Critiquing Education.

For years, college education has been criticized. I offer a few examples. Take DEI. The left thinks it should be taught; the right does not. Both sides claim that if their perspective is not accepted, education has failed.

Others think educational structures are too bloated. This criticism ranges from too many administrators to too many perks for students.

A third group contends that education has failed because tuition is exorbitant, yet students often graduate with little job potential. I could expand the list by at least forty more complaints, but these examples suffice.

A Crack In Education.

Actually, the college educational system started to deteriorate in the 1920s. This pinhole in the dam of education did not expand until the 1960s, when I was an undergraduate student. Then the problem grew, slowly at first, but by the 1990s it was a full-blown crack in the dam, with water gushing through the crack. The problem was the implementation of faculty evaluations, which allowed students to grade faculty.

Evolution Of Evaluations.

In theory, the concept is great; flawless. In the early stages, it was feckless; now it is draconian. At first, student evaluations were only provided to the faculty members. If they chose, they could use the input to improve their teaching. Some did; most didn't. Why should they? After all, if you are a tenured professor, you were untouchable, and you assumed you were a good teacher or you wouldn't be tenured. So, the evaluations were a paper tiger.

The evaluation landscape quickly changed. In the next iteration, the evaluations were provided to administrators so that they could discuss them with faculty. This process was not popular with faculty, but since the data was used to address how a faculty member could improve, with no consequences for ignoring an administrator's advice, the evaluations still were not useful.

Administrators realized something had to be done, so many schools began the process of basing pay raises, tenure, and promotion, at least in part, on student faculty evaluations. Thus, the implementation of a Machiavellian response by faculty members became mandatory.

Faculty And Machiavellian Principles.

The Machiavellian approaches produced minimal disruption initially. Some faculty I know brought donuts to class the week before evaluations to bribe students. Others gave the students the questions to exams in advance, and included the answers. I am not talking about examples but the actual exam questions and answers. A third group tried to be gracious and never challenge students in class in an attempt to win them over and make them friends. One faculty member I knew gave two very easy exams before faculty evaluations and then gave a very difficult final after the evaluations to get a normal grade distribution.

Grade Inflation. These efforts did not produce the desired results, so some faculty turned to grade inflation. They knew, as Machiavelli did, that you could buy people's votes for the right price and that the ends justified the means. They also knew that Machiavelli was correct when he said, "When men receive favours from someone they expected to do ill, they are under a greater obligation to their benefactor." So the "B" student is more obligated to give a good evaluation if they expect to get an undeserved "A."

Grading Tsunami. Some faculty held the line and did not participate in grade inflation, but they soon found themselves suffering from the input students provided in their faculty evaluations; they were swamped by the grade inflation tsunami of their colleagues. In time, most faculty used grade inflation to enhance their evaluations. They had no choice.

Ironically, faculty provided excuses to explain the higher grades. Some claimed that they were doing a better job of teaching because of the evaluations. Some claimed students were getting smarter because of their interaction with the digital world. A small minority admitted they were buying evaluations by offering higher grades, but they never said it publicly.

A Solution for Grade Inflation.

Like so many problems in life, you can put a lid on them, but eventually the problems boil over. Recent action taken by the Harvard faculty recognizes that no one faculty member can tackle grade inflation by themselves, according to Eric Moskowitz, a staff writer for the Harvard FAS Current. The article entitled "Faculty decisively approve grading changes" notes that the recent vote to cap "A's" at 20 percent of the grades given in an undergraduate class was necessary because two-thirds of the undergraduate grades were "A's." (This is not a Harvard problem alone. Most schools have encountered grade inflation.)

How The Model Works--Limitation on "A's."

There are two interesting parts to the Harvard resolution. First, a faculty member is limited to giving "A's" to 20 percent of the students in a class plus four students. So, in a class of 25, nine "A's" could be given ((.2 X 25)+ 4). It is interesting to note that the faculty did not cap "A-" grades. In five years, if a follow-up study is conducted, the number of "A-" grades I predict will skyrocket. After all, I am sure Harvard faculty have read the works of Machiavelli. (I should note that Harvard stipulates that "A-" and "A" grades should be assigned for excellent quality and full mastery of material, while "A" grades also have to reflect extraordinary distinction.) Faculty do have an option. They can offer their class on a Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory basis (S/U). It is hard to predict the impact of an increased number of S/U courses.

Returning to Numerical Grades.

The second interesting component of the motion passed by the faculty is the recommendation that students receive Latin honors based on an average percentile ranking, not grade point average. Simply put, Harvard would use numerical grades to award honors. Faculty are encouraged to submit numerical grades in addition to letter grades. Using numerical grades does not solve the problem; it offers an opportunity for faculty to practice grade inflation by compressing the numerical grades assigned.

Harvard Faculty's Objective.

The summary of the Harvard proposal states, "While any changes to grading policies may raise concerns about fostering a competitive culture, we believe that these recommendations take critical steps towards the College’s goal to re-center academics, restoring confidence in the College's grading system, and better aligning incentives with pedagogical goals."

I applaud this objective. However, it should be noted that when a person is evaluated by those they evaluate, the system will always be skewed and partially dysfunctional.

Who Should Evaluate?

So, who should evaluate faculty? Academic administrators should. But they do not want to be the one to have to tell faculty members (i.e., their colleagues) they are not doing a good job of teaching. Student faculty evaluations give administrators cover and someone to blame. (It is important to remember that department chairs are the ones who usually evaluate faculty. They do not want to be too strident with faculty because someday they will probably return to the faculty.)

A Practical Example.

I encountered grade inflation 30 years ago in one of my advanced risk management classes. During a class, a student with a "B" average asked if I was going to curve the grades like other teachers since it did not matter if business students got higher grades because of a curve. In essence, the premise was no harm, no foul.

My response was pointed. I noted that business leaders can affect the lives of millions of people, and there was no less need for them to be well educated and for their grades to reflect their comprehension than for any other group. I then asked the student, "Do you want to be operated on by a doctor who graduated from medical school because grades were curved?" He did not respond; nor did anyone else in the class.

Business People Are Like Faculty.

Some of my business friends have chided me over the past four decades, claiming that faculty are not practical and that business executives are real-world thinkers. I disagree; I contend that grade inflation shows that faculty members understand enlightened self-interest. They are practical. Besides, I have seen executives maximize their compensation packages by manipulating a company's business model; they too act Machiavellian. Maybe some faculty are just like some executives or vice versa.

(It should be noted that students can provide faculty evaluations on numerous online faculty websites. It has been my experience that the students who write these evaluations are very unhappy with their professor, and the evaluations are definitely biased.)

Picture of Machiavelli from the public domain.

If you haven't read the initial blog describing the "However View," click here.