An excellent WSJ op-ed by Lyell Asher, an associate
professor of English at Lewis and Clark College, highlights the factors driving
grade inflation and declining academic rigor (and, frankly, quality) in
undergraduate courses at US universities. In particular, Mr. Asher observes:
“The problem is
that, for the vast majority of colleges and universities, student opinion is
the only means by which administrators evaluate teaching. How demanding the
course was—how hard it pushed students to develop their minds, expand their
imaginations, and refine their understanding of complexity and beauty—is
largely invisible to the one mechanism that is supposed to measure quality.
It would be one
thing if student evaluations did no harm: then they'd be the equivalent of a
thermometer on the fritz —a nuisance, but incapable of making things worse.
Evaluations do make things worse, though, by encouraging professors to be less
rigorous in grading and less demanding in their requirements. That's because
for any given course, easing up on demands and raising grades will get you
better reviews at the end.
…
Meanwhile, studies
show that the average undergraduate is down to 12 hours of coursework per week
outside the classroom, even as grades continue to rise. One of these studies,
"Academically Adrift" (2011) by sociologists Richard Arum and Josipa
Roksa, suggests a couple of steps that could help remedy the problem:
"high expectations for students and increased academic requirements in
syllabi . . . coupled with rigorous grading standards that encourage students
to spend more time studying."
Colleges can change
this culture, in other words, without spending a dime. The first thing they can
do is adopt a version of the Hippocratic oath: Stop doing harm. Stop
encouraging low standards with student evaluations that largely ignore academic
rigor and difficulty. Reward faculty for expecting more of students, for
pushing them out of their comfort zone and for requiring them to put academics
back at the center of college life.”
Professor Asher also notes the problems with accreditation
agencies:
“Accrediting agencies
could initiate this reform, but they too would first have to stop doing harm.
They would have to acknowledge, for example, that since "learning
outcomes" are calculated by professors in the exact same way that grades
are, it's a distinction without a difference, save for the uptick in
pseudo-technical jargon.”