Grade Inflation and the Brown Grading System:
2001-2002 Sheridan Center Research Project

Introduction
Summary
Sheridan Center Survey on the Brown Grading System
Results of the Faculty Survey
Results of the Graduate TA Survey

Introduction
During this past fall semester, a group of faculty members convened at the Sheridan Center to discuss and explore the issue of grade inflation at Brown. The discussion considered both the perceived incidence of grade inflation and the pedagogical role of grades in the Brown curriculum. The group was especially concerned with the perceived impact of grade inflation on classroom conduct and its erosion of grades as a meaningful measure of learning. As a result of the discussion, the group formed itself into an Ad Hoc Committee under the chairmanship of Prof. Bernard Reginster (Philosophy) and determined to sponsor a survey of faculty colleagues. Committee members include Profs. Reginster, Roberta Bickford (History of Art & Architecture), Sumit Guha (History), Yuko Jackson (East Asian Studies), Janet Rankin (Engineering) and Thompson Webb (Geological Sciences), as well as Rebecca More (Sheridan Center). The Graduate Teaching Fellows of the Sheridan Center, Alyssa Lodewick (History) and Allison Pacelli (Mathematics) surveyed current graduate TAs.

In the last year the issue of grade inflation has become part of a public debate about the quality of a higher education degree. (1) The validity of the grades an institution assigns to the performance of student work has profound consequences for its integrity and credibility beyond its own walls. Not only do grades represent to the outside "world" the value of an education, but they also constitute a problematical sense of stasis and illusory comparability across disciplines, institutions, and time. However, neither fields of inquiry nor student bodies remain the same, but grades on a transcript do. As Prof. Guha has stated, "The 'goods' being valued, in this case skills and knowledge gained by students, are bound to change over time and, indeed, we do not have the same students through time." Further, he notes that although "grades appear to be incommensurable, between departments, classes, institutions, and time, in fact, the system of transfer credits, cumulated past credits, etc. requires just such commensurability." As a result, "the question of at least approximate consistency needs to be addressed, so one of the approaches is the study of grade inflation." Furthermore, there is a perception on campus that Brown, in spite of the intention of the open curriculum, suffers from grade inflation.

In order to develop some basis for understanding the campus-wide perception of the impact of the Brown grading system, the Sheridan Center sponsored an e-mail survey. The goal of the survey, written with the assistance of the Ad Hoc committee, was to explore the effect of Brown’s grading system on the ability of instructors’, whether faculty or graduate TAs, to evaluate student performance. The Sheridan Center sent the same survey to both faculty and graduate teaching assistants and/or fellows.

Summary
The results of the two surveys suggest that the Brown grading system should be re-examined by the current faculty. The preponderance of respondents, for example, advocated the imposition of plus and minus into the grading scale. Among the issues which might be addressed in future discussions are: 1) the development of explicit departmental/discipline-specific grading criteria, 2) the preparation of graduate TAs to give constructive feedback through grades, and 3) clarifying the role between formative and summative assessment in student learning. The allied article by Prof. Peter Heywood provides an example of how one faculty member assesses the impact of grades in his course over almost twenty years.

Sheridan Center Survey on the Brown Grading System

Results of the Faculty Survey
JANET RANKIN, Engineering and Sheridan Center

In response to the survey e-mailed to all on-campus faculty, one hundred and eighty-one (181) replies were received. The findings of the survey have been analyzed by academic division, since, not surprisingly, many responses were clustered along divisional, rather than departmental lines.

• Question 1. Eight-two percent of those responding (86% of respondents from the Social Sciences, 91% from the Humanities, 65% from the Physical Sciences, and 85% from the Life Sciences) favored the addition of some type of plus and/or minus grade option to the set of possible final grades that could be assigned.

• Question 2. Only 4 respondents do not use either +/- grades, or some alternate grading scale during the semester.

• Question 3. A minority of respondents (42%) believe that NC’s should appear on student transcripts. Those in the Humanities and Social Sciences favored the inclusion of NC’s on transcripts by a slight margin (49% favored inclusion, 40% favored omission, and 11% expressed no opinion.) Those in the Physical and Life Sciences favored their omission (32% favored inclusion, 42% favored omission, and 26% expressed no opinion).

• Question 4. Only 34% of all respondents expressed interest in seeing the grade of "D" reinstated. Many respondents felt that allowing plus and minus grades to be assigned would give more flexibility to the grading system, and make it even less necessary to include D as an allowable passing grade. Responses to this question broke down upon Divisional lines as follows: 43% in the Social Sciences, 31% in the Humanities, 34% in the Physical Sciences, and 26% in the Life Sciences favored reinstating the grade of "D". To better understand these numbers, it is interesting to examine the actual numbers of faculty expressing each opinion. In the Humanities and Life Sciences faculty who advocate the current system exceed those in favor of reinstatement by approximately 3:2 (30 faculty members in the Humanities expressed support for the current system of no D’s, whereas 19 expressed an interest in reinstatement). In the Life Sciences, 17 faculty members in the Humanities expressed support for the current system of no D’s, whereas 9 expressed an interest in reinstatement.) In the Social and Physical Sciences the number of faculty favoring reinstatement of the D slightly exceeded those favoring the current system (in the Social Sciences 22 favoring reinstatement and 19 favoring the current system, and in the Physical Sciences, 16 favored reinstatement, and 10 favored the current system).

• Question 5. asked if any pressure was felt to inflate grades given to students, and asked respondents to identify the source(s) of that pressure. Of the 181 respondents, 109 or 60% indicated that they felt pressure to inflate grades. 67 of respondents from the Social Sciences, 68% of those from the Humanities, 54% of those in the Physical Sciences, and 61% of those from the Life Sciences. Of the 4 specific sources of pressure to inflate grades Brown’s current grading system (choice (d)) was selected most often — with 53% of those in the Social Sciences, 53% of those in the Humanities, 29% of those in the Physical Sciences, and 49% of those in the Life Sciences (for a total of 83 respondents (45%)) choosing this for at least one of their sources of pressure to inflate grades. The second most common response to question 5 on average was choice (a) — graduate and professional school admission - with 26% of those in the Social Sciences, 13% of those in the Humanities, 17% of those in the Physical Sciences, and 15% of those in the Life Sciences (for a total of 32 respondents (18%)) choosing this for at least one of their sources of pressure to inflate grades. Many respondents also indicated that they felt pressure from (c) to inflate grades: here, 12 % from the Social Sciences, 5% from the Humanities, 17% from the Physical Sciences, and 27% from the Life Sciences (for a total of 24 respondents (13%) indicating that they felt pressure from this source. Approximately 12% of all respondents indicated that they felt pressure from the requirements of potential student employers (choice b). The most common alternative ("other") response to Question 5 was "pressure from student, parental, and societal expectations. Twenty-five out of the 181 respondents (14%) expressed this as at least one source of pressure to inflate grades. Three respondents indicated that they felt pressure from the tenure and promotion process to inflate the grades that they assigned.

• Question 6. asked respondents to indicate what impact (if any) Brown’s grading system had on teaching and learning. Responses to this question were significantly clustered along Divisional lines: 18% of those in the Social Sciences, 23% of those in the Humanities, 40% of those in the Physical Sciences, and 32% of those in the Life Sciences felt that the current grading system had "no impact" on teaching and learning. Approximately 20% of those in the Social Sciences, 30% of those in the Humanities, 20% of those in the Physical Sciences, and 15% of those in the Life Sciences felt that the current grading system had an impact through the compression of passing grades into 3 groups (A, B, and C). In addition, 30% of those in the Social Sciences, 23% of those in the Humanities, 17% of those in the Physical Sciences, and 27% of those in the Life Sciences felt that the grades given under the current system did not accurately reflect student performance, and/or understanding. Other respondents to question 6 offered a wide variety of comments.

• Question 7. 43% of faculty in both the Humanities and Social Sciences said that they graded on an absolute scale, with 16 and 18%, respectively, grading on a relative scale, and 33 and 38%, respectively, indicating that they used a combination of both standards. Thirty one percent of faculty in the Physical Sciences, and 29% of those in the Life Sciences indicated that they graded on an absolute scale, with 31 and 35%, respectively, saying that they graded on relative scale, and 26% in each division indicating that they used a combination of both standards.(NB. not all respondents answered all questions.)

Results of the Graduate TA Survey
ALYSSA E. LODEWICK
History and Sheridan Center Graduate Teaching Fellow

Unlike Brown's open curriculum, the University's grading system is not universally appreciated and/or lauded - at least of the results mirror campus sentiment among graduate TAs. The results of the survey, sent to all graduate students who have taught at any point in the last three semesters, indicate a need for a campus-wide discussion about Brown's grading system. In total ninety-four (94) graduate TA instructors replied to our survey. Sixty (60) respondents have had experience teaching in the humanities and social sciences, while thirty-two (32) have had experience teaching in the physical and life sciences. We also received responses from two people whose departments we were unable to identify.

• Question 1. The overwhelming majority of people believed that plusses and minuses should appear on transcripts. Eighty of the survey participants (85%) indicated that Brown should change its grading scale, while only thirteen participants (14%) believed that Brown should not change the way grades are reflected on official transcripts. One respondent did not have an opinion on this question. Among people who indicated that they are content with Brown’s current system, most teach life and physical sciences. One should not conclude, though, that all instructors in those divisions are content with the status quo, for life and physical science teachers also comprised twenty-three out of the eighty people who indicated dissatisfaction with Brown’s current lack of plusses and minuses.

• Question 2. Ninety-two TAs responded to this question. Three respondents indicated that they do not use plusses and minuses during the semester, while thirty-seven people indicated that they do use plusses and minuses in conjunction with letter grades during the semester. Of the instructors that use plusses and minuses, thirty-six teach in the humanities and social sciences, and we were unable to identify the department of the remaining respondent.

  The survey showed that thirty-three (33) TAs (all of whom except for one teach in the physical or life sciences) use a numeric grading scale when grading student assignments; three people (all in the humanities/social sciences) use a check/check plus/ check minus system; and fifteen people use a combination of both letter-grade and numeric scales. The people who use both number and letter grades are scattered throughout the different academic divisions; ten of them teach in the humanities and social sciences, four teach in the physical and life sciences, and one teaches in an unidentifiable department. All in all, 43% of the instructors who answered question two use letter-based grades alone (both with and without plusses and minuses) during the semester, 36% use solely number-based grades, and 16% use a combination of letter- and number-based grades. The remaining 4% of respondents use some other type of grading scale (pass/fail, check system, etc.).

• Question 3. Five respondents did not indicate any answer to this question, and two people claimed that they had no opinion on the matter. Fourteen respondents (15%) leaned toward leaving failing grades off of transcripts. Seventy-three TAs (78%) felt as though failing grades should be placed on transcripts. People on both sides of the issue seemed to be spread among different academic divisions; no one division monopolized either position.

• Question 4. Re-instatement of grade of D generated the least excitement. Four (4) people chose not to answer the question at all. Eleven people (11%) answered this question with "maybe," "perhaps," "no opinion," or "unsure." Forty-five people (48%) definitively felt that D’s should be re-instated, and thirty-four people (36%) definitely felt that the grade should not be brought back. Although a majority of respondents felt as though Brown’s grading system would be strengthened by re-introducing the D, there were also a great number of people who felt as though Brown’s system is fine without that grade.

• Question 5. The following chart reveals the impact of grade-inflation pressure. The column on the left lists the sources of grade-inflation pressure. Sources are listed according to the number of graduate instructors who reported that they have encountered each source, starting with the source encountered most frequently. (Sources followed by an asterisk were not listed on the Sheridan Center survey and were written in by survey recipients.) The column on the right shows the number and percentage of survey respondents who indicated that they have felt pressure to inflate grades because of each source.

Source of Grade Inflation Pressure	Respondents Influenced by Source
1. Brown’s Grading System	50 (53%)
2. Faculty attitudes/expectations*	14 (15%)
3. Requirements of Potential Professional/Graduate Schools	10 (11%)
4. Student Evaluations	8 (9%)
5. Students attitudes/expectations*	7 (7%)
6. University Culture*	3 (3%)
7. Requirements of Students’ Potential Employers	2 (2%)

As the above chart shows, many graduate instructors contend with the pressure to inflate grades. Surprisingly, over half of the respondents to our survey are pressured to raise grades by the grading system itself. They indicated that this pressure is due to two different aspects of Brown’s grading system. First, because a C is the lowest grade that can appear on a Brown transcript, that particular mark has acquired quite a negative reputation among many Brown undergraduates, who perceive of it as a "low-pass" grade. (At other schools, the grade of D indicates a low pass.) Because many Brown undergraduates are grade-conscious individuals, the thought of getting a low pass causes them dismay. Many graduate instructors realize that a C is seen as a D by their students and are reluctant to use the former grade; they only dole it out if a student’s work is truly below average but not poor enough to fail the student. Because C’s are used so sparingly by many Brown instructors, B’s in many cases have come to indicate "average" work, as opposed to "above average" work, which they may indicate at schools where a wider array of grades is depicted on transcripts. Meanwhile, the ripple effect makes its way up the letter-grade ladder; some instructors at Brown use A’s to indicate "above average" work, instead of "superior" or "outstanding" work. Because Brown’s grading scale is so compressed, many graduate instructors feel confined; reluctant to "punish" students whose work truly is "average" by giving those students C’s, some instructors bump their grades up to Bs.

Another aspect of Brown’s grading system that encourages grade inflation is its lack of plusses and minuses. Many graduate teaching assistants and teaching fellows are frustrated by the fact that an undergraduate who earns a B+ for the semester will, in effect, be penalized for that grade; his or her transcript will only reflect a grade of B. Similarly, many instructors are bothered by the fact an undergraduate who earns a B- for the semester will essentially be rewarded; his or her transcript will also reflect a B. In both scenarios, the transcript does not reflect what the student actually earned, and the same grade is applied to two very different performances. In order to prevent students who earn a B+ from being unfairly hurt by the limitations of Brown’s transcript system, some graduate instructors report being tempted to bump a B+ up to an A- (which are then bumped up even further to an A on student transcripts). Ironically, when seeking to prevent students from being hurt by transcripts that reflect lower-than-deserved grades, some instructors unfairly end up rewarding the very same students with higher-than deserved grades. In some instances, the grades that appear on Brown transcripts do not accurately reflect student performance.

Brown’s grading system certainly is not the only source of grade-inflation stress for graduate instructors. Many respondents to our survey reported that they felt pressured to inflate grades by the faculty members with whom they worked; this phenomenon may indicate that faculty members also feel pressure to inflate grades and convey that pressure to their teaching assistants, either indirectly and directly. Additionally, a fair number of survey recipients indicated that they are pressured to inflate grades for students who were applying to graduate and/or professional schools; this pressure appears to be related to the pressures surrounding Brown’s grading system, which were discussed above. Because B+ appears on student transcripts as a B, and because many undergraduates fear that application-review committees will look down upon applicants whose transcripts show anything less than As and B+s, some undergraduates encourage instructors to bump up their grades to an A-. In some instances of student pressure (and/or belligerency), it can be quite tempting for instructors to cave in to the pressure and inflate student grades. Fortunately, most of the instructors who answered our survey reported that they resist such tactics–despite the fact that they recognize and personally empathize with their undergraduate students’ desires to undertake advanced study.

Question 6. After asking survey recipients to identify grade-inflation pressures, the Sheridan Center Survey asked respondents about the impact Brown’s grading system had on their ability to effectively evaluate students’ understanding of course material. The survey also offered respondents the opportunity to indicate how the current grading system affects a student’s "ability to assess his/her own level of understanding" in a course. In total, seventy-eight people replied to these questions. Fifteen of the respondents believe that Brown’s system works fine and that it affects neither their ability to evaluate student performance nor the students’ ability to assess their own performances. 34 of the survey recipients (43% of the people who responded to this particular question) have been frustrated by the compressed nature of Brown’s grading scale; they want more grading options. Twenty-three respondents (29%) voiced concern that the grades they proffer do not truly reflect student performance; they cannot accurately reflect the broad spectrum of student ability they encounter in their classrooms when they are forced to evaluate student performance using an overly-simplistic tool that, in the end, consists of only three letter grades and no plusses and minuses. These limitations create transcript grades that lack nuance, and students find it difficult to know and/or explain to others (family members, prospective employers, graduate/professional schools, etc.) how their performance compares to that of their peers. Several survey recipients expressed direct concern about how Brown’s grading system (and its accompanying effects) affects student motivation. They specifically worry that the grading system at Brown discourages student commitment. One respondent believes that because B’s are so easy to come by, students do not work hard to get them. Another respondent feels as though students who are getting B-’s have no impetus to work harder and/or strive for a B+; after all, doing so will not make an ounce of difference on their transcripts.

Question 7. The last question on the Sheridan Center’s grading survey asked participants about the evaluative scale they use when assessing student achievement. It asked whether the surveyed instructors assigned grades and ranked students relative to an "absolute" or prescribed standard, or relative to other students in the current class. Eighty-two people answered the survey’s final question. Twenty-nine instructors use "absolute" standards when assessing student performance; of them, twenty-three were in the humanities and social science divisions. Eighteen people (ten in humanities/social sciences) reported using a relative scale when evaluating their students; they rank students in comparison to one another. The largest group of respondents–made up of thirty-one people, twenty of whom were in the humanities and social sciences–use both relative scales and absolute scales in combination with one another. Additionally, four people said that their use of absolute versus relative scales varies according to the sorts of assignments they use, the sorts of students with whom they are dealing, the type of class they are instructing, etc.

The Sheridan Center’s Teaching Survey on Brown’s Grading System grants insight into how graduate instructors across campus evaluate and assess the performance of students in their classes; even more importantly, it shows how they manage to fulfill these responsibilities even though they are operating within the framework of a grading system that many of them find constraining and frustrating. Survey results show that a majority of graduate instructors who replied to this questionnaire would like to see some fundamental changes made to Brown’s grading system. Specifically, they would like to see plusses and minuses used on students transcripts, and they think that failing grades (NCs) should appear on transcripts as well. In addition, a large number of graduate instructors (although not a statistical majority) favor reinstatement of D as a grading option. Most of the respondents implied that changes to Brown’s grading system would ameliorate some of the pressure to inflate grades with which they contend.

The topic of Brown’s grading system is an important one–not only for instructors, but also for students, who use grades as a tool for assessing their own performance. The time very well might be ripe for the Brown community to reconsider the university’s grading system; certainly many of the graduate instructors who replied to the Sheridan Center’s survey feel as though such a discussion is sorely needed. As one respondent said, "Thank you, thank you for this study. I think that these questions are critical and long overdue. The Brown degree stands well upon its reputation, but we must continue to ensure that the education provided is truly worthy of that reputation." Now may be the perfect time for members of the Brown community to come together and debate whether the university’s methods for student evaluation are still relevant, pertinent, and effective. At the end of the dialogue, we must ensure that the grading system in use at Brown is well respected by the diverse populations it affects: undergraduate and graduate students, graduate teaching assistants and teaching fellows, and faculty members alike.

(1) See, for example, Harvey Mansfield, "Grade Inflation: It's Time to Face the Facts," The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 6, 2001, B24; Patrick Healy, "Harvard's Quiet Secret: Rampant Grade Inflation", Boston Globe two-part article October 7-8, 2001; Patrick Healy, "Low. high marks for grade inflation", Boston Globe October 7, 2001; Patrick Healy, " Harvard asks faculty to justify grading methods" Boston Globe October 23, 2001; Patrick Healy, " Harvard figures show most of its grades are A's or B's", Boston Globe November 21, 2001; Jacques Steinberg, "Debate at Harvard Asks if Its A's Are Too Cheap," The New York Times, December 5, 2001, A16.