE averages seldom crack the 950 total for both math and verbal, while science grads routinely crack 1200-1250. Case closed!

Lastly, one has to factor in the role of parental expectations and pressure into the ongoing inflation of grades. Because every parent believes his kid will either be another Fortune 500 CEO, or a Billionaire hedge fund owner, he mandates to every university staff member that Jr. is expected to get As. Not to perform to the highest standards, but ...get those As. And woe betide the sorry butt of any prof who doesn't cooperate. He will be beseiged by angry emails or phone calls.

Administrators play into this absurd game, because they are the ones who've made the sine qua non index for their universities attaining a critical mass of students who consistently garner high enough grades to remain - to keep the money pumping in from Mommy, Daddy or more often now, the private lender. Better this critical inflated grade mass of lazy ass students than that they actual develop critical thinking skills, and oh yes...absorb some knowledge.

Sadly, there's no sign the trend is going to reverse any time soon, but there are solutions, none of which entitled students and their helicopter parents are likely to accept. The most plausible change would be to the grading scale. Janice herself has often stated how "stupid" the American grade scale is, as it is "so squeezed at the top".   I.e. "passing" only begins at a 70 percent mark with all 4 passing grades compressed into 30 points, (70- 100).

As she puts it: "Why not have at least 50 marks allocated to passing, so you fail only if you get below 50?"  At Harrison College where she attended, for example, anything below 50 % was an F, no arguments. Grades from 50-60 rated a D, from 61-70 a C, and From 71-80 a B. Marks higher than 80 earned an A but virtually no student attained a 93 % the usual starting point for an A in the U.S. The reason is that exams at HC were genuinely difficult - so much so that even the 'cream of the crop' seldom  scored even 90%.

Two sample problems from one of my own Calculus Physics final exams are given below;

1)Find the root mean square velocity of a molecule of hydrogen at a temperature of -20 C on Mars’ equator if the atmospheric pressure is 0.0056 bar. (Earth’s is 1.0 bar). Take the molecular weight of hydrogen as 2.016 g/mol.

b) A group of 4 astronauts lands on Mars with solar radiation collection material of total area 2000 m2. If the efficiency of the material is 30%, and the ambient night time temperature on Mars (for their base location at Isidis Planitia) is -40 C (10C day time), will they have adequate collecting material if the solar constant on Mars is 620 W/ m2  ? (Assume insulating material with a thermal conductivity of 0.08 W/mC, and a need to keep the inside area of their domecile at least at 10 C, requiring solar radiant energy collected of at least 1,200 W per minute for an area of 10 m x 10 m.)

c) Estimate the thickness of insulating material they're likely to need in order to make it work. Comment on whether this expedition is even feasible given the limits of their materials, and that no more than 100 m ³  of insulating material can be taken.

2) Examine the pendulum system shown in the diagram below.

Here, h2 = 1.7 m and h1 = 1.5 m. Given a pendulum length, L, write out the Lagrangian for the system, i.e. difference between its kinetic and potential energy, using: g, L, h2, h1 and the deflection angle Θ.

b) Hence or otherwise compare the velocities of the pendulum bob of mass m (= 0.1 kg) for the same values of h2, h1 if an experiment evaluating energy change is conducted on both Mars and Earth at the same time, for the same deflection angle Θ and length, L = 1.0 m. (Take the acceleration of gravity on Earth as 9.8 N/kg,and on Mars as 3.7 N/kg) Compare also the potential energy in each case. Why or why not would these be different? (Take the deflection angle to be 15 degrees in each experiment.)

Five other problems of similar difficulty were included with the student having to choose 4 of the total and complete the exam in 90 minutes.    The highest score obtained for this exam was 71%, for a class of exceptionally bright students. 

Note that the level of difficulty of the physics exams are pretty well the same as for Chemistry, Biology, English Lit, History, Math etc.  For example, two problems (of 7) for an HC Math final where 5 in all had to be answered in 90 mins.:

1)(a) The coordinates of the points L and N are (5, 6) and (8, -2), respectively.
(i)State the coordinates of the midpoint M of the line, LN.

(ii) Calculate the gradient of the line LN and propose, with justification, the equation for a parabola to which the line LN would be tangent at the point (8, -2)

(iii) Determine the equation of the straight line which is perpendicular to LN and which passes through point M.  Propose, with justification, the equation of the circle that is tangent to this line.

(b) An aircraft leaves Jamaica at 13:55 hrs. and travels to Barbados via Antigua. The average speed of the aircraft is 420 km/hr. It arrives in Antigua at 16:45 hrs. local time. Given Antigua is ONE hour AHEAD of Jamaica, compute the distance between Jamaica and Antigua.

2) (a) Using Fig. 1 and the information therein, calculate (giving reasons)


i)  The Angle MSQ

ii) The Angle RSP

iii)  The Angle SPN

b)   The matrix R =

(cos(Θ)......-sin(Θ))
(sin (Θ)......cos(Θ))

i) Determine the coordinates of the image (1, 2) under the transformation R when Θ = 90 degrees.

ii) If the point (p, 3) is on the line (L) given by: x + 2y = 5, calculate the value of p.

iii) Given the point (1,2)is on L, determine the image of L (L') of the line L under the transformation R.

iv) Write the matrix equation to represent the pair of simultaneous equations given by L and L'.

No surprise that highest honors at Harrison College were awarded for course grade averages of 70 percent or higher. (No GPA point grades were used.)  In no way and at no time did the percentage of highest honors ever exceed 1 percent in a given year. Further at no time did the equivalent of U.S. 'cum laude' honors ever exceed 5 percent.

At HC honors implied a genuine distinction - not being one of a large, similar achieving pack that benefited from grade inflation!

Yes, "Scientist Burnout" Is A Real Condition

It is interesting that when we read of the exploits of star scientists - like recent Physics Nobel Prize winners - few think of the downsides of scientific success and achievement, namely burnout and even mental health breakdown.  But one recent Physics Today contributor who did is Andrea Welsh - in a May 2017 commentary ('It's Time for Physicists to Talk About Mental Health')  Why is there so little attention especially in the popular scientific press? Well, let's face it, speaking or writing publicly about mental health issues - including in science - has powerful stigmas attached.

Now, in the interests of full disclosure, I have never in my various tenures at different universities seen colleagues actually crack up. I have seen them under stress, especially in regard to completion of special grant projects, but not actually fall apart. What I have seen is mainly overstressed doctoral students suddenly realizing  they can no longer handle the load and just quitting - even within a year of finishing their Physics Ph.D.

My thinking here is good on them for realizing early that pursuing a high profile physics or astronomy research career may not be in their best mental health interest.   They preemptively took steps to avoid conditions that have been accurately described in a more recent (September, 2017) Physics Today Commentary, by Luigi Delle Site, who wrote:

"The highly competitive atmosphere in which scientists work leads to an unrelenting daily race to do more and to do it better. That race sets many up for burnout. Sometimes scientists reach their goals, and those successes fuel their recovery from stress. At other times, because of a lack of time and money or because of unrealistic expectations—theirs or others’—they do not meet their goals. Those cases, lacking the positive feedback of success, can, over time, sap their drive to continue.

Scientists’ jobs require that they do continue—to publish, teach, seek research funding, and participate in meetings around the world—when what they really need is time to stop and recharge. They realize that their absence from any of their career activities could lead to the loss of their reputation and standing in the community. Fear and anxiety begin to dominate their actions and thoughts and may increase to unbearable levels.

When scientists reach the end of their stress tolerance, even the minimal performance required for a small lecture or a local meeting can become a nightmare. They may feel unable to explain even a simple formula to a handful of students; struggle to find the right words; develop anxiety symptoms such as trembling, feeling faint, or experiencing fear and shame; or find that body and mind are not working together. By that time, the decrease in both happiness and the ability to function is well under way: Desperation leads to depression and isolation."

Is he serious? Yes, of course! While I've not seen assorted physics or astronomy professors outright crack in front of me, I have beheld incoherent lectures, inability to explain even basic equations or in fact, having to erase whole boards full of plasma physics equations and start over again.  While this may be allowed as an unusual "one off"  when it becomes a regular occurrence it's time for concern. Concern that the scientist in question may be in over his or her head and needs to recharge - or perhaps rethink one's professional commitments.

Two sources of added stress I've seen rear their ugly heads in the past twenty five years or so are first, teacher evaluations - especially in conjunction with ongoing grade inflation - and second the emergence of sites like "Rate My Professor" where every little dweeb can sound off on a prof he may not like, because he's too tough.

I trace most grade inflation to the idiotic teacher evaluations that emerged around the late 80s. A depressing 2013 study by Stuart Rojstaczer and Christopher Healy, and published in the prestigious Teachers College Record  found that three-fourths of all grades awarded at university level are A's or  B's.

Of course, this renders these high grades next to useless precisely because of their very commonality.  But any student with more than air between the ears can extort a high grade out of a prof by merely the veiled threat of giving him a lousy evaluation. Since these evaluations are one of the main instruments used to assess a prof  for promotion or even to remain on permanent staff (as opposed to adjunct) they are critical.

Thus, any dedicated physics or astrophysics researcher who also has to teach a certain minimum number of credit hours, will be under the gun to deliver the fake grades.  And speaking as one to whom this happened, it isn't pleasant when you have to say 'NO!' you won't be forced to deliver what a student hasn't actually earned.  (Nor will you contribute to a perversely skewed grading system that posts fraudulent achievements as actual attained standards.)

An equal source of stress for most university level research scientists is the "publish or perish" syndrome.  The author of the recent Physics Today piece cites "truly talented people ...who fail to fulfill the requirements of the modern professional researcher... and even after basically recovering 'disappear' scientifically."   By that he means they "have minimized their workload to a survival level - but the system leaves no provision to return to a full career."

No, it does not. But that in the end may be the only way for these scientists to retain their mental health. It's either sacrifice the publishing impetus, or their psyches. The publishing aspect is especially tragic given we now know only a handful of people read nearly half of all scientific papers. 

One estimate is that  1.8 million articles  are published each year, in about 28,000 journals. This elicits the question: who actually reads those papers?   According to one 2007 study, half of academic papers are read only by their authors and journal editors. This is nothing short of astounding but makes sense if one gets inside what research scientists actually do, which is to narrow their focus almost exclusively to their specific specialty areas.

When you boil it down further it means that all the pressure to publish - driving mental health issues in too many scientists - amounts to an empty exercise in scientific solipsism. It has to if so few peers are actually reading the material for which hundreds of hours of mental energy were invested.

Prof. Delle Site's prescription for the scientific burnout problem is both humane and pragmatic. He insists his solution isn't to pity those affected or remove them from all responsibility. Instead:

"I am asking that accommodation be made to allow a person with burnout to continue to have a respected position where they can fulfill academic duties according to their current capabilities."

For example, a science staff member who is now too stressed to address an audience - say for a seminar or conference - can assist in doing "behind the scenes" writing or research to prepare the lecture or presentation. In addition "the person could work remotely or take on additional tasks that do not involve the highest job stressors, i.e. tasks such as organizing seminars, correcting student exercises, or doing background research for presentations."

All of these suggestions are worthwhile and ought to be seriously considered.  The problem is whether highly competitive universities with a certain name cachet to live up to, will be so generous as to allow these options. As my dad used to say "that's where the bear sits with the buckwheat."

Let us just say, for now the jury is out.

See also:

http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-show-job-burnout-can-actually-change-your-brain

And:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-prof-tries-to-fail-his-whole-class.html

And:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/05/grade-inflation-continues-to-render.html

"Free Students From The Grading Curve"? - That Depends

Loyola freshman Theology class, ca. 1964.













One night's freshman Theology homework for Loyola University, Sept. 1964). In every case HW was marked on a curve with the top ten percent awarded  As,  the next twenty percent Bs, the next 40 percent Cs, the next 20 percent Ds and the lowest ten percent Fs. Students never complained about this grading curve scheme and indeed, expected it - also that in every Theology class at least 10 percent would fail.

This sort of marking would be unheard of in today's grade inflated universities where - for example - 40 percent of all the grades awarded at Harvard are As, which is absurd.

Wharton School (Univ. of Pennsylvania) Professor Adam Grant, who teaches management and psychology, presented a recent  NY Times Sunday Review piece pleading for schools to "free students from the grading curve trap". (Which was the title of his piece).  He begins by pointing out, as I have before, that the most common grade at Harvard was an 'A', i.e. more students received As than any other grade which makes them essentially meaningless.

Grant  then goes on to point out that "at over 200 universities over 40 percent of the grade were in the A realm".   He also correctly observes:

"Among older graduates, figures like these usually elicit a comment involving the words 'coddled', 'damn' and 'millennials'"

Absolutely true, in a sense.  However, I trace most grade inflation to the idiotic teacher evaluations that came in around the late 70s, early 80s . See e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/05/grade-inflation-continues-to-render.html

As I noted therein,

"There is NO way in a real universe, there can be such a preponderance of high grades! Go back now to the 1960s, before the emergence of the surreptitious blackmail device known as "teacher evaluations". What did one find, say at Loyola University, or the University of South Florida?  Well, the As were at about 10 percent, with Bs at 20 percent, and 'gentleman's Cs' right at around 40 percent where they ought to be - if conforming to the standard Gaussian distribution or normal curve. Similarly, at the other end of the curve Ds would make up 20 percent and Fs 10 percent. But what do we find today? Barely 5 percent Ds and Fs and Cs marginally higher because college kids consider those failing grades!  This is nuts!"

Basically, any student with more than air between the ears can extort a high grade out of a prof by merely the veiled threat of giving him a lousy evaluation. Since these evaluations are the main instruments used to assess a person for promotion or even to remain on permanent staff (as opposed to adjunct) they are critical.

Grant, contrarian that he is, seems to fret the opposite could happen when he writes:

"But the opposite problem worries me even more: grade deflation. It happens whenever teachers use a forced grading. The top ten percent receive As, the next 30 percent get Bs and so on.:"

He insists it's "mandated by institutions" but is unable to square the claim or basis for real worry with his already cited stat of  40 percent of the grades given out by universities as As.  And if one digs deeper, one will likely find an even bigger inflation proportion for Bs, including at less well known universities.   Much of this can  be traced to tests-exams and even homework assignments that are much too elementary for the levels taught.  If an exam is proper for a given level -  including a 3rd year Harvard course in astrophysics or economics- it should possess considerable discriminatory power.  So, even in a class of 30 Harvard over-achievers it ought to be able to separate out the 10 percent or so who demonstrate peak excellence and really merit As. This as opposed to having such an absurdly easy test that 40 percent or more get As off it.

In truth, the chances of "grade deflation" (illustrating typical economist think to compare grades with inflation-deflation in an economy) are overblown so long as teacher evaluations (leading to too easy exams)  exist and are a major part of assessing performance.  Since there is no chance in the forseeable future that I see evaluations ending, then Grant's worries are misplaced. He'd do better to fret about the ongoing effects of grade inflation on the quality of academic learning, teaching.

Grant's most ludicrous argument is:

"The more important argument against grade curves is that they create an atmosphere that's toxic by pitting students against one another.  At best, it creates a hyper-competitive culture, and at worst it sends students the message that the world is a zero sum game."


Well, I hate to break this to our Wharton School prof but the world does operate according to a zero sum game. But I am not at all surprised that a guy based at an economic enclave wouldn't believe so, because when they work out their abstract econ models they always exclude "externalities".

These glaring and inexcusable ecosystem omissions (as global monetary values), were assayed for one particular year in the study Putting a Price Tag on Nature's Bounty, Science, Vol. 276, p. 1029):

Ecosystem Area (10^6 HA), Global Value (trillions)

Open Ocean ------ 33,200 ---- 8.4

Coastal ----------- 3, 102 -----12.6

Tropical Forest ------1, 900 ----- 3.8

Other Forests ------- 2,955 -----0.9

Grasslands ------------3,898 -----0.9

Wetlands --------- 330 -------4.9

Lakes and Rivers ------ 200 ------ 1.7

Cropland -----------1,400 --------0.1

--------- Total Worth $33.3 Trillion

Until economists incorporate such "externalities" in terms of assessing costs, they are fooling themselves that they have any real science and that the world-planet is NOT a zero sum game.

In terms of human dynamics, wealth this is also true. The more wealth -resources accrued (in whatever form not just money) by the top 1 percent, the less is available to anyone else. Not only that but we already know that degraded energy in terms of EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) is getting lower and lower.  See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-productivity-conundrum-surfaces.html

As noted therein:

What we already know, and this isn't even up for debate, is that the EROEI or energy returned on energy invested, has been steadily decreasing for almost two decades.  In the case of oil alone, what used to engender an EROEI of 16:1 to 19:1 several decades ago is now headed for 5:1. This means less efficient energy use and by extension less efficient use of human labor to produce whatever products or services are needed by a complex, mainly industrial economy. Take everything from MRI machines, to automobiles (and auto factories) , to passenger jets, a lower energy EROEI means a lower productivity for the manufacture of all of the above, because it takes much more energy to produce each unit.

As for student competition I really don't understand Grant's objection. Far from being "toxic",  grade competition at the university level prepares students for the real world where research grants, for example, aren't just handed out to everyone. Only the top caliber researchers usually get the grant money.

Hence, helping another student who may be struggling, say in graduate astrophysics, may not always redound to one's own benefit.  Far better to allow students to compete and it also lends vigor to their efforts and energizes further research. Ultimately, the very act of doing research - especially in a scientific field - is an aggressive enterprise. It would have to be if the researcher proposes to tackle an object as vast and complex as the Sun, or a black hole, or even a delta class sunspot.  Such intellectual confrontation is not for the weak, easily intimidated or those who need hand holding.

At the same time there is a place for some limited cooperation. When fellow graduate physics students have come to me for help with setting up a space physics or regular physics lab, for example, I was always ready to lend a hand and insights.  When they needed a little clue to get started on a quantum physics, E&M or statistical physics problem, I'd usually be agreeable to citing a specific book, page reference to help them out. I never ever worked a problem for them, however, nor do I now when students come to All Experts and have questions on astrophysics or astronomy, But I am always ready and open to providing clues. Above all, I want those I help to be also able to help themselves!

The bottom line is that Grant's arguments against using grading curves are full of holes. But there is another choice if he detests "forced grading curves" and that is to employ locked -in grades matched to percentages.  At Harrison College for example, anything below 50 % was an F, no arguments. Grades from 50-60 rated a D mark, from 61-70 a C, and From 71-80 a B. Marks higher than 80 earned an A but virtually no student attained a 93 % the usual starting point for an A in the U.S. The reason is that exams at HC are genuinely difficult - so much so that even the 'cream of the crop' will never score 100%.

At the same time I absolutely don't agree with Grant's  proposal that if a student encounters a too difficult problem on a test, he can  "write down the name of a student who might know the answer - the equivalent of a lifeline on a game show". Sorry, you sink or swim with what you bring to the exam, and there are no "lifelines" allowed!

I DO agree with the concept of study groups, and have always encouraged them in every venue of tertiary education I've been. But at the same time such study groups must not tolerate loafers who merely show up to feed off the knowledge and expertise of the others, like parasites.

Is College Really the "Worst Decision" a Young Person Can Make? That Depends!

LEFT: Loyola freshman Theology class, ca. 1964.





BELOW: One night's freshman Theology homework for Loyola University, (Sept. 1964)















According to salon.com writer Matthew Saccaro attending college is the "worst decision" a young person can make. He writes:

Each autumn, millions of young Americans parade into colleges with cheap plastic furniture in tow, expecting their work over the next four years to result in a career worth going into debt for. Instead, they jeopardize their futures. There’s not a worse decision a young American can make than attending college sans parental money or massive scholarship. 


When I went off to Loyola University on scholarship in September, 1964, I really had no idea whether it would be a good decision or bad. All I knew is that I was offered a full tuition scholarship so why not take the opportunity? (I took out a student loan to pay for room & board.)  After all, I'd hoped I hadn't spent 3 years on Mgsr. Pace High's Honor Roll for nothing!  If you're excelling in the academic domain, why not continue in that domain?

After arriving at Loyola, and seeing all the theology courses I had to take, I began having second thoughts - given I was a religious skeptic already, and on the path to atheism. But the science and math subjects more than made up for it. As things turned out, college was the right decision - not because it enabled me to make more money - but because it exposed me to people and ideas I'd never have encountered otherwise. In other words, it helped me grow, as well as develop the critical thinking skills I have.

Saccaro again:

Let’s start off with the basics. In 2012, 71 percent of all students who graduated accrued some amount of student loan debt, with the average amount of debt soaring to $29,400. More than half of student loans officially became delinquent or in deferral in 2013. New information indicates this trend will only worsen; recent college graduates face the worst unemployment rate in more than 20 years, as well as severe underemployment, with 44 percent of grads saying they could find work but not enough of it. Not even the vaunted STEM fields are immune from the perils of cheap labor, smartsizing, and the Great Recession. 

All of this is true, of course, but doesn't necessarily mean college is a terrible decision or the "worst decision" a young person can make. As far as the loan debt and delinquency this has arisen because the loan burdens are much greater today than in my era when National Defense Student loans were available, at 1 percent interest, and the draconian measures to demand payback weren't in place.

The STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) fields are affected adversely because the investments in research have declined - a phenomenon almost in lockstep with our nation's refusal to continue to invest in its infrastructure. Earl  Shorris, the author of  'A Nation of Salesmen: The Tyranny of the Market and the Subversion of  Culture', has pointed out that one reason support of culture and abstract research has declined is on account of too little saving by Americans as a whole, giving rise to a bottom basement commercial culture.  We'd rather spend, spend and spend.....on foolishness, than put it into support for learning and research. Why else have so many states' voters rejected essential tax increases for state universities, as here in Colorado - which leaves them with no choice but to raise tuition? Of course this means higher loans are needed by their kids to attend college, and it will take longer to pay them off. But the parents would rather buy a new HDTV than invest in higher education.

Saccaro then throws what he obviously believes is his best punch:

Here’s where college apologists will say debt used to acquire a degree is “good debt” since it ultimately pays off in the end — both because the degree will land you a job and provide “intellectual enrichment” and “critical thinking” and other impossible to quantify, dubious buzzwords used in college marketing pamphlets across the country. 

This baby boomer-esque sentiment is garbage. 

Not really! The points about intellectual enrichment and critical thinking ARE well taken, provided the college student takes full advantage of acquiring such benefits. If he just attends to pledge a fraternity or attend keg parties, then obviously the debt amassed is for bad reasons and counterproductive.  As for "getting a job"- especially a high paying one, no one is promised that. And no college degree can guarantee it..

 A highly perceptive take ('The Myth of Higher Education') offered by Dr. Steven B. Mason in an issue of Integra (No. 9, Oct.  2010) the journal of Intertel, is that a huge error of American education is orientating it explicitly for the utilitarian purpose of making money or getting a job. As he writes:

"the bottom line regarding a well -rounded education is that it has nothing to do with any kind of bottom line. Its value (non-monetary) is to be found in the quality it adds to one's life. It allows one to better appreciate music, art, history and literature. It contributes to a better understanding of language and culture, nature and philosophy. It expands rather than limits horizons and replaces faith and belief with reason and logic"

Mason adds that it "teaches a person to live - not to earn a living" and that living encompasses an impetus for further learning just for its own sake. If a fantastic, well-paying job also comes with it, that's icing on the cake.

Again, whether Saccaro accepts this is Boomer piffle or not is irrelevant. At least for those who DO attend college for the best reasons there IS a payoff, and it inheres exactly in what Steve Mason  describes.  I would also add that the college experience also incites the curiosity and desire for continued learning as well. Thus, many of us with college degrees continue to avail ourselves of academic exposure - such as in the open courses at MIT or Yale - not to mention continue to do research, and access current academic papers to stay abreast of our specialties.

Sure these are "impossible to quantify" but that's not a benchmark to use to reject the argument that college can be beneficial for a significant percentage of young people  - even if they don't land a job on Wall Street, or in some bank. 

There are other points that Saccaro makes which can be taken more seriously, and these also concern some issues with which I've also had a beef regarding current higher Ed. He writes:

In 2011, a Chronicle of Higher Education study found that “large numbers of U.S. college students can be accurately described as academically adrift. They might graduate, but they are failing to develop the higher-order cognitive skills that it is widely assumed college students should master.” To put it in less pedantic language, students are paying tens of thousands of dollars for a degree and walking away equally empty-headed as they were when they graduated high school, straight-A’s notwithstanding. The degree, which failed to get them a job, failed to educate them as well

This is spot on and in earlier blogs I highlighted my pet peeves with many universities in the modern era. As long ago as January,  2011 I pointed out that barely one -fifth of  college freshman are required to take any course in which they have to read more than 30 pages per week, or write (compose) more than three, 3-page essays or homework papers per term. To top this off, the plurality leave college or university with next to zero critical thinking skills, as betrayed by one stat which indicated most of these graduates were unable to read an editorial or newspaper page and discern the facts presented from opinions!

My recollection of my own first year college experience (e.g. at Loyola University, New Orleans, 1964-65) was in stark contrast. Escaping writing? You've got to be kidding! Attached for example, is one night's homework from the Freshman Theology class. Each of these questions had to be finished to completion with sound and well-reasoned responses provided - no short cuts and no doing the equivalent of copying from books (for today's students)!

This type of assignment, which usually consumed at least seven written pages, sometimes eight (depending on the questions) was given three times each week conforming with the frequency of the class. In addition, more detailed questions would often be asked in the class pertaining to the assignment.

Given the recent U.S. college survey results, it appears not 1 in 20 of today's students would be able to keep up with such a course. I warrant most would probably take a drop class before two weeks elapsed.

Even more appalling to me, is how today's students seem to be getting breaks galore regarding grades.  One stat that struck my eye recently was that 60% of ALL grades awarded at Harvard were A's! Of course, this is preposterous and renders the A given meaningless. You simply cannot have three fifths of all grades awarded in the 'excellent' category. Even if ALL your students are putatively 'excellent' the A's among that group can't be more than 10% at most, meaning if there are 300 students in a large class only 30 can get an A. (And a prof's tests, mid-terms and final exams, as well as homework assignments ought to seek such discrimination via a Gaussian or normal distribution!)

The rule at Loyola (as at many other universities at the time) was that to garner a Gentleman's 'C' you did 2 hours of outside study for each hour in class attendance. (This did not include written assignments). To get a 'B' for a typical 18-credit hour (normal- at that time) load, one would have to invest at least 3 x 18 = 54 hours a week in study! In other words, nearly all these college kids today would have flunked out at Loyola. Which leads me to conclude that most Cs given back in the 60s are equivalent to most As today!

So why are they such high fliers? Much of the problem to do with grade inflation began with the absurd "teacher evaluations" - which placed a power in  immature students' hands that was hitherto unavailable. Trouble is, the power has been misused and abused to the point profs are terrified of giving anything less than a 'B' for fear of retribution on the eval form! (Which many universities and colleges egregiously use for judging whether the prof is tenure-worthy - or worth just retaining in a assistant professorship-   as opposed to being relegated to the realm of the adjunct.)

Notwithstanding all these grievances and complaints, I still maintain the serious student can get his money's worth from even a university that doles out A's like free popcorn. The chief way is to realize that you may be part of an elaborate con and you need to use other measures to ensure you're really as good as your class grade says. For example, a physics B.Sc. graduate can gauge his academic creds by way of the GRE Advanced test - or just taking the GRE sample test problems I've posted on this blog. Are you really an 'A'  Physics student?  Did you really graduate summa cum laude? Then you ought to get at least 93 of the 100 problems I post correct!

Beyond that, the serious student can still develop his critical thinking skills to the fullest in the college environment by always delivering homework assignments - especially written ones - to your maximum effort. Don't take short cuts and even if most of your peers finish their assignments in 1 hour, make sure that yours are much better, even if they take two or three times longer.

Saccaro leaves his best insights for last:

All this horror awaits if you succeed at college and get your degree in four years. Your fate is worse if you attend but then decide academia, even at its lowest level, isn’t for you. Failing to jump through the hoops carries a steep price of debt and unemployment; more than half of unemployed Americans have attended at least some college. Attending college might be the worst decision you can make as a young adult in America. You’re paying for nothing that you can’t get elsewhere for less money or free, save for the piece of paper with a con man’s signature on it.

He is, of course, correct that if you're really diligent you can get the same course content (pretty much) for free. For example, taking a set of courses at the MIT open courseware site, e.g.

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/audio-video-courses/

 that embodies pretty well all that would be required for a B.Sc. or B.A. degree.  But is taking a set of courses online the same? No it isn't.   Any intelligent student is bound to encounter problems or difficulties in any course. In the online setting, you're on your own. There's no chance to meet one-to-one with a professor and hash out the difficulty. At Loyola, for example, professors were always available and also conducted tutorials (weekly meetings with only a few students for problem solving or question resolution purposes. ).   When I taught  Space Physics (including labs) at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks, I always set aside office hours to meet one- on- one with students having difficulties. Often the resolutions were fairly simple, but sometimes they required tutoring students in their  math methods - which  they already ought to have under their belts..

A student- I don't care how diligent he or she is-   simply can't obtain the same measure of mastery without that intense contact which is directed to the sole purpose of resolving the difficulty. It simply isn't the same as staring at a passive computer monitor - or even 'participating'  in an online tutorial or physics class -  when you can't get answers to questions or immediate feedback at that instant.  (Let's not even get into the difficulty of doing proper labs, say in physics and chemistry, without an instructor to guide you in terms of correct technique, methods.)

Thus, grabbing all your free content from courses online, though it may seem to be the same, isn't really - because you've not had the benefit of professional guidance or direction. Nor will you have had the benefit of thrashing out arguments with your peers in what we used to call 'bull sessions' - all equally important to developing critical thinking.

Finally, you won't have had the experience of attending seminars in person given by terrific thinkers   - such as Jean -Paul Sartre at Loyola, in 1965, or William Fowler and Martin Schwarzschild at Univ. of South Florida in 1970. 

In terms of cost vs. benefit each young person certainly has to make his or her own determination on whether college is worth it.  My advice again,  for what it's worth, is that if you're considering college exclusively as a 'meal ticket' then it's probably the wrong decision.

Grade Inflation Continues to Render Most College Scholastic Honors, Achievement Meaningless

The depressing recent study by Stuart Rojstaczer and Christopher Healy, and published in the prestigious Teachers College Record is enough to make any educator shake his or her head in despondent resignation. Their finding: About three-fourths of all grades awarded at university level are “A”s or “B”s.

Of course, this makes those As and Bs next to useless precisely become of the very commonality. An 'A' used to stand for academic excellence, but it can't if so many are getting them! It also renders the achievements of truly exceptional students ho-hum. How in the world can they truly stand out if middling or loser students get the same grades they do? It's preposterous!

There is NO way in a real universe, there can be such a preponderance of high grades! Go back now to the 1960s, before the emergence of the surreptitious blackmail device known as "teacher evaluations". What did one find, say at Loyola University, or the University of South Florida?  Well, the As were at about 10 percent, with Bs at 20 percent, and 'gentleman's Cs' right at around 40 percent where they ought to be - if conforming to the standard Gaussian distribution or normal curve. Similarly, at the other end of the curve Ds would make up 20 percent and Fs 10 percent. But what do we find today? Barely 5 percent Ds and Fs and Cs marginally higher because college kids consider those failing grades!  This is nuts!

Essentially, college teachers today - tenured profs as well as adjuncts- have given away the grade store and sold out.  And it's irrespective of whether we're talking about State U. or Harvard. Intimidated by little wet behind -the -ears punks delivering solemn, negative judgments via teacher evaluations, they've decided timidity and wussing out are the better parts of valor.  But in the process they've essentially wrecked all academic credentials, judicious comparisons and objective assessement.

Oh, make no mistake, it was done with the best of intentions. College administrations sought a cheap, expeditious way to evaluate their staffs, and 'Voila!' Some genius thought of a teacher's evaluation. Just hand out a little one page eval form to little Missy or Sonny and let them have at it. What they obviously didn't consider is that neither Missy or Sonny had the maturity to do a proper, objective assessment. No, by the time they received the forms they were already grating at low marks they'd received during the year and now, and NOW....this was the time for payback! And payback is always a bitch!

So, for the few curmudgeons who continued to demand standards as opposed to giving out A and B freebies, it was game over. For those profs who insisted that their students EARN their As instead of expecting them for just showing up, well, it was 'hasta la vista'. The college administration had to inform the uncooperative fool that this was the end of the line.

Meanwhile, for those timid souls that capitulated, the majority, the sky was the limit - not only were they popular, oh so popular, especially for the easiest, 'crib' courses like media, or deconstruction of films by Steven Spielberg. They were the ones that most often notched promotions and even got tenure. But at what cost? Well, at turning our university grading system into a global laughing stock. Because no where else in the world do kids get rewarded merely for turning in labs or papers half done.

Make no mistake, because of grade inflation, students avoid professors who believe the grade of “C” is the average grade and who set up standards that require students to do more than show up, read a couple of hundred pages, and answer a few questions. This then translates into fewer students in physics classes, say, and usually results in questions from administrators who may claim they believe in academic rigor and integrity, but whose slavish devotion to teacher evaluations refutes it.

Now, it's true some departments traditionally grade tougher than others, say like science and engineering departments. In my experience and at least through 1985, all tended to have lower overall grade averages than those in social sciences and humanities. The reason is that they adhered to rigorous Gaussian curve models for each test and homework grades.. If then 50 people took a class, say in complex algebra, and the grades ranged from a maximum of 80-85%  - which 5 got, and a minimum of 40 -45% which another 5 received, then those limits defined the extent of As and Fs, respectively.  The large central tendency bunch (say 28 in number)  that scored between 50% and 70% would ALL receive Cs,  no question. All the rest would get Bs and Ds, depending on whether they fell between 70 and 79 or below 50.

This sort of distribution was consistently applied.

By contrast to the above, we've learned that Education programs tend to have the highest grade averages. It’s not unusual for the average grade in elementary education courses to be an A-minus, and in secondary education to be a B-plus. That means either our future teachers are brighter than a supernova—or that their profs don’t know there are more than just two letters in the alphabet. More likely, it means very sub-average or average students are taking relatively easy courses. The proof of this? Looking at years of GRE  test scores taken by Ed majors vs. those of science majors. In year after year, Ed.  major grads' GRE averages seldom crack the 950 total for both math and verbal, while science grads routinely crack 1200-1250. Case closed!

Lastly, one has to factor in the role of parental expectations and pressure into the ongoing inflation of grades. Because every parent believes his kid will either be another Fortune 500 CEO, or a Billionaire hedge fund owner, he mandates to every university staff member that Jr. is expected to get As. Not to perform to the highest standards, but ...get those As. And woe betide the sorry butt of any prof who doesn't cooperate. He will be beseiged by angry emails or phone calls.

Administrators play into this absurd game, because they are the ones who've made the sine qua non index for their universities attaining a critical mass of students who consistently garner high enough grades to remain - to keep the money pumping in from Mommy, Daddy or more often now, the private lender. Better this critical inflated grade mass of lazy ass students than that they actual develop critical thinking skills, and oh yes...knowledge.

Sadly, there's no sign the trend is going to reverse any time soon. Too many, including colleges, students, profs and the parents, are addicted to the phony exaggerated grade system- just like coke.

So, as we approach the period of standard commencements across the nation....let's give three cheers for more bogus Summa Cum Laude's and oh.......Magnas too!