Editorial: Clarity on Grade Inflation

Over the summer, Amherst professors gathered for a faculty retreat to talk about one looming campus issue: grade inflation. Professors have long been complaining about the college’s grade inflation problem: in 2000, 50% of the school graduated magna cum laude. The school’s average GPA has risen sharply over the past few decades, from 3.28 in 1989 to 3.48 in 2006 — a number that has likely only increased. Many students returning this fall have been told both directly and indirectly that stricter grading will be a priority for many faculty. Much of this information was disseminated through surprising syllabi changes and sudden attitudinal shifts among professors — missteps in communication that not only left students out of the decision-making process but also caused them to speculate: Why now? What does “grade deflation” look like in practice, and how is it supposed to make Amherst more academically serious? 

These questions become more relevant once we consider that Amherst’s open curriculum is rooted in intellectual freedom and risk-taking, encouraging students to take classes outside of their majors in pursuit of a true liberal arts education. The Editorial Board is concerned that attempts at grade deflation risk discouraging that very spirit. Amherst has prided itself on emphasizing trust in students’ ability to shape their own education. But if grade deflation means more tests, heavier workloads, and narrow definitions of “hard work,” that trust begins to erode. Students might feel more uncomfortable taking an introductory class outside their major, fearing that it might hurt their GPAs or future opportunities. If the college undermines the freedom of an open curriculum, it risks reshaping learning away from intellectual curiosity and towards calculating risk versus reward instead. 

Central to this issue is Amherst’s lackluster communication efforts: Some students have received syllabi informing them that more Bs will be given without a clear explanation of what exactly that will look like in practice, while other syllabi do not acknowledge grade deflation at all. If Amherst is serious about grade deflation, will there be a baseline standard across departments? And if so, how will the college ensure that the standard respects the different ways disciplines measure achievement and success? Without a clear plan, students in some departments may be unfairly penalized, while those in others may benefit from the same policy changes. There is a clear tension in Amherst’s stance: insisting on combating grade inflation yet relying on high GPAs to bolster graduate school placement. 

While the college may pass on the message to graduate schools that an Amherst “B” is now considered an “A,” the stakes extend beyond Amherst. Attacks on higher education may be intensifying, but graduate school admissions remain highly competitive. Further, GPA remains one of the most important factors in admissions, and those standards aren’t changing anytime soon.  If comparable institutions do not implement similar grade deflation policies, Amherst students will be competing at a national disadvantage in graduate school admissions and job opportunities. Further, if more Bs are going to be given out at Amherst, the college should consider reformatting the GPA scale. Instead of an A minus being counted as a 3.67, Amherst could round it up to a 3.7, similar to MIT’s approach, where a 5.0 grading scale helps prevent students from being penalized despite rigorous academic standards.

 It’s discouraging to invest countless hours into a course only to earn an unsatisfactory B, and with more stringent grading, the focus may shift to obsessing over grades, potentially undermining the very learning the college seeks to promote. If the college’s goal is to deepen academic engagement, its efforts around grade deflation in the age of AI may only deepen the very problems it hopes to solve. 

The Editorial Board recognizes that grade inflation is a real concern at Amherst, and we do not oppose thoughtful efforts to address it. The very point of a liberal arts education is to develop critical thinking skills and foster intellectual discourse, requiring students to be held to rigorous standards and be intellectually challenged. At the same time, efforts to combat inflation without proper communication with the student body will be deleterious. If the administration’s past record of simply sweeping things under the rug indicates anything, the possibility that Amherst might eliminate grades entirely just to combat inflation does not seem so far-fetched. Students must be clearly informed of any systemic grading policy changes instead of being surprised by idiosyncratic syllabi. Moving from a heavily grade-inflated academic culture to one centered on deflation is a major transition, and its impact on students’ academic and professional futures must be seriously taken into consideration. 

What’s most troubling is the irony that conversations about improving student engagement are excluding the very population these policies affect. Concerns about effort and academic seriousness cannot be solved by punitive grading alone; instead, they require solutions that look at the issue holistically. If the college is worried about student effort, it should focus on supporting, challenging, and engaging students rather than resorting to punitive and disciplinary measures. Professors can do this by upholding rigor through offering detailed feedback, higher expectations for quality of work, and harsher constructive criticism while still recognizing and rewarding the effort students put into their class. 

Grade inflation deserves attention, but the process must be transparent and inclusive across campus when it directly shapes students’ academic experiences and professional futures. Amherst students should be encouraged to take their education seriously, not disciplined or treated with extreme cynicism or suspicion. 

Unsigned editorials represent the views of the majority of the Editorial Board (assenting: 18; dissenting: 0; abstaining: 0)