Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

A Curve That Works

Published: Friday, March 1, 2013

Updated: Friday, March 1, 2013 01:03

It is difficult to evaluate the merit of a grading curve in undergraduate institutions. While certainly a useful way of preventing grade inflation, it brings up larger issues of the nature of grading and what aspects of a student’s performance should be weighed most.

Should students be assessed on the personal value of their achievements or how much more they have achieved than their fellow students? Depending on the academic program under consideration, the answer varies. In the case of the undergraduate program in the McDonough School of Business, however, a strict grading curve is appropriate.

Implemented in 2009, the policy dictates that the average GPA of students earned in a core class cannot exceed a 3.3. The MSB is the only one of Georgetown’s four undergraduate schools with an established, across-the-board grading curve. However, it is also the school that is most vocational in nature, and given that a majority of students decide to specialize in a select few majors — accounting and finance — and the intensity of the well-established and systemized recruitment process for upperclassmen, it makes sense to have a system that emphasizes differences between students and their rank.

The curve may not always be fair, as it operates on the incorrect assumption that all core classes are of a similar level of difficulty. And due to the small differences between the median and high achievers, small mistakes make big differences in grades. Nonetheless, it is the best way to help students stand out to potential employers. It is a reason business employers often cite for continuing to recruit so heavily at Georgetown. They respect the level of achievement demanded by the curve and know that the students they choose truly are the best and the brightest.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

3 comments

Anonymous
Fri Mar 15 2013 01:51
Nothing makes me sicker the those in the MSB talking about the "curve" on their exams. While I find even the need for a curve in those classes dubious (and yes, I took a few finance and econ classes), what pissed me off the most was listening to my MSB roommates. Yup, they were bitching about some class where they were given a sheet with 10 questions on it....of those ten, 3-4 would be used as exam questions. Really?!?! Any idiot can ace that test if they are willing to put in the time to compose answers to all 10 questions. The questions is, are they willing to put in the work? Some will, others would not. But for those in the MSB....I challenge you to go and take some classes in the sciences. Grading is much harsher and you actually have to know something to pass the test. In my experience, which included upper level finance courses, the tests were a joke. Whereas I would have to spend 4-6 hours on a physics exam (yes, again at the upper level). Hmmmm....sounds to me like the "participation trophy generation" is absolutely accurate here. Don't like it, deal with it.
G. Murphy
Fri Mar 8 2013 19:29
Employers don't know that the students they choose are the best and the brightest. What they know--the only thing they know--is that students they choose have scored higher on a curve. (Or, more accurately, a series of curves.) Yes, these students may be the best and the brightest at "curve work." But are they the best team players, the most creative problem solvers, the people most willing to take risks (that could potentially pay off)? Maybe. Or, given that a curve system "emphasizes differences between students," maybe not.
Anonymous
Thu Mar 7 2013 18:28
Typical article from someone from the "participation trophy" generatioin




log out