Over the past few weeks, Princeton students have had the ride of their lives as their administration took the elite private school into a new era: Grade Deflation. A good idea? In some respects, yes. The issue of grade inflation is a common one and must be dealt with; we can be certain of that. The idea that an A-plus might one day be the average grade is a scary thought, and naturally can force administrations and faculties to act rashly.
This is what happened at Princeton. The fear that someone, somewhere, sitting in a recruiting or admissions office might denounce a Princeton student's well earned A is what ultimately brought upon this foolish policy. The idea of arbitrarily deciding the number of students who can achieve excellence in a single school is ludicrous. Who can say that only 35 percent of students are deserving of A's? Perhaps 40 percent of the students who currently attend Princeton have produced the necessary material to earn an A based on the criteria. Now, granted this is limited to each department, and it is only an approximation, but still the notion of even defining a band of percentages that might be acceptable simply doesn't make sense.
Without knowing a person's talent or potential, one cannot mandate that only a set number of students are qualified to achieve a certain standard. We live in a society where innocence is assumed before proven guilty, not the other way around.
Furthermore, a cap on grades, despite what students might like to believe, will ultimately increase the level of competition on a given campus. It would be ridiculous to assume otherwise. The mere fact that the percentage of A's will drop approximately, in Princeton's case, 10 points, means that the students who were once deserving of an A, and continue to be deserving because the new policy does not amend the criteria for earning that A, will now be fighting against their classmates to fall within the golden 35 percent. Although the stereotypical Princeton or Dartmouth student may be "laid-back," the increased need to beat out a fellow classmate to earn a desired grade will undoubtedly affect the student body's persona.
The goal, despite the shortcomings mentioned above, is to preserve the reputation of the top universities' academic departments, but the way in which we are going about this is wrong. There are many different ways to go about curbing grade inflation. The use of median grades does much to give recruiters perspective as to what grades are being earned. As Daniel Kay ("Reputation Matters, " April 27) points out, we should not "underestimate the intelligence of recruiters and admissions officers." With median grades they are able to use the marks in the most appropriate manner: as a way to compare students.
Another method that could work would be to redefine what exactly an A is. That is to redefine what it takes to get an A. Put tighter criteria upon earning the coveted grade. That will surely decrease the numbers of those who receive them, as not everyone would be able to adjust to the new standards. It might happen that somewhere down the road the grades will creep up once again, but again, you would simply have to readjust the criteria. It is obvious that our society evolves, and as it evolves we mold and change our standards of living. Marking schemes and grades, too, are malleable. After all, a grade is just an attempt to quantify and control what is in reality something nearly impossible to quantify: success.
Or even better, drop the system of letter grading altogether, maybe it doesn't allow for enough separation. Maybe there should be percentage grades reported instead. That would allow for a finer distinction. It would allow for a larger discrepancy between grades and therefore provide a larger gap between those who are at the very top and those who are not. Professors might be able to curb inflation if only they had a finer scale with which to grade students.
No one method can be the savior of inflation, but there can be a distinction between methods that will benefit a college, and those that will harm it. It seems clear that the method in use at Princeton will serve only to harm it. There is a plethora of other methods to be discovered, it just requires a tad more ingenuity than that which has been used at Princeton University. I rest confident that the Dartmouth administration, in years to come, will be able to guide this school to success; all I ask is that it thinks before it acts.
