Grading and Grade Inflation at Georgia Tech Preliminary Report to the Executive Board March 11, 2003

Grading and Grade Inflation at Georgia Tech

Preliminary Report to the Executive Board

March 11, 2003

Grade Inflation Defined

The upward shift in the grade point average (GPA) of students over an extended period of time without a corresponding increase in student achievement.

Goldman, L. 1985. “The Betrayal of the Gatekeepers: Grade Inflation.” Journal of General Education 37 (2): 97-121

Methodology

• Extensive study of literature• Survey of peers and other institutions of

higher education• Statistical analysis of Georgia Tech data

– Focus on undergraduate level only– Historic perspective– In-depth study of last 10 years by department

• CalTech• Carnegie-Mellon• Cornell• Johns Hopkins• MIT• Northwestern• Stanford• NC State• Penn State• Purdue

Georgia Tech’s Peer Institutions• Texas A & M• UC-Berkeley• UCLA• Florida• Illinois-Urbana• Michigan• Minnesota• Texas• Washington• Virginia Tech

Other Institutions Reviewed

• University of Arizona• University of North Carolina-

Chapel Hill• Harvard University• Louisiana State University• Hood College

Peer Review

• Surveyed 10 peers for recent grade inflation studies at their own institutions

• Compiled grading definitions, including the use of plus/minus systems, at all 20 peers

• Review of grade inflation studies at other institutions, most notably UNC-Chapel Hill and Harvard

Of the 10 Peers Surveyed…

• Five had conducted studies on grading and grade inflation

• These five “studies” ranged from the effects of a plus/minus grading system to charts showing SAT score plotted against GPA

• Interesting responses from Berkeley and MIT regarding need to do such studies

Grade Definitions at Peers

• Most use 4.0 scale • Standard: A = Excellent, B=Good,

C=Satisfactory, D=Poor/Passing, F=Failure

• CalTech and MIT use Pass/Fail in freshman year

• 14 peers use some form of plus/minus grading system

Cause for Alarm?

• At Princeton, the median GPA for the class of 1973 was 3.09; in 2000 it was 3.36

• At Dartmouth, the average GPA has risen from 2.70 to 3.33 from 1967 to 2001

• At Harvard, over the last three years, more than 50% of the grades awarded have been A’s

• At Georgia Tech, the average overall GPA in Fall 1985 was 2.59; last Fall, it was 2.86

Georgia Tech GPAGeorgia Tech Undergraduate GPA

Fall 1972 through Fall 2002

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3

Fall

1972

Fall

1973

Fall

1974

Fall

1975

Fall

1976

Fall

1977

Fall

1978

Fall

1979

Fall

1980

Fall

1981

Fall

1982

Fall

1983

Fall

1984

Fall

1985

Fall

1986

Fall

1987

Fall

1988

Fall

1989

Fall

1990

Fall

1991

Fall

1992

Fall

1993

Fall

1994

Fall

1995

Fall

1996

Fall

1997

Fall

1998

Fall

1999

Fall

2000

Fall

2001

Fall

2002

GT vs. Other InstitutionsComparison of Georgia Tech Undergraduate GPAs vs. Other Institutions

Various Time Frames

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

Fall

1972

Fall

1973

Fall

1974

Fall

1975

Fall

1976

Fall

1977

Fall

1978

Fall

1979

Fall

1980

Fall

1981

Fall

1982

Fall

1983

Fall

1984

Fall

1985

Fall

1986

Fall

1987

Fall

1988

Fall

1989

Fall

1990

Fall

1991

Fall

1992

Fall

1993

Fall

1994

Fall

1995

Fall

1996

Fall

1997

Fall

1998

Fall

1999

Fall

2000

Fall

2001

Fall

2002

Georgia Tech University of NC-Chapel Hill

University of Washington Texas A&M

University of Florida Purdue University

Princeton Harvard

Harvard’s Solution: Policy Change

• 15-point grading scale became the more common 4-point scale

• Honor degrees will be awarded to a limited percentage of each graduating class (20% summa cum laude and magna cum laude combined and 50% overall)

Where does Georgia Tech stand?Georgia Tech Undergraduate Grade Distribution

FY 1992-2001

*Audit, Incomplete, Satisfactory Completion, Unsatisfactory Completion, and Withdrawn were not included in this data.

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

A B C D F

A 39,951 42,747 43,446 43,673 43,502 43,319 45,520 49,873 35,730 38,898

B 44,928 44,663 44,099 44,118 43,506 42,592 42,047 45,734 32,997 34,979

C 29,479 28,040 27,214 26,003 26,165 24,928 24,373 26,743 19,618 19,533

D 8,118 7,379 7,266 7,203 7,558 6,903 7,031 7,636 6,165 5,820

F 3,851 3,418 3,706 4,012 4,262 3,834 3,695 4,241 3,880 3,732

Student Expectations

Fall 2000 FreshmenAnticipated

GPA All < 2.0 2.0-2.4 2.5-2.9 3.0-3.4 3.5-4.03.5-4.0 40.6% 11.4% 11.4% 16.1% 27.1% 34.1%3.0-3.4 53.3% 12.0% 19.0% 24.9% 24.3% 19.8%2.5-2.9 5.6% 7.9% 42.1% 23.7% 23.7% 2.6%2.0-2.4 0.2% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%< 2.0 0.3% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Cumulative Spring 2001 GPA

Input Dynamics: High School GPA and Admissions Index

Freshman CohortsFall 1993-Fall 2002

High School GPA, Georgia Tech GPA, and Admissions Index

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4

Fal

l 199

3

Fal

l 199

4

Fal

l 199

5

Fal

l 199

6

Fal

l 199

7

Fal

l 199

8

Fal

l 199

9

Fal

l 200

0

Fal

l 200

1

Fal

l 200

2

GT GPA HSGPA Admissions Index

Correlation Between GT GPA and HSGPA

3.50

3.55

3.60

3.65

3.70

3.75

2.8 2.85 2.9 2.95 3 3.05 3.1

GT GPA

HS

GP

A

Freshman CohortsFall 1993-Fall 2002

High School GPA by Ethnicity

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4

Fal

l 199

3

Fal

l 199

4

Fal

l 199

5

Fal

l 199

6

Fal

l 199

7

Fal

l 199

8

Fal

l 199

9

Fal

l 200

0

Fal

l 200

1

Fal

l 200

2

Asian Black Hispanic Multi-racial White All

Incoming Student Performance

2002 Freshman Cohort

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4

High School GPA

Fal

l 200

2 G

T C

umul

ativ

e G

PA

1994 Freshman Cohorts

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4

High School GPA

Fal

l 199

4 G

T C

umul

ativ

e G

PA

A31.6%B

35.6%

C23.3%

D6.4%

F3.0%

A37.2%

B34.1%

C19.9%

D5.7%

F3.2%

A37.8%

B34.0%

C19.0%

D5.7%

F3.6%

FY 1992

Georgia Tech Undergraduate Grade Distribution

FY 2001

FY 1999

Fiscal Year 1992, 1999, 2001

A31.8%

B35.4%

C23.1%

D6.2%

F3.6%

A33.8%

B33.4%

C21.2%

D7.0%

F4.5%

A36.5%

B33.4%

C18.6%

D6.6%

F4.8%

FY 1993

Georgia Tech 1000 Level Grade Distribution

FY 2002

FY 1999

Fiscal Year 1993, 1999, 2002

A42.0%

B36.6%

C16.5%

D3.3%

F1.5%

A47.3%

B34.2%

C14.0%

D2.9%

F1.5%

A51.9%

B33.4%

C11.8%

D2.0%

F1.0%

FY 1993

Georgia Tech 4000 Level Grade Distribution

FY 2002

FY 1999

Fiscal Year 1993, 1999, 2002

0.41%0.16%-3.56%-0.36%3.36%Increase or Decrease

5.21%8.20%21.59%31.04%33.96%2002

4.80%8.04%25.15%31.40%30.60%1993

Sciences

0.27%-1.07%-8.37%-1.23%10.40%Increase or Decrease

1.96%2.80%13.97%40.80%40.46%2002

1.69%3.87%22.34%42.03%30.06%1993

Ivan Allen College

-2.31%-4.04%-5.63%7.29%4.70%Increase or Decrease

1.35%1.67%13.81%41.51%41.67%2002

3.66%5.71%19.44%34.22%36.97%1993

Engineering

3.55%1.32%-0.74%-1.75%-2.38%Increase or Decrease

10.65%10.79%21.72%29.92%26.92%2002

7.10%9.47%22.46%31.67%29.30%1993

Computing

-0.24%-1.04%-9.14%-15.50%25.91%Increase or Decrease

1.13%0.41%3.60%15.55%79.30%2002

1.37%1.45%12.74%31.05%53.39%1993

Architecture


4.85%6.60%18.63%33.39%36.53%2002

3.57%6.16%23.06%35.43%31.79%1993

Georgia Tech

FDCBAFYCollege

1000 Level Grade Distribution (%)


5.21%8.20%21.59%31.04%33.96%2002

4.80%8.04%25.15%31.40%30.60%1993

Sciences


1.96%2.80%13.97%40.80%40.46%2002

1.69%3.87%22.34%42.03%30.06%1993

Ivan Allen College

-2.31%-4.04%-5.63%7.29%4.70%Increase or Decrease

1.35%1.67%13.81%41.51%41.67%2002

3.66%5.71%19.44%34.22%36.97%1993

Engineering

3.55%1.32%-0.74%-1.75%-2.38%Increase or Decrease

10.65%10.79%21.72%29.92%26.92%2002

7.10%9.47%22.46%31.67%29.30%1993

Computing


1.13%0.41%3.60%15.55%79.30%2002

1.37%1.45%12.74%31.05%53.39%1993

Architecture


4.85%6.60%18.63%33.39%36.53%2002

3.57%6.16%23.06%35.43%31.79%1993

Georgia Tech

FDCBAFYCollege



2.36%2.70%10.59%32.60%51.76%2002

2.69%5.30%17.01%34.95%40.05%1993

Sciences


0.94%3.32%14.69%37.92%43.13%2002

0.98%3.92%25.07%42.53%27.50%1993

Management


1.38%0.61%6.66%29.90%61.45%2002

1.37%2.12%11.09%32.91%52.52%1993

Ivan Allen College


0.73%2.06%13.25%33.47%50.49%2002

1.29%3.20%16.84%36.13%42.54%1993

Engineering


1.07%2.14%13.52%31.89%51.38%2002

2.73%2.39%14.91%34.84%45.14%1993

Computing


1.98%3.52%15.87%34.24%44.39%2002

2.05%4.98%20.65%36.30%36.02%1993

Architecture


0.98%1.99%11.77%33.38%51.88%2002

1.55%3.34%16.48%36.63%42.00%1993

Georgia Tech

FDCBAFYCollege



2.36%2.70%10.59%32.60%51.76%2002

2.69%5.30%17.01%34.95%40.05%1993

Sciences


0.94%3.32%14.69%37.92%43.13%2002

0.98%3.92%25.07%42.53%27.50%1993

Management


1.38%0.61%6.66%29.90%61.45%2002

1.37%2.12%11.09%32.91%52.52%1993

Ivan Allen College


0.73%2.06%13.25%33.47%50.49%2002

1.29%3.20%16.84%36.13%42.54%1993

Engineering


1.07%2.14%13.52%31.89%51.38%2002

2.73%2.39%14.91%34.84%45.14%1993

Computing


1.98%3.52%15.87%34.24%44.39%2002

2.05%4.98%20.65%36.30%36.02%1993

Architecture


0.98%1.99%11.77%33.38%51.88%2002

1.55%3.34%16.48%36.63%42.00%1993

Georgia Tech

FDCBAFYCollege


2

2.25

2.5

2.75

3

3.25

3.5

3.75

4

Air

Forc

e Aer

ospa

ce S

tud

Arc

hite

ctur

e

Build

ing

Con

stru

ctio

n

City

Pla

nnin

g

Com

pute

r Scie

nce

Hea

lth &

Per

form

ance

Sci

Indu

stria

l Des

ign

Mili

tary

Scie

nce M

usic

Nav

al S

cienc

e

Aer

ospa

ce E

ngin

eerin

g Biol

ogy

Che

mica

l Eng

inee

ring

Che

mist

ry a

nd B

ioch

emist

ry

Civ

il &

Env

ironm

enta

l Eng

r

Eart

h &

Atm

osph

eric

Sci

Econ

omics

Elec

trica

l & C

ompu

ter E

ngr

Hist

, Tec

hnol

ogy

& S

ociet

y

Indu

stria

l & S

yste

ms E

ngr

Inte

rnat

iona

l Affa

irs

Lite

ratu

re, C

omm

& C

ultu

re

Man

agem

ent

Mat

eria

ls Sc

ience

& E

ngr

Mat

hem

atics

Mec

hani

cal E

ngin

eerin

g

Mod

ern

Lang

uage

s

Phys

ics

Psyc

holo

gy

Publ

ic Po

licy

Text

ile a

nd F

iber

Eng

r

Ave

rage

Fall 1993 Fall 2002

2

2.25

2.5

2.75

3

3.25

3.5

3.75

4

Air

Forc

e Aer

ospa

ce S

tud

Arc

hite

ctur

e

Build

ing

Con

stru

ctio

n

City

Pla

nnin

g

Com

pute

r Scie

nce

Hea

lth &

Per

form

ance

Sci

Indu

stria

l Des

ign

Mili

tary

Scie

nce M

usic

Nav

al S

cienc

e

Aer

ospa

ce E

ngin

eerin

g Biol

ogy

Che

mica

l Eng

inee

ring

Che

mist

ry a

nd B

ioch

emist

ry

Civ

il &

Env

ironm

enta

l Eng

r

Eart

h &

Atm

osph

eric

Sci

Econ

omics

Elec

trica

l & C

ompu

ter E

ngr

Hist

, Tec

hnol

ogy

& S

ociet

y

Indu

stria

l & S

yste

ms E

ngr

Inte

rnat

iona

l Affa

irs

Lite

ratu

re, C

omm

& C

ultu

re

Man

agem

ent

Mat

eria

ls Sc

ience

& E

ngr

Mat

hem

atics

Mec

hani

cal E

ngin

eerin

g

Mod

ern

Lang

uage

s

Phys

ics

Psyc

holo

gy

Publ

ic Po

licy

Text

ile a

nd F

iber

Eng

r

Ave

rage

Fall 1993 Fall 2002

2

2.25

2.5

2.75

3

3.25

3.5

3.75

4

Air

Forc

e Aer

ospa

ce S

tud

Arc

hite

ctur

e

Build

ing

Con

stru

ctio

n

City

Pla

nnin

g

Com

pute

r Scie

nce

Hea

lth &

Per

form

ance

Sci

Indu

stria

l Des

ign

Mili

tary

Scie

nce M

usic

Nav

al S

cienc

e

Aer

ospa

ce E

ngin

eerin

g Biol

ogy

Che

mica

l Eng

inee

ring

Che

mist

ry a

nd B

ioch

emist

ry

Civ

il &

Env

ironm

enta

l Eng

r

Eart

h &

Atm

osph

eric

Sci

Econ

omics

Elec

trica

l & C

ompu

ter E

ngr

Hist

, Tec

hnol

ogy

& S

ociet

y

Indu

stria

l & S

yste

ms E

ngr

Inte

rnat

iona

l Affa

irs

Lite

ratu

re, C

omm

& C

ultu

re

Man

agem

ent

Mat

eria

ls Sc

ience

& E

ngr

Mat

hem

atics

Mec

hani

cal E

ngin

eerin

g

Mod

ern

Lang

uage

s

Phys

ics

Psyc

holo

gy

Publ

ic Po

licy

Text

ile a

nd F

iber

Eng

r

Ave

rage

Fall 1993 Fall 2002

Implications?

SCHOOLS

EMPLOYERS

STUDENTS

Report Outline

• Scope and Definitions• Grading at Georgia Tech

– Opinions

• Analysis of Peer Institutions• Discussion

– Sources– Implications– Remedies

• Conclusions and Bibliography

Conclusions?

• Statistically, there is grade inflation• Peer comparison does not indicate cause for

alarm• Quality of incoming students is increasing • Lower level courses: quality of student

experience• Impact of tenure status of the instructors• Non-uniform departmental distribution

Documents

Grading and Grade Inflation at Georgia Tech Preliminary Report to the Executive Board March 11, 2003