Jorge Mahecha

Grade inflation is undesirable for many reasons. It trivializes exceptional achievement and makes it seem just like regular achievement. It confounds meeting course objectives with going above and beyond them. It makes students believe that getting an A is their divine, god-given right. On the teacher’s side, in practical terms, grade inflation reveals a misscalibration of standards.

There is a hard question one should ask oneself as an instructor. As a motivation, I suggest the following exercise. Think about that student, who, contrary to your better judgment and instincts, passed your class. In fact, this person got a really good grade, way better than you would have expected, and not too far from this other student who performed exceptionally well and motivated you to teach your class. Someone who went above and beyond, deeply engaged and committed to deep learning. That person got an A. And that other student got an A-. 

The hard question this scenario is meant to motivate is: What is the lowest grade you would give someone meeting your course objectives or learning goals? Is it a B? Maybe you are thinking that everyone who meets your course goals should get an A. Then I’d argue you have a serious course design problem, unless your goals are designed to elicit exceptional behavior. It is not just “understanding the principles of X and Y” and applying them to resolving practical situations. It is mastering those principles. It is showing quality and originality that is rarely seen in the context of your course. A is reserved for exceptional performance. A- is doing very good work. B+ is good work. Good work should be rewarded. But not with A. 

B is the maximum grade a student who meets all of your learning goals should get. It could be less. How much less is a complex issue. It is unclear to me what obtaining a 60% or 70% performance or C or C+ grades means. And I say this as someone who has benefited from the occasional C+ as a minimum passing grade. When we explore the bottom of the scale, we also find interesting information. In many educational institutions, C is not considered a failing grade. Should it be? What does it mean? It means that maybe not all learning goals were met, and maybe those that were met were not met in a barely glamorous way. But things are not as bad, performance-wise, that it makes it inevitable for the student to repeat the course. 

As educators, instructors, or certifiers, we should take grades very seriously. Grades are not “just numbers” (they are not even numbers). Grades are certificates of proficiency in our respective crafts, and if we don’t take our craft seriously, our students would not either. I’ve heard criticisms of grades, saying that grades are “reductionist” and that they make learning transactional. I’d say those are precisely their main virtues. Yes, grades summarize all the wonders, processes, tasks, and everything that happened in a learning experience and turn it into just a number or a letter. It is amazing and a wonder of the world, no doubt. Do they capture the whole essence and worth of a human being? Of course not. That’s not their intended use; please never use them for that. Grades are just proficiency certificates on a very narrow slice of human experience. Grades make learning transactional, yes. Students focus too much on grades, yes, as they should if grades are assigned conscientiously and seriously. It is a transaction. It is up to us to make it a worthy and fair transaction.