Contributed Commentary on
Volume 3 Number 11: Stone Inflated Grades, Inflated Enrollment, and Inflated Budgets: An Analysis and Call for Review at the State Level
31 May 1996Damon Runion
drunion@seoul-fkj6.korea.army.mil
John E. Stone's work brings to light an issue of profound significance to all educators and public administrators. Inflated grades clearly point to structural problems in American higher education. If one accepts Stone's argument, which is carefully constructed and well supported, the very idea of such educational fraud is somewhat unnerving. On a national level consider the level of resources going to support students who twenty years ago would have been academically dismissed early in their college careers. In addition, consider the ongoing expenses of retraining these "qualified" graduates and it doesn't take a degree in economics to see that much more harm is being done than good. Stone suggests that the large bureaucratic nature of university systems necessitates funding levels which must be financed through increased enrollments. Correspondingly, inflated grades serve to maintain these preferred levels of enrollment. One can quickly point blame to faculty members for such grade inflation, but total responsibility does not lie there. Faculty answer to department and college level administrators. These administrators control faculty research funding, as well as other financially linked items. Careful manipulation of these funds insures that the desired level of students will be maintained from year to year. Whether faculty members agree to this under pressure from key administrative personnel or a conscious decision is made independently is not the issue. The issue is grades are inflated. Stone concludes his work by offering seven areas of potential change. What I find missing in his conclusions is a simple tenet I have learned through my own course work. As a student of Public Administration, I have had the fortunate opportunity to read the classic work on public management by Douglas M. Fox entitled "Managing the Public's Interest: A Results Oriented Approach." Fox makes continuous reference to a systems-based management approach that stresses production over process. What has evolved over the years in higher education is a carbon copy of the iron fisted bureaucratic structure that runs the federal government. Bureaucracies manage the flow of information, nothing else. As is apparent in Stone's analysis, administrative personnel in higher education have far too much control over the outcomes of the process. Higher education is about learning. The faculty represent the most important input in the process of making the product, i.e., students who can recall, recognize and comprehend any given subject and who with ease and precision can apply the skills learned from any given subject. Accordingly, higher education needs to be structured around the idea of production. Any process that does not relate to the effect of more products would be regarded as non-production. It is important to note that these areas are by no means unimportant. Campuses definitely need Student Affairs personnel, Facilities Engineers and a whole host of other support services. But the focus needs to be on the classroom and empowering the faculty. Stone makes the rough comparison of the college faculty member to a federal judge. He states that faculty enjoy the same lifetime tenure as a judge but do not enjoy the same freedom of controlling their destiny. Faculty members need to regain such freedom if we are to rid higher education of the plague of grade inflation. Higher education officials, faculty members, and public administrators must take the time to study what makes higher education function properly. It is clear that the case made by inflated grades does not paint a favorable picture of the current state of higher education in America. However unsavory the truth may be, it affords the opportunity for examination and ultimately correction.
