TO THE EDITOR:
If we assume that the grade inflation, grade compression and systematic grading inequality described in Liz Bell’s Oct. 9 article are indeed “big problems,” UNC could have addressed them in a number of ways. For example, UNC could have hosted forums where faculty and students across departments could discuss the purpose of grading and whether differentiating between and ranking students is the proper goal of education. UNC also could have undertaken a rigorous study of why some instructors have lower grade distributions than others, rather than assuming that instructors with high distributions simply have “lower standards.”
The University did none of those things. Instead, it opted to list the grade distributions of students’ classes on their transcripts along with a Schedule Point Average.
This so-called “contextualized grading” will make students more anxious about grades than they are already. It will also discourage students from working together to understand course material.
After all, if a student’s classmates also do well, the course will appear “easy,” and the student’s Schedule Point Average will be lower. Additionally, the policy will punish instructors in (whose classes) many students achieve high grades because the instructor worked hard to make sure all students mastered the course material.
Such instructors will be seen as giving out “easy A’s” regardless of how difficult the course actually was. Unfortunately, this is the kind of context that will not be captured in UNC’s so-called contextualized grading policy.
Corey Frost
Graduate Student
