By Professor Doom
The recent UNC scandal, where students took completely bogus courses to get a better GPA, puzzled me. See, the average grade in college now is an A-...you really, really, have to be a terrible student not to do well.
"Grade inflation" is the term used to describe why grades are so much higher now, and it's can be fixed, easily. Allow me to repost this fix to something of a problem.
First, I want to talk about how grade inflation got to the point that a graduating student with a GPA below 3.5 is now rather uncommon:
The recent UNC scandal, where students took completely bogus courses to get a better GPA, puzzled me. See, the average grade in college now is an A-...you really, really, have to be a terrible student not to do well.
"Grade inflation" is the term used to describe why grades are so much higher now, and it's can be fixed, easily. Allow me to repost this fix to something of a problem.
First, I want to talk about how grade inflation got to the point that a graduating student with a GPA below 3.5 is now rather uncommon:
Coursework is a joke, for most courses,
anyway. The entire reason for this is the administrative control of higher
education, but it’s rather indirect. Administrators only want retention and
growth, and education just isn’t on the agenda.
“Exceeds expectations.”
--in order to qualify to apply for
promotion at one of my institutions, the faculty would need to have this on his
evaluation for three straight years. The evaluation is given by exactly one
administrator, in my case an administrator who has never taught a course and
admits has no means of evaluating anything mathematically related. By the way,
punishment is meted out if anyone hints that there might be some lack of due
process there.
Administrators control hiring and firing, and
to a vast extent, control promotion and advancement in higher education. Their
primary means of evaluating faculty is through student evaluations. Now,
granted, students are probably not the most qualified to determine if the
faculty knows what he’s doing…but I do admit it’s better than being evaluated
by wildly incompetent typical administrators.
“22%”
--after being allowed to apply for
promotion, this is how much of the promotion is dependent upon student evaluations.
The faculty voted and agreed that 12% would be all student evaluations would
count for, but administration secretly added another 10%. I became unpopular
with admin for exposing this.
While students are more qualified than
administrators to evaluate faculty, it’s still a funny business, with obvious
consequences. Faculty that catch, much less punish, cheaters are slammed
heavily by cheaters when it’s evaluation time—this is why cheating is so
prevalent in higher education today, as faculty quickly learn not to even look
for cheaters. Faculty that assign “too much work” (this amount decided by
students) are also punished by students come evaluation. Faculty that assign
tests that cannot be easily passed are punished by students. Faculty that actually
fail students are punished severely by students.
Study after study after study has shown
the obvious: student evaluations correlate strongly with grades. Better grades
give better evaluations.
“…norms against holding exams
except on Tuesdays and Wednesdays…”
--a professor
explains a useful trick for better student evaluations. Tests on these days
are less likely to interfere with drinking and sporting events, important student
pastimes.
Herpy derpy doo! Is it any wonder at all
the most
common grade in higher education is A?
"For
education, 71% of the grades were A's; in music, it was 67% A's,"
--sorry, I had
to take
one more dig at Education, it’s one easy target I love to hit. How did no
administrator look at 71% of grades being an A and think that maybe the class
was far too easy? Realize about 20% of students in most classes get an F,
simply because they never show up, so really we’re talking 71% A’s, 20% got an
F for never even showing up, and the rest got C for showing up on the last day
of classes and begging to be passed. It’s a grade distribution that
administrators with experience teaching would find highly suspicious.
Faculty like me, that assign work, give actual
tests, and think it should be possible to fail a course, are a rare (and
admittedly, stupid) breed in higher education.
“…it is clear that he was
denied tenure for one reason: failing too many students. “
--The administrative
stranglehold over hiring and tenure is a major factor in the annihilation
of standards, honest. Tenure used to be granted for scholarship and
research…but it can still be denied if admin is displeased. Interfering with
retention and growth displeases admin.
Now, many of the fixes I’ve proposed
previously will offset some of the problem of grade inflation. I do feel,
however, that student evaluations are of some minimal use in evaluating a
teacher, and the fact remains that teachers who don’t do their jobs get better
evaluations than teachers with integrity. My fixes are very vulnerable to being
undone by an institution loaded with faculty that don’t do their job (for
example, courses could be taught by Math Education,
English
Education, Physics
Education, Music Education, and
Art Education degree holders…those
are links to online offerings, for your convenience, and no, you don’t need to
know the subject to get into the graduate program, which likewise doesn’t cover
the subject. And, of course, you can just hire
someone else to take the courses for you).
“there is a clear expectation
from administrators …that 70 percent of students should pass.”
Wow, and I thought the
85% passing rate mandated at a university I taught at was unusual. Faculty that
don’t meet a percentage ‘suggested’ by admin are removed. I again point out,
that both this
institution and the one I was at were fully legitimately accredited. How
can grades mean anything when admin determines grading policy? The students
realize that most of them will pass, so are highly unmotivated to study. Even
if a student fails, he can just take the course again, and probably get into
the lucky % that are guaranteed to pass. Imagine if medical doctors got their
credentials that way…
Because of grade inflation, GPA is
completely meaningless. This is unfortunate, because GPA is one way for a
prospective employer to distinguish one college graduate from another.
So here is at least a partial fix: grades
aren’t assigned by the teacher of the course. Instead, students must take tests
constructed and graded by someone not teaching that particular course section.
For more writing-intensive courses, the papers would still need to be graded by
people not teaching the course. Now a teacher can’t boost his evaluations just
by giving easy grades and no assignments. A teacher can no longer load up the
course with bogus assignments without anyone knowing about it (trust me, it
happens. A lot. Edit--I wrote this essay long before the UNC scandal became common knowledge).
This sounds like a radical, unworkable,
idea, but wait just a second. The SAT? ACT? PRAXIS? PARCC (at some point I’ll talk
about Common Core, honest)? GRE? GMAT? These are all tests that grade students,
at least if you’re willing to consider a score as a grade, with both grade and
test given by people that did not teach the students. My idea might be untried,
but it’s hardly without unrelated precedent.
This doesn’t get faculty off the hook for
grading student work, of course—they’ll just be grading someone else’s
students’ work. I imagine there will be lots of standardized testing in any
event (keep in mind, almost all Psychology courses are graded via Scantron
machines anyway). There should also be an exit exam for degree holders—just a
general exam to see if the graduates are actually learning anything and gaining
skills. Academically
Adrift has shown higher education is a flat out embarrassment, and a
double embarrassment considering the vast sums of money involved.
Administrators don’t care if students don’t learn…but educators and people of
integrity do, and something needs to be done.
I imagine “But teachers will just teach
towards the test!” will be given as protest against this idea. It’s a protest
given against high stakes testing today…but it’s a protest only given by the
ignorant or intellectually dishonest.
“43%”
--this is the average grade for one
year at one institution I taught, for their departmental exam. Yes, that’s a
very solid F; it was a multiple choice exam, so even a toaster would score 25%,
to give an idea of how little the students were learning. Nevertheless, the
average departmental grade was still A. Why? Because the teachers were not
obligated to use the departmental exam when they give the final grades for
their students. The students had to take the test…it was just irrelevant. Honest,
grades mean nothing now. Professors receive praise from admin for giving an A
to every student. Professors that don’t get praise, get fired.
Let me help out the ignorant that make
such a protest: when I teach, I already
teach towards the test. Granted, I teach towards the test I make and give,
but I’m still teaching towards the test. I make absolutely sure that students
have every opportunity to learn what will be on the test, and to gain those
skills. Every teacher already teaches toward the test.
I’ve never heard of a teacher that
deliberately teaches only the material that won’t be on the test. What a silly thing to do, what a silly
protest “teachers are just teaching towards the test” is…that’s what teachers always
do (except for the thoroughly psychotic ones, which is what student evaluations
can identify with 49% accuracy). Instead of teaching towards “my” test on
calculus, I might teach towards a standardized calculus test. Perhaps that
won’t be as easy for me, but it’s not so great a change.
Last time around I proposed my least
workable fix for higher education, addressing the problem of grade inflation.
Grade inflation is a natural consequence of student evaluations being basically
the only means of evaluating faculty, since a student evaluation is just a
reflection of the grade the student thinks he’s going to get. My fix, let
grades and tests be given not by the teacher of the course, is great in theory,
and not without precedent…but has a few problems beyond simple resistance to
change, a resistance that will be very strong by corrupt typical higher
education.
Student: “How come we didn’t do any
of this any of the other times I took this course?”
--quite often I get students that
have taken, and failed, math class three or more times with other faculty. As
these students systematically take faculty until they find one that can pass
them, they eventually end up in my course. Often they fail. Then they go to
another faculty, and pass. Sometimes I get hate mail from students saying “I
finally found a good teacher,” little realizing that the reason they finally
could move ahead was I gave them a push.
I grant this isn’t feasible for highly
specialized coursework (i.e., graduate school, which I hope to get to later—I’m
sorry to keep saying “I’ll get to this later”, but higher education is
fraudulent on so many levels, that even though I’ve now posted over 100,000
words on it, there’s still much to cover). It almost certainly won’t work for
heavily skill-based work, like, say, piano playing. I should probably address
the latter, because it highlights yet another problem: why are all degrees 4
years long? It’s so bizarre that, according to higher education, it takes just
as long to train a chemist as it does to train a high school guidance counselor
or a parking
lot attendant.
Administrators and Educationists in higher education devote
a positively stupid amount of time looking at education, but this obvious issue
has yet to come up, at least as near as I can tell. I guess “not every degree should take the same
amount of time” is too radical an idea for now, however. A related idea is “why
does it cost just as much to take a course in the factual truth of calculus as
it does to hear the
questionable arguments of diversity or the material of 3rd
grade math?” but now I’m getting way off topic.
Back to the original idea. Putting testing
and grading out of the teacher’s hands (at least, for his own students) would
go a long way to restoring legitimacy to higher education.
Unfortunately, it will take years before
that sort of system is fully implemented, assuming schools had the guts to do
it.
I have another fix that is quite trivial
to implement, would serve in the interim, and would serve even after a more sane
grading system is set up. Here goes: give an exit exam to all graduating
students. An exit exam upon graduation would give employers a far better
measure of what the degree means than the utterly useless GPA of today. Just
one general exam to verify the students have learned a little something, before
the degree is awarded.
“$2300”
--as a student, I was on the honors
council of presidents—a student “club” consisting entirely of presidents of
other student clubs. Our sole source of revenue was selling a tassel that we
sold to graduating students to put on their cap at graduation. Our monthly
irrelevant meetings were VERY well catered, as the above was our average yearly
revenue.
Would graduating students be willing to take
one more exam? Absolutely. Already, students get their degrees held up for
unpaid library dues, making them take that one more exam before they get the
degree would be trivial.
Unlike
my grading system, such exams already exist. For example, the GRE General exam would work perfectly for
this purpose, since it’s specifically intended for college graduates. I don’t
work for ETS, the makers of the exam, but that exam has been around for years,
with no major cheating scandals, and nothing but legitimacy to it…the latter is
the kind of thing higher education needs.
The scores on the GRE aren’t the easiest
to interpret…but they could be converted into percentiles that anyone can
understand. No longer would “average” be an “A”…average would be around the 50th
percentile, right where it should be. It would no longer be possible for
everyone to get an A.
Doing poorly on the exam wouldn’t prevent
the student from getting his degree, any more than a relatively low GPA did
back when low GPAs were possible. It would just be another number to put right next
to the useless “4.0 GPA” that everyone has on the resume. In times past, the
GPA was part of how someone evaluated a resume, but since GPA is now useless
due to corrupted higher education, the GRE (or other standardized) test score
could be used instead.
“Our best students average over 20 on
the ACT!”
--local high schools take pride in
having students that do well on standardized tests. I’m not wild about
standardized tests, but we need them, as I’m less wild about the absolute fraud
of higher education. Seeing as these tests already exist and are cheap to
implement compared to college tuition, why not use them?
And
just like that, the completely bogus degree students could be separated from
the students that actually had to do something to get their degree. It would
also go a long way to eliminating the unjustified “legitimacy” of
accreditation. An unaccredited school that turns out graduates with high GRE
scores will humiliate, humiliate, humiliate
all the accredited schools that crank out graduates that can’t break the 25th
percentile on the GRE. Think about that for a second: an unaccredited school
right now has nothing to offer students besides “we can’t give you federal loan
money.” Easy grades? Nope, accredited schools already offer those. Easy
courses? Ditto. Easy degrees? Ditto. But schools that can show their students
do well in controlled settings? That’s a plus.
In fact, schools that can’t get students
to do well on the GRE will probably get questions asked of them, questions that
nobody asks now, like “why is education so unimportant at this school?” and
“Why do your college graduates consistently perform at the sub-high school
level?” I bet universities that crank out students like that and get asked such
questions will suddenly look into that “integrity” thing I keep talking about.
I used to end my essays with a homework
question, and I’ve been remiss of late in challenging the reader to think about
what I’ve written. So, it’s long past time for an assignment:
Administrators have known for years that
most degrees are bogus and worthless. Administrators have also known for years
that GPA is meaningless. Perhaps I’ve said some unduly harsh things about
administrators. However, I seriously doubt I’m so blazingly brilliant that I’m
the only one to come up with an idea of an exit exam for college graduates to
alleviate the irrelevance of GPAs and even degrees.
Homework question: why does the gentle
reader suppose no administrator at any institution, from sleazy to ivy league,
has taken even the simple step of an exit exam to encourage legitimacy to their
institutions?
Think about
it.
An exit exam would never be accepted at the institution where I used to teach. The prevailing philosophy was that everyone deserved (i. e., must) pass and nothing must interfere with that. As a result, I was expected to be a magician, turning sow's ears into silk purses.
ReplyDeletePart of the reason lay with the provincial government. It consisted of economic Darwinists--in other words, the "market" must decide everything, even though that "market" was never really defined.
One consequence of that policy was the imposition of "key performance indicators" on each post-secondary institution. It was, I suspect, the reason the place I was at decreed that it no longer had students, but customers. Since the "market" was to determine everything, and, for those of us who taught, it was they who we had to cater to by "meeting or exceeding their needs and expectations" (again, undefined waffle).
So, guess what happened as a result? You guessed it: standards were unofficially encouraged to be lowered in order to raise scores on the "customer satisfaction" surveys that were conducted after the students--oops!--customers graduated. Those scores were compiled and, from those, the key performance indicators were determined. Those institutions and, in particular, those departments that scored the highest got the greatest share of the "gravy" funding that the provincial government dispensed.
Now add to all of that departmental administrators who were anxious for promotion and a seat on the institutional gravy train. My last department head was one of them, so I was under constant pressure to lower my standards and pass as many students as possible.
Never mind that the employers which our graduates would work for and the clientele that they might serve were a greater market. I, as a registered professional, was obligated to consider that first and foremost. The provincial professional associations of which I'm a member each have a code of ethics. The first clause is quite clear that the public welfare came first and foremost. The implication was that I was obligated to fail anyone who did not meet the requirements for passing.
That, of course, didn't matter because we had to serve our "customers". I doubt, however, that any administrators at my institution were aware of certain aspects of tort law. An independent and unrelated third party could sue a practitioner if that third party suffered harm due to that same practitioner's work or, perhaps, lack thereof.
That led to disputes because those policies conflicted with my professional obligations. I was even threatened on several occasions with severe disciplinary action if I didn't bend.
It became clear that there was no way out and any attempt by me to steer the system back to the maintenance of properly defined standards was about as pointless as trying to empty a river by bailing with a sieve.
Eventually, I quit. It's no longer my problem.
In your latest blog about Ferguson Community College you note in effect it has around a 95% drop-out rate, worse than nearly all ghetto high schools, whose teachers don't deserve tenure in your opinion. Why are college teachers like you deserving of tenure when your track records are even worse than your "inferior brethren'"? Even more infuriating you side with the Ferguson rioters. You are elitist. Have you ever dealt with ghetto blacks as a policeman or inner-city high school teacher? If so, you would know you would be suffering constant racist harassment from hyper-testosterone, low-IQ, no-father-in-the-home, hyperactive, deadbeat violent, juvenile delinquents. The Ferguson campaign is the Obamanation's final anarchist attempt at destroying the nation our European-American forefathers built. You are traitor to your culture, race, and country!
ReplyDeleteGoodness. I should note the following:
Delete1) I've never said I deserved tenure.
2) I've made no assertion that I side with the rioters; in no way do I advocate violence.
3) Elitist? I've made no such assertions. I don't believe we should rip people off. Believing that robbing people is acceptable seems to be a necessary condition for being elitist.
4) "inner city high school" is subject to definition, but I've taught high school level courses in a city with a population over half a million, with students that think getting up and dancing in the middle of class is appropriate, and I've certainly been physically threatened by a student on more than one occasion, even broke a tooth from a student's punch. Close enough?
5) A traitor on those levels? Goodness. If advocating fairness, honesty, integrity, and for not trapping people in perpetual debt is treachery, than I guess I am a traitor of the most vilest sort.
Please, I encourage you to read my blog posts more carefully, seeing simply what I've written, and without any preconceived notions of who I am.
I guess I'd better get that Ferguson post up soon.