British Commonwealth universities inherited the class system for classifying degrees. However, increasing global marketization has brought with it increasing demands for student exchanges, particularly with universities in North America. Hence, Commonwealth universities are considering adopting grade point averages (GPAs) for degree classification more closely corresponding with those used in U.S. universities. Linking to U.S. inflationary systems threatens to severely devalue Commonwealth degrees unless their own grade inflation is recognized and contained. This article describes the North American GPA systemand how market-driven teaching creates the grade inflation it is experiencing. This is compared with grade inflation in a Caribbean Commonwealth university in the process of changing to a common GPA system. The article notes the inability of the U.S. accreditation system to halt grade inflation and recommends that Commonwealth universities changing to GPA systems consider refocusing marketing pressures away from teaching and consider various European alternatives for protecting their degree standards.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bastick, T. (2002). Research watch: An alignment model for evaluating teaching. The National Teaching and Learning Forum, 11(3). Retrieved December 15, 2002, from http://www.ctl.mnscu.edu/ntlf/research.htm
2.
Bastick, T. (2003). Alignment assessment: Battling grade inflation in the English speaking Caribbean. In T. Bastick & A. Ezenne (Eds.), Researching change in Caribbean education (pp. 277-296). Kingston, Jamaica: University of the West Indies.
3.
Becker, W. E. (1997). Teaching economics to undergraduates. Journal of Economic Literature, 35, 1347-1373.
4.
Bergan, S., Divis, J., & Rauhvargers (2000). Bridges over troubled waters: Bologna and recognition of qualifications. Journal of Studies in International Education, 4(2).
5.
Bradley, T. (2001, May). ECTS past, present and future. Paper presented at the HEA National Conference on the Bologna Declaration, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland.
6.
Cohen, P. A. (1981). Student ratings of instruction and student achievement.Review of Educational Research, 51, 281-309.
7.
D’Apollonia, S., & Abrami, P. C. (1997). Navigating student ratings of instruction. American Psychologist, 52, 1198-1208.
8.
Edwards, C. H. (2000). Grade inflation: The effects on educational quality and personal well being. Education, 120, 538-546.
9.
Executive Faculty Merit Evaluation Review Committee. (2002, September). Assessment of the merit evaluation procedures currently in use among main campus units (Report). Washington, DC: Georgetown University.
10.
Foster, D., & Foster, E. (1998). It’s a buyer’s market: “Disposable professors,” grade inflation and other problems. Academe, 84, 28-35.
11.
Greenwald, A. G. (1997). Validity concerns & usefulness of student ratings of instruction. American Psychologist, 52, 1182-1186.
12.
Greenwald, A. G., & Gillmore, G. M. (1997). Grading leniency is a removable contaminant of student ratings. American Psychologist, 52, 1209-1217.
13.
Haskell, R. E. (1997). Academic freedom, tenure, and student evaluation of faculty: Galloping polls in the 21st century. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 5(6), p. 33. Retrieved December 15, 2002, from http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v5n6.html
14.
Hesseln, H., & Jackson, D. (2000). Academic inflation: the devaluation of a university degree. In M. R. Ryan & W. B. Kurtz (Eds.), Proceedings of the third biennial conference on university education in natural resources (pp. 112-127).Columbia: School of Natural Resources University of Missouri–Columbia.
15.
Howard, G. S., &Maxwell, S. E. (1982). Do grades contaminate student evaluations of instruction? Research in Higher Education, 16, 175-188.
16.
Jacobs, L. C. (2002). Student ratings of college teaching: What research has to say. Retrieved December 15, 2002, from http://www.indiana.edu/~best/
17.
Johnson, V. E. (2002, April 14). An AIs an AIs an A... and That’sthe Problem [Invited viewpoint]. New York Times, p. 4A14.
18.
Johnson, V. E. (2003). College grading: A national crisis in undergraduate education. New York/Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
19.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1959). Techniques for evaluating training programs. Journal for the American Society of Training Directors, 13(11), 3-11.
20.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1994). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler.
Landrum, R. E. (1999). Student expectations of grade inflation. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 32, 124-128.
23.
Leef, G. C., &Burris, R. D. (2002). Can college accreditation live up to its promise? Washington, DC: American Council of Trustees and Alumni.
24.
Margolick, D. (1994, June 4). Stanford U. decides to make courses harder to drop but easier to fail. New York Times, pp. 1-7.
25.
Marks, R. B. (2000). Determinants of student evaluations of global measures of instructor and course value. Journal of Marketing Education, Boulder, 22, 108-120.
26.
Marsh, H. W., & Dunkin, M. (1997). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: A multidimensional perspective. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.),Effective teaching in higher education: Research and practice (pp. 241-320).New York: Agathon.
27.
Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (1997). Making students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective. American Psychologist, 52, 1187-1197.
28.
Marsh, H. W., &Roche, L. A. (1998). Effects of grading leniency and low workloads on students’ evaluations of teaching: Popular myth, bias, validity or innocent bystanders? Manuscript submitted for publication.
29.
Moore, M., &Trahan, R. (1998). Tenure status and grading practices. Sociological Perspectives, 41, 775-782.
Redding, R. D. (1998). Students’ evaluations of teaching fuel grade inflation. American Psychologist, 53, 1227-1228.
32.
Savitt, R. (1994, February 9). The causes and consequences of grade inflation [Letter to the editor]. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 40, B3.
33.
Shea, C. (1994). Grade inflation’s consequences. Chronicle of Higher Education,40(18), A45-A46.
34.
Sonner, B. S. (2000). A Is for “adjunct”: Examining grade inflation in higher education. Journal of Education for Business, 76, 5-9.
35.
Steinberg, J. (2001, December 5). Debate at Harvard asks if its A’s are too cheap.The New York Times, p. A16.
36.
University of Washington Office of News and Information. (1997, December). Student evaluations don’t get a passing grade: Easy-grading professors get too-high marks, new UW study shows. Retrieved December 15, 2002, from http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/k120497.html
37.
van der Wende, M. C. (2000). The Bologna declaration: Enhancing the transparency and competitiveness of European higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 4(2).
Zakrajsek, T. (2002). Evaluation of teaching effectiveness (White paper). Mount Pleasant, Michigan: Central Michigan University, Faculty Center for Academic Excellence.
