We all know those easy-A courses: Diversity of Life, Biological Clocks, Math for Trees, Rocks for Jocks — chemistry? Maybe.
These days, professors are tossing out more A’s, according to a Chicago Tribune article on Friday. Almost half the grades given out Fall Quarter in Weinberg classes were A’s or A minuses, compared with 35 percent ten years ago.
So, who’s complaining?
Nyou decided to conduct its own investigation of grade inflation. We turned over a 3-page Introduction to Philosophy paper to two teaching assistants and anxiously awaited our easy A’s.
We’re still waiting. B’s and C’s seem to be a lot easier, at least in our case. But there doesn’t seem to be any scientific grading method, as the differing comments from our two TAs show.
But, hey, who understands philosophy papers anyway?
TA No. 1 — Joe Cannon
TA’s grade: B+
From our paper: In this paper, I will first expand on the definition of antirelativism as I see it. Second, I will defend my belief that antirelativism is the most acceptable position when dealing with moral issues, that this position is in fact open-minded, and that there can be universal truth in morals. Finally, I will address a specific objection to antirelativism and the to theory that there are some universal truths where morals are concerned.
Joe’s comments: Organization is not too shabby.
“Kind of par-for-the-course organization wise. I can remember what the organization of the paper was after reading it very quickly. A paper that is organized badly sort of gives me a headache.”
Does he give inflated grades? Maybe a little.
“I think grade inflation is something of a problem, and I give, on average, grades probably half a letter-grade higher than I would in a vacuum. In an actual intro class, I would probably end up giving it a B-plus or an A-minus.”
T.A. No. 2 — Kevin Scharp
TA’s grade: C+
From our paper: A cultural relativist might object to an antirelativist’s view on the basis that the antirelativist is not being open-minded in regard to other cultures. Upon further examination, however, we see that the antirelativist argument is not as closed-minded as one might think, for the judging of other cultures can lead to improvements and understanding of different cultures.
Kevin’s comments: Organization is pretty weak.
“Good intro, but too broad a topic. You cannot defend universal truth in morality in three pages. The rest of this paper is poorly organized, and you misunderstand the relativist position. Moreover, you do not provide any substantive arguments for the antirelativist view.”
From our paper: There can be universal moral truth where differences in opinion persist, for although we may find one culture’s practices wrong, we must delve further into the issue and ask why that culture has adopted those specific practices.
Kevin’s comments: “You are not arguing for any conclusion here. You need to give some reasons why you think that there are universal truths in morality.”
Does he give inflated grades? A C-plus? We’re hoping that’s not inflated. n
