In the academic economy of the university, grades used to be the gold standard. For their studies in libraries, classrooms and laboratories, students were repaid with teachers' evaluations, which they could present to anyone as proof they'd done a good job. But in the 1960s and 70s, as the draft plucked college-age men in the United States from high school and deposited them in southeast Asian jungles, professors adhered less and less to the old work-evaluation exchange rates. Giving higher grades meant students could stay longer and keep their college draft deferments, and the phenomenon of grade inflation was born. But even though the draft is no more and college students' workloads are relatively unchanged, inflation continues. Things are no different in Athens.
Despite a 2000 report by former Provost Sharon Brehem that called the grading culture at Ohio University a problem
OU administrators said yesterday they planned no policy changes to combat grade inflation. They even posited that, perhaps, the steady current of higher grades was the result of higher admission standards that OU implemented in the 1980s, or that better instructors and brighter students deserved credit. The surest proof that professors and administrators have abandoned the old standard came from current Provost Stephen Kopp, who wondered, what grades mean in relation to student achievement and learning. Placing less weight on grades and more on achievement is the right attitude, as long as students are learning and there are new ways - with portfolios, standardized exams, etc. - they can prove they have done their work.
In fairness to Kopp and other officials, there isn't much administrators can do to combat a hazy thing like grade inflation. Individual professors will always bear the most responsibility for the criteria they set and the grades they issue, which is as it should be. But employers should be aware that as university attitudes about grades change, they will have to use their own standards in assessing students' abilities. Giving their own tests, examining potential hires' portfolios and resumes and having applicants try out for jobs are better than looking at just grades.
Initiative unfair to U.S. soldiersIt is a time of almost unprecedented national pride in the United States. Americans, in the wake of the war in Iraq and continuing terrorist threats, have united in support of the most powerful symbol of safety we have: the American soldier. Even as they resisted the war, the most fervent protesters were hard-pressed to speak ill of the men and women fighting halfway across the world. Time Magazine, understanding the difficult work of the military, even gave the U.S. military its 2003 Person of the Year award.
This is what makes the story of military commanders' new stop-loss initiative so disheartening. When the military and its individual soldiers are receiving so much respect from the general populace, it is getting little from its superiors or government. The army has delayed the exit of thousands from their service. These include troops eligible for retirement and those with expired enlistments. Many of the 40,000 affected are reservists or in the National Guard. The army is justifying the stop-loss orders, instituted during the Vietnam War but not used until the Persian Gulf War, by claiming they will maintain unit cohesion.
Many of the troops will grit their teeth and go on without speaking out, but others have made their displeasure with the system quite public. One soldier signed an e-mail from Iraq as Chained in Iraq and others justifiably feel the same way. Their discharge dates have come and gone, yet they remain in Iraq, with only faint rumors and a collective silence from their superiors.
Military officials should re-assess their stance on these soldiers now stuck in an awkward state of limbo. Many of these soldiers have left their businesses and families in order to serve their country, and to leave them fluttering in the wind like a tattered Old Glory is disrespectful. If anything, commanders should establish new discharge dates and stick to them, or offer more monetary incentives to troops for extended duty time. The worst thing is to do nothing and offer no clarification. Any American, especially those who put their lives on the line daily, deserves better.
17
Archives
