Grade inflation is a contentious issue on campus, as seen from the news article released on Feb. 22 titled “Average GPA rose to 3.65 last spring, prompting concern over sustained grade inflation” and The Campus’ editorial that week: “Inflated grades, deflated egos: tackling Middlebury’s problematic grading culture.” Both articles have sparked debate on grade inflation’s implications for student evaluation and educational integrity. I hope to shed light on an alternative perspective by proposing that accepting the holistic and growth-oriented educational model that Middlebury, and a liberal arts education, have cultivated is overwhelmingly positive for the student body.
Grade inflation is justified, and the benefits that it brings about override the potential harms at which people gesture. I believe we need a cultural shift in how we define and measure educational success at Middlebury. By embracing a holistic approach that values diverse academic achievements and prioritizes growth, we can mitigate the pressures associated with grade inflation. Such a shift would not only address concerns about grade inflation but also better prepare students for the complexities of the real world. In the workforce, the significance of grades are rendered practically obsolete. For instance, when recruiters look at resumes of potential candidates, educational status and GPA take up merely a sliver of the page. When one gets a call back for interviews, oftentimes they care little about the classes that you’ve taken or the grades that you got. Rather, they want to hear about who you are as a person. To gauge how well you’ll work in a team, how well you take feedback. Lessening the significance of grades would motivate students to cultivate themselves into becoming more well-rounded individuals outside of class.
One argument often brought up in critique of grade inflation is that one may question the merit of grades within an institution that has rampant grade inflation. Does an “A” signify excellent work, or is it merely a reflection of a professor's leniency? In response, I argue that it is important to acknowledge the trust and faith that we, the Middlebury community, place in our educators' judgment. I have faith that professors would not arbitrarily award grades without having first considered the quality of work submitted. While there may be rare instances of professors grading with undue generosity, these should not diminish the credibility of the grading system. Instead, they invite us to consider the broader objectives of education.
The conversation surrounding grade inflation opens a door to reevaluating our approach to education. My decision to attend Middlebury was influenced by a desire to escape the rigid, standardized testing culture that characterized my high school years. The diverse teaching and grading methodologies I've encountered here have overwhelmingly enriched my learning experience. In my view, the perceived “inconsistencies” in our grading policies are a valuable aspect of a liberal arts education. This system offers students the opportunity to experiment with different approaches to learning and assessment. It encourages them to adapt to various professors' grading styles and standards, which underscores the importance of adaptability. Such a skill is invaluable, as it resonates well beyond the confines of undergraduate education, preparing us for our post-graduate futures. Instead of narrowly focusing on "tangible ways to improve our school's culture around grading," as quoted from The Campus’ grade inflation editorial, we should embrace innovative teaching and learning strategies that emphasize effort and personal development over traditional grades. For instance, many professors have deviated away from tests and quizzes opting for essays, projects, and presentation-based assessments which tap into the development of soft skills ubiquitous to the modern workforce. Such a paradigm shift would encourage a more engaging and meaningful educational journey, emphasizing intellectual growth rather than a mere accumulation of high grades.
Given the prevailing circumstances and the intensely competitive environment that characterized many of our high school experiences, particularly during senior year, it is reasonable to find a greater rate of grade inflation at Middlebury when compared to other undergraduate institutions nationwide. The same trend has been observed at places like Yale University, where 79% of grades given in 2020-21 were in the A range, and Harvard University, where in 2023 it was found that 80% of their student body held a 3.8 GPA. This expectation stems from the fact that our student body is selected from an elite group academically, having collected leadership positions like trophies while maintaining high averages with AP and IB courses. It should not be surprising that students here consistently exhibit a strong work ethic and want high grades as a reward. It is for what we have been conditioned to strive.
Perhaps more broadly, this debate on grade inflation at Middlebury has prompted me to reflect on the deeper purpose of education. As a philosophy major, I've grappled with the challenge of having to come up with original thoughts as I was taught in an educational institution that expected me to be able to regurgitate information well. As a result, I became good at it. Really good. The value of a liberal arts education comes from the willingness to establish a system that moves away from a competitive, grades-driven atmosphere towards a model that celebrates creativity and critical thinking.
