The achievement of U.S. students in grades K-12 is very poor. Schools are a government monopoly, so they have few, if any, incentives to change this. However, our colleges and universities, which are forced to compete, are the best in the world. If our elementary and secondary schools were subject to the discipline of the market--if they were forced to compete--they, too, would be excellent.
This is the outline of an argument that is often made by supporters of vouchers, private school choice and Whittle schools, and it's a frequent editorial theme of the Wall Street Journal.
The Journal, however, has also aimed its guns at higher education. A recent article, "Trophy Transcript Hunters Are Finding Professors Have Become an Easy Mark" (April 27, 1993), complains that college standards are going to pot as a result of widespread grade inflation. The average grade at Harvard is now somewhat higher than B+ (up from B- 25 years ago). Nearly half of Williams students graduated with honors last year, in contrast to under one-third in 1985. Only 8 percent of students at Stanford get Cs and Ds, and there is no such thing as a failing grade. At some schools, students are avoiding science and math, where the grading standards remain relatively tough, in favor of the humanities so they can graduate with "a better-looking transcript." The article concentrates on selective colleges, where we'd expect standards to be relatively high. The same kind of bloat undoubtedly exists at second- and third-rank schools--in fact, it's probably worse there.
The Journal article puts grade inflation down to professorial softness. But what makes professors soft? Could it be that the very market competition system that is touted as a panacea for our public schools is a major factor in destroying the quality of higher education? That is what a couple of letters to Journal editors (June 8, 1993) say.
Dr. William A Maesen, a former college teacher, explains grade inflation at the colleges where he taught by citing "the market factor": When the institution needs to recruit and retain students to survive (a buyer's market), intellectual standards are at risk of being compromised. Alas, the maverick professor toiling to salvage competent academic standards may find students who vote with their feet and avoid his classes or opt for less demanding teachers. Lower enrollments can readily qualify that teacher for non-renewal of contract.
In a buyer's market, where colleges are competing for students, a professor who insists on high standards is much more likely to get in trouble than the students who fail to meet these standards. So high grades for students, many of whom are undoubtedly doing mediocre work, are no surprise. As Maesen says, "Market mechanisms apply as readily to academia as to sales operations."
Another letter to the Wall Street Journal in the same issue--from Arun and Suzanne Desai, both Ph.D.s of Huntington, W.Va.--drives the point further. When the Desais asked their students what they looked for in choosing what courses to take--the professor's knowledge of the subject or his reputation as a generous grader--the response was decisive:
90 percent openly voted (by raising their hands) that grades were most important. After all, they must get their degrees and jobs first. There is ample time to get knowledge later. Consequently, generous grades bring in good evaluations.
College teachers are getting smarter and smarter. They have figured this out. No wonder there is grade inflation. Only a minority of teachers who are too theoretical or impractical would struggle to achieve higher standards. Colleges are competing fiercely to get and retain students because those that fail to fill their classes risk going out of business. If, as the doctors Desai found, good grades are an end in themselves for students, who could blame colleges for using grade inflation as a competitive tool? That's how the market system operates.
In the 1960s and 1970s, many people were convinced that giving kids a wider range of courses to choose from would result in higher student achievement. We know what happened. Most kids were glad to take easy courses instead of tough ones, and achievement fell instead of rising.
The experience of colleges and universities shows that competition can force achievement down rather than improving it. The same could happen in elementary and secondary schools. Instead of looking for a school that insists on high standards, many youngsters--and their parents--are likely to prefer places where the kids can get good grades without doing much work. There is little doubt that competition would force schools to be sensitive to what customers want, but there's very little evidence that what they want is a rigorous compeition.