Students' views deserve consideration

I want to be straightforward about grade inflation. I was scared two weeks ago when it came out publicly that I was not thrilled with the town hall meeting featuring President Tilghman. Since then I have decided it is important to be clear about my beliefs if for no other reason than that students will know exactly what is going on at Princeton — because the most difficult part of the grade inflation proposal and most policy issues at Princeton is a lack of transparency.

While Dean of the College Nancy Malkiel has shown admirable concern for our opinions on this matter, there was no student input in the creation of this proposal that greatly affects students' lives. Without the ability to amend the proposal or to vote on it, students have no effective voice.

Concern over this issue surfaced in 1980, when the Faculty Committee on Examinations and Standing began to keep an eye on students' GPAs more closely. In 1998, the committee suggested grade inflation was a problem but concerns were quelled. Three years later, when Harvard received national press for its number of high grades, the committee once again raised concerns and once again this concern did not translate into any policy changes.

Princeton is designed such that the administration cannot tell the faculty how to teach. However, the process for change is designed such that students have no influence either — unless they are told what is going on ahead of time and asked to give opinions. Students should have been included in the process of designing this proposal in the first place because no major shift in policy should occur without student input. We are a major constituency of the University and should be enfranchised. Because students had no input, the USG's task should be to organize and empower student opinion.

The arguments as I understand them begin with notions of accuracy and fairness. First, inflation hurts students because when they do not receive proper feedback on their work they cannot grow intellectually. Secondly, the outside world will view high GPAs with skepticism if grade inflation continues. The metaphor of an inflated currency holds: the outside world looks upon inflated grades as meaningless because there are too many of them. Third, grade inflation is unfair. When your roommate procrastinates and leaves work on a final paper until eight hours before it is due and you work on it for days and you receive the same grade, it is simply unfair because your grades do not accurately reflect the quality of work put in.

The arguments against the proposal address each of the aforementioned points. First, feedback in the form of more precise grades does not tell a student how well he or she is performing, but how well they are doing as compared with everyone else. This may actually increase competitiveness, not reflection. The last thing this campus needs is more competition because what drives so many Princetonians to success beyond Fitz-Randolph Gate is also the biggest danger to campus life: competition leading to exclusivity — in the form of eating clubs, academic departments and organizations, even community service groups.

Second, the outside world may not be discriminating enough to recognize the difference at Princeton versus other similar institutions. How will employers interpret Princeton students' grades and will they actually consider the attached explanation of Princeton's new grading policy?

Third, the fairness factor is hard to dispute. Yet, if I feel my grades are not currently inflated, will they be deflated with everyone else's?

Ultimately, we must ask what is Princeton's focus: Is it our goal for every student leave Princeton with first class tools of thought or is it our goal to distinguish between the top third and bottom third? Maybe current standards are too watered down, but this proposal's quota suggests that Princeton cannot accomplish its mission of sending each graduate on his or her way with a masterful understanding of their field. For in this proposal, we effectively suggest that we will only succeed with one third of students.

Dean Malkiel should be applauded for arguing that an A grade should reflect an A-level understanding. But consider a typical Princeton class led by a nationally acclaimed expert in the field, full of students who have been admitted to Princeton through a rigorous admissions process. To say that only one third of those students are capable of having a masterful understanding of the material is to sell ourselves short.

Grade reform can be meaningful if guidelines are encouraged rather than strict numbers. Second, the statement that is attached to graduates' transcripts needs to be direct and clear. Ultimately, I believe in Princeton and I believe in Dean Malkiel. I have faith Princeton will prosper from whatever decision is made, however I think we would be well served to consider the student perspective seriously. Matt Margolin is president of the USG. You can reach him at margolin@princeton.edu.

Want to know more?

Dean Malkiel will discuss the proposal Thursday at 4:30 in Whig-Clio. That night, the USG will host a student discussion at 7:30 in Frist 302 in preparation for a formal letter addressed to the administration and faculty.