I want you to turn to the nearest senior and pat him or her on the back. And then I want you to ask, "How does it feel to have your transcript and resume scrutinized as though they contain every measure of your ability and potential to be 'successful' (whatever that means) in this world?"
Now ask if there are any grades they wish they could erase, any classes they took out of curiosity that lowered their GPAs, any grades that just don't reflect the work they put into something.
Then tell them that next to each grade assigned, recipients of that transcript -- graduate schools and future employers -- could see the number of students enrolled and the average grade in that course, as well as a "+" or "o" or "-" denoting whether the student's grade was better, the same as, or below the class average.
For some students, this sounds like a Godsend. According to a letter from the Committee on Instruction, the average Science division grades were 3.09 last year; for the Humanities, 3.36. This discrepancy reveals some obvious problems with comparing students' academic prowess by GPA, and in assigning class rank. It also implies that science majors are receiving lower grades for average work than are humanities majors.
With this fortified transcript, two students with the same GPA may be compared by the number of +'s and -'s they receive, and the one who received better grades relative to his or her classmate more easily distinguished.
And yet, this is not a perfect solution.
The COI proposal states, "It is hoped that this system may address the problem of continued grade inflation, by reducing incentive for faculty to continue to increase their grades and thus blur the distinction between the good, the excellent, and the exceptional, as is now the case." The COI's interest in dividing and ranking Dartmouth students is somewhat unsettling. But whether we like it or not, we are assigned grades relative to our classmates' work much of the time. This proposal merely seeks to make that comparison more level.
Still, it is not foolproof. For those classes which are based upon level of knowledge alone, an average grade of A does not imply that a student who receives a B did poor work. It implies, as stated on page 79 of the ORC, that the student has "good mastery of course material. Student performance demonstrates a high degree of originality, creativity, or both...good performance in analysis, synthesis, and critical expression, oral or written..." Evening out the differences in grades assigned should perhaps be focused not on ranking students, but on whether grades are being assigned according to their definitions. Unfortunately, even those definitions are ambiguous.
It is no secret that as soon as corporate recruiting begins, seniors are smacked in the face with the realization that they are competing with their friends for jobs. It is also no secret that during this period of time, relations with friends-turned-competitors grow more tense. Rather than appreciate one another's talents, students scrutinize each other's faults relative to their own, and the fear for self -- the insecurity that corporate recruiting breeds -- surmounts concern for one another.
The deans would like to see Dartmouth become a more academic institution than it currently is. I am certain that it would (and does) warm many hearts to see students discussing and working together on academic material, but I am not so sure that this proposal is going to encourage such pursuits. In fact, I think it will counter them. I think of stories I heard about Harvard when I was a prospective, and I shudder -- overzealous competitiveness hardly encourages students to help or even speak to one another. And isn't that part of our education as college students? Positive interaction with one another? Learning from each other?
The truth is, I would love to know where I stand in my courses -- it would make me work harder, most likely -- but I think that knowing it appears on transcripts would make students more fiercely competitive, and the constant comparison and focus on rank-per-course would sour the academic experience.
Why not use this extra information internally to assign class rank, and even on termly grade reports so students can evaluate their status, but leave the transcripts out of it? Rank determined in this manner would make comparing students easy -- the other info is ultimately extraneous.
As for grade inflation as a phenomenon itself, I am not so sure it's such a bad thing as the COI makes it out to be.
The concern that we receive an average of 0.17 grade points higher now than we did in 1976-7 is somewhat misplaced. Assigning average GPAs of 3.06 these days might easily disadvantage Dartmouth graduates, whose GPAs are compared point-for-point with those of students from less academically intense institutions, and Dartmouth would have to admit to placing fewer graduates where they want to go.
In 1976 there were fewer people competing for spots in the job market, and a 3.06 got you much farther than it does now. Ask your parents -- they will know. My father still thinks the MCATs test aptitude, and that studying for them is unnecessary. Times have changed.
If we recognize the national trend toward high school graduates of higher caliber, our own College's increasingly higher standards for admission and the possibility that professors are still grading by the same old criteria, then the grade inflation should seem like a normal consequence.
As long as we receive grades, the question of balancing GPAs to be fair remains. If we assume that excellence is dependent upon comparison with our classmates, which it inevitably seems to be, this proposal sounds like a decent way to complement the various grading systems at Dartmouth. I only hope that in discussing it, the faculty will not forget that the true spirit of an academic community is one of cooperation and discussion, not competition, between its students, and that their primary mission is to educate and encourage, not teach us to fend for ourselves. We will learn that soon enough.
