The “B-Minus Reigns Supreme” is a 2008 article by Laurie Fendrich on grade inflation in institutions of higher learning. It shows an increasing over-emphasis on the importance of scoring a “B” and the expense of equally good “C” grades. Fendrich identifies two potential causes of grade inflation as follows. First, grade inflation developed from a desire by universities to encourage students to treasure education in the 1960s. Fendrich states that professors felt “guilty about giving any grade that might lead to a student flunking out of college (p. 248).” The effect would mean a general inflation of grades to act as an encouragement against dropping out of college for the army.
The second cause of inflation happened following a desire of professors to become favorites among students. Fendrich notes a surge in “informal and friendly relationships between students and professors (p. 248)” towards the end of the 20th century. The situation reduced chances that tutors would tell their students the truth concerning their academic excellence. Eventually, they become messengers of equal educational opportunities and superior grades on campuses. Currently, grades carry the true meaning to student success for parents, students, and employers. In any case, the narrow margin between the “B” and “C” grade would determine an individual’s likelihood of becoming successful in future.
In my opinion, genuine academic evaluation continues to prove to challenge for every stakeholder in the academic world. This evaluation presents an integral part of the education system for administrators and members of the faculty in institutions of higher learning. Therefore, without question, grading is an important task that teachers perform on behalf of their colleges. Notably, while students resent getting average grades, the administration does not fancy being on the receiving end of educational regulators concerning inflation. Amidst such contrasting demands are members of faculty caught between maintaining quality and happiness at administrative and classroom levels, respectively. Granting one a “B” instead of a “C” may seem harmless for faculty. In fact, it makes students happy and the professor’s job easier.
However, the effects of this practice hurt everyone from the student through to the entire society as follows. For the student, inflation implies instant yet short term gratification. Such students lack the long term positive feedback concerning their coursework grades. As a lifelong process, academic evaluation cannot be short term rather opens up pathways for subsequent professional growth and development. Thus, inflated grades have little or no effect on developing the kind of ambition that students require in a dynamic academic world from a global perspective (Fendrich 249-250).
For the faculty and college administration, inflation implies the birth of a devalued product. Bernhardt and Popov hint that the primary purpose of higher education is learning to survive in a highly specialized corporate world. Indeed, they state that “universities set lower grading standards, exploiting the fact that firms cannot distinguish between “good” and “bad” “A’s” (p.1764). Contrarily, parents and sponsors spend thousands of dollars on an annual basis as an investment towards quality education. However, they would receive a substandard product upon graduation if the faculty and students collaborate for an inflated grade. Also, as grades rise so does chances that an institution’s educational system is becoming increasingly less rigorous. Such effects situations would question the effectiveness of higher education and the general preparedness of a student for the job market.
Finally, for the society and government, inflation would imply that colleges and universities do not prepare students as well as they ought to. It questions the skills, knowledge, and willingness to work given the grades acquired for members of a cohort. Bernhardt and Popov note that such limited intellectualism plays host to a society of less-educated and less-engaged members. This situation results in an ever-rising worker shortage of qualified individuals ready to work in a technical capacity. Ideally, half-baked graduates lack the necessary skills required to occupy and keep vacancies across various employment platforms (Bernhardt and Popov 1766-1767).
Contrarily, grades pegged on academic rigor and hard work would have the following effects. First, they would rise student’s satisfaction because they follow a true reflection of academic accomplishments. According to Fendrich, true satisfaction in higher education comes after students find solutions to a series of intellectual challenges. Fendrich notes that there was a time when “grades were no more and no less than measures of knowledge (p.249). “ In such times, such challenges played a vital role in developing the student’s self-esteem and level of accomplishment. If such moments reappeared, students would become self-satisfied with their achievements no matter how low their grades appear on an aggregated platform. Eventually, the feeling will lead to a productive and well-adjusted adult who acts to the true level of their thinking capacity.
Also, both the faculty and administration would witness an improvement in academic rigor and confidence. Bernhardt and Popov are of the view that educational quality has desirable pressures on the teaching and research capabilities of an institution. It works towards a guaranteed recognition of the institution and faculty as part of the academic giants on a national level. From the professors’ perspective, a huge chunk of tenure attempts to free them from the pressures of teaching and research for professional stability. The move towards quality performance, as opposed to grade inflation, works for them pushing students into exemplary behavior (Bernhardt and Popov 1767-1768).
Finally, quality grades mean a rise in student perseverance and societal intellectualism. According to Bernhardt and Popov, eradicating grade inflation would allow students and faculty members to collaborate in developing long-term habits of exercising intellectual rigor to better the chances of student performance. Such positive possibilities would turn students into critically thinking adults that can help solve societal problems. Eventually, the country would stop corporate ineffectiveness as well as business practices that lack meaning over subsequent environments and generations. Thus, both the society and government would appreciate the value of educational systems given the student’s quest for high grades. Such grades are indicators of true learning and not mere terminals of coursework completeness (Bernhardt and Popov 1769-1770).
In conclusion, both administrators and faculty members of higher learning institutions need to maintain their educational rigor as well as push students to the highest level possible. Students should treat the campus and coursework with the seriousness that comes with mean, rigorous, and hard learning. These are not the characteristics of a bad institution, rather one that pushes students from their comfort zones and into success. College life should prove hard for every student that wishes to earn a degree. Their level of education should be superior to that offered in high school. Thus, the faculty should set policies, standards, and expectations that require grades to reflect the degree achieved by individual students. The administration also needs to reclaim Cs as a proficiency standard as opposed to satisfactory performance.
Works Cited
Bernhardt, Dan and Sergey Popov. "University Competition, Grading Standards, and Grade Inflation ." Journal of Economic Inquiry, 51 (3) (2013): 1764–1778. PDF Document .
Fendrich, Laurie. "The B-Minus Reigns Supreme." 2008. 248-252. PDF Document .
