It seems as if every day, a survey is released about the declining confidence of the American public in the value of a college degree. A Gallup from September indicated that only 35% of Americans thought a college degree was worth it. This view is aligned with wide-spread disinformation that higher education isn’t effectively preparing students for the workplace. Pundits and political leaders delight in amplifying these views.

Employers, the people who know, disagree! A new study, released last week by the American Association of Colleges and Universities, which surveyed over a thousand executives and hiring managers, reveals that 85% of employers believe higher education is doing a good job preparing students for the workplace.

73% of employers believe a college degree is worth the investment. That’s more than double the perception of the general population.

Why the difference? Instead of using social media and listening to propaganda to form their opinions, employers see first-hand that our colleges and universities are responsive to the changing needs of the workforce and preparing their graduates to meet them.

While employers believed job skills and knowledge were the most important goals of a college education, they also felt strongly that civic skill-building and becoming informed citizens were important goals of higher education.

We should all want a workforce that is ethical, informed, able to listen and communicate well, and to be able to work effectively with people different from themselves. Those “soft skills” are the stock and trade of a liberal-arts education. They are also the skills that prepare students to move up in organizations to assume leadership roles.

About a dozen years ago, as American attitudes began to dismiss the liberal arts, a number of universities throughout southeast Asia moved from three-year bachelor’s degrees to a four-year model incorporating those very disciplines. They had found that employees educated with laser-like focus on specific job skills were unable to adapt to an ever-more dynamic world of work.

That nimbleness is needed now more than ever, as the next generation of employees will need to navigate increasing automation, and they will need to become “robot proof” as AI becomes more central to the workplace.

The annual reports on the return on investment of a college degree issued by the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce show that the economic benefit of completing a four-year degree has never been greater than it is today, and employers are confirming that American colleges and universities are successfully equipping the newest generation of graduates with the skills to succeed in their first-job destinations. With a liberal-arts foundation they will be ready to grow through a career.

Grades are back in the higher education press.

Section 5 of the recent “Compact” from the Department of Education includes a stipulation about grading, a report, Re-Centering Academics at Harvard College: Update on Grading and Workload, cites issues about grade inflation and student perception that grades should reflect the amount of time they spend on an assignment, and a recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, “Grading is Broken,” says students equate grades with “effort over mastery.”

Grade inflation is real, but it is also artificial.

It is no wonder that many students believe effort should align with a grade. We live in the era of eighth-place medals, which celebrates and awards participation. We have taught students to equate showing up and putting in the time with commendation.

And, at an elite institution, like Harvard, where a straight-A average is an expectation of admission, shouldn’t one expect the same performance in college, or should there be a reset of expectations? Is that fair, and what is the point or purpose of grading anyway?

Collegiate grading is naturally inflated. At most higher educations, students must achieve an over-all GPA of 2.0 to graduate along with a minimum of 2.0 in their majors, which often includes a minimum grade for all courses counted in the major. Therefore, in college, C is not average, it is the minimum for degree completion.

For millennia, students either passed a class or not. Grading began at Yale University in 1785, when President Ezra Stiles examined all 58 seniors and assigned them to four categories: Optimi (optimal), second Optimi, Inferiores, and Pejores (worst). These categories were converted to a four-point system by 1837[1].

Initially, the purpose of grading students who had passed was to rank them and identify the highest scoring student as the valedictorian, meaning the one giving the valedictory (“farewell speech”). This speech was given as part of the Baccalaureate Ceremony. Baccalaureate means “laurel berry” referring to the ancient Roman practice of honoring successful students by placing laurels on their heads. It is now the name of the traditional four-year degree and a ceremony often held before commencement, which is typically religious. At Susquehanna, our Baccalaureate Ceremony is a non-sectarian celebration of gratitude featuring a number of student reflections.

The modern letter-grading system of A=4.0, B=3.0 began at Mount Holyoke College in 1897, although this did not become the norm nationally until after the Second World War[2].

Some schools do not give grades. One example is Bennington College where each student is given a written evaluation at mid-term and the end of the semester indicating if the student fulfilled the requirements of the course and providing a detailed commentary on the student’s performance. These “Narrative Evaluations” are quite detailed and may encompass multiple pages about the student’s progress and coursework. In recent years, students there can also request traditional grades in individual classes[3].

The practical use of grades today is as a measure of how well a student is likely to do in a successive academic pursuit. In general, the best indicator of a student being successful in college is not test scores, but their performance in high school. A high SAT score shows a mastery of subject matter and good test-taking ability. Good grades are a better measure of success throughout the duration of a course, which is one reason many colleges have gone test-optional.

When admissions professionals review students’ transcripts they don’t just look to the bottom for an overall GPA, they look for patterns. A student who improves over time is likely to keep that momentum in college, just as one whose grades are in decline is likely to be at risk for low engagement.

There is a wide range of rigor from school to school, so most admissions offices utilize a weighted GPA system to account for that variety. Likewise, Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate credits are weighted and, depending upon the final exam score, may qualify the student for earned college credit.

Aside from picking a speaker or informing admissions counselors, what purpose do grades serve? Precious little.

Years ago, at a welcome for parents of incoming students, a president said, “Don’t worry about your students’ grades. If they mention their GPA more than a week after graduation, you didn’t raise them well.”

From an educator’s standpoint, the value of grades is as a motivator for students. If pursuit of an A leads students to work harder and make the most of their education, good for them. If we start judging them by their GPAs, shame on us.

---

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grading_in_education

[2] https://www.humanrestorationproject.org/writing/a-brief-history-of-grades-and-gradeless-learning

[3] https://www.bennington.edu/academics/advising/grades-and-evaluation

On 1 October, Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, sent a letter, entitled, “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” to nine universities: Brown, University, Dartmouth College, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Arizona, University of Pennsylvania, University of Southern California, University of Texas at Austin, University of Virginia, and Vanderbilt University.

The recipient institutions were given until 20 October to decide if they would sign the compact in exchange for preferential status for federal funding. On 12 October, after the first institutions stated that they would not sign, President Trump posted a message on Truth Social opening the Compact to all higher-education institutions.

The Compact outlines ten commitments that on face value seem reasonable and good, but as is often the case, the devil is in the details.

Some, like “financial responsibility,” would be fiscally ruinous, including a commitment to freeze tuition for the next five years. Such a freeze compounded by inflation would break already stressed budgets, which would necessitate closures or significantly underfunding academic programs to the detriment of students.

Others like “Marketplace of Ideas & Civil Discourse,” insist that a broad range of perspectives be presented and supported, not just institutionally, but in every discipline and teaching unit. In some arenas this could be ideal, but in others it is intellectually disingenuous. Over centuries, peer review and rigorous research have built strong consensus within the legitimate scientific community. Mandating that countervailing perspectives be included in those disciplines is academically reckless.

That same section supports academic freedom unless it involves hate speech (which is already the standard practice in the academy), but it also prohibits speech supporting organizations that the administration deems terrorist. Academic freedom means that every question can be explored. This is also one of the fundamental tenets of Lutheran higher education.

There are many ways that higher education as a sector and institutionally can and should improve. That is the foundation of peer accreditation: continuous improvement. The strength and integrity of American higher education are the diversity of the sector and institutional autonomy.

In his written opinion of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957), Justice Frankfurter outlined the “Four Essential Freedoms” of a University, which became the legal framework that has defined institutional autonomy ever since. Universities have the right to determine for themselves, on academic grounds: 1) who may teach, 2) what may be taught, 3) how it shall be taught, and 4) who shall be admitted to study.

This independence coupled with the variety of institutional types is what made American higher education great. Adopting the Compact would diminish us on both fronts. This is why our national education organizations have been advocating against it, and they have been joined by other groups committed to the preservation of the First Amendment.

Earlier this month, I signed on to a letter from AAC&U expressing our disappointment in the Compact. It is a follow-up to the widely publicized letter of April requesting constructive engagement with the Department of Education and the White House. The current epistle echoes the Sweezy decision:

“As stewards of America’s system of higher education, college and university presidents cannot bargain with the essential freedom of colleges and universities to determine, on academic grounds, whom to admit and what is taught, how, and by whom. They cannot trade academic freedom for federal funding—and should not be asked to do so. They cannot abandon the American model of self-governance, which guarantees meaningful roles for faculty, administration, and governing boards in academic and institutional decision-making. Principles of academic freedom and self-governance, as long recognized by American policymakers and the Supreme Court, are essential for the public good provided by higher education through its research and teaching.”

American higher education is far from perfect, but it has led global innovation and technology. Many of our institutions have been recognized as the best in the world, which is why so many international students have come to our shores to study and learn. In recent months mandate after mandate have seemingly sought to remove the United States as the world leader in higher education. Adoption of the Compact would make that a reality.

Addendum

Hours after this was initially posted, AAC&U and Phi Beta Kappa issued a statement following on the heels of a conversation among college presidents convened by AAC&U and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, in which I was fortunate to participate. Entitled “Higher Education’s Compact with America: Shared Principles for the Common Good,” it is a good-faith counterproposal embracing the best of what higher education has and can be.