Abstract
Part I presents six years of grading disparities found at one university. Reliable grading differences were found at all levels examined (college, discipline, and instructor). Part II focuses upon three studies which show how these disparities translate into inequitable GPA and honor status. GPAs are compared with GCAs (grade centile averages), the latter a relative measure of achievement used in these studies. The first study examines the different grading experiences encountered by 19 students who graduated with the highest over-all GPAs at the end of one term. The second study found 8 students who earned honor level semester GPAs for statistically unexceptional work, compared to their classmates. The third study monitored 7 semesters of overgrading of groups of students who happened to enroll in the same set of courses. Part III presents a long discussion of grading. Findings from the target university Appalachian State University in North Carolina are related to findings by Goldman at the University of California at Riverside and to those by Prather at Georgia State University in Atlanta. Many generalizations are reviewed, and grading practice is related to Helson's adaptation level phenomenon and to Stouffer's concept of relative deprivation. The antigrading view that traditional grading should be abandoned is considered and rejected. Part IV presents the writer's suggested reforms to increase the validity of grading. GCAs based upon performance in selected courses are proposed to determine honor and rank status, while simplified traditional grading is suggested to determine discipline status and whether or not course credits will be earned. Also considered are means to reform various administrative rules which affect grading, e.g., pass/fail, repeat, transfer, and readmission rules. Envisioned for the future would be a more valid index of academic achievement and higher correlations between the new index and other measures of aptitude and/or achievement.