Deflation requires data

Many students returned from their vacations this week to be jolted out of denial – the grade inflation policy is here to stay.

As a board, we stand behind the policy's central aim: to create an environment in which professors feel free to give students the grades that they deserve, grades that will give them an honest assessment of their efforts and push them to produce their best work. Grading is about sharpening students' minds and challenging them as thinkers. To that end, we agree with the administration that professors need flexibility in grading, and we support their measured approach to enforcing the 35/55 distribution.

At the same time, we believe the administration must strive to implement the policy in a way that will be fair to all students, and it can do this by making sure the implementation process is as transparent as possible. The administration has already begun to do so: Dean of the College Nancy Weiss Malkiel has said she will release the grading distributions for the 2004-2005 academic year on a department-by-department basis next fall. This will allow the public to get a better idea of how each department evaluates its students.

While the release of this data will be a step in the right direction, it is not enough. The administration should go further, releasing past grading data on a department-by-department basis so that those reading a Princeton transcript will be able to see how particular departments have changed their standards as a result of the grade inflation policy.

Currently, employers and admissions officers are able to gauge students' potential by comparing them to previous applicants with similar records. Their judgment is calibrated against years of consistent, if inflated, Princeton grading. The grade inflation proposal will create a standard different than that of recent history in some departments. However, other departments will be making few changes, if any, to their grading policies, as they are already close to complying with the new recommendations.

Thus, everyone reading current and future University transcripts will need to determine if their standards must be adjusted in light of Princeton's new policy. The release of past data will allow these people to see which departments have actually made changes, and which have simply maintained their status quo.

The University is right to demand a lot of its students. In return, it must make sure that outsiders understand how grading works at the University. Malkiel has already made an excellent start with the letter she will be mailing to at least 3000 employers, fellowships and graduate and professional schools to explain the new policy. We urge her to take this next step, as full disclosure of departmental grading data from before and after the switch is merely the next logical step in what we all hope will be a fair and transparent process.