>
> For universities that take the long view, better
> grades mean better job
> opportunities for graduates. Better-paid graduates
> mean better endowments
> in the future. For schools that have seen their
> 300th birthday (i.e.,
> Harvard), it's not so unreasonable to assume such a
> precognitive scope.
>
Since grades can't get any higher than an A, doesn't
grade inflation merely squeeze out information
regarding graduates as the grade scale gets compressed
at the high end? Additionally, since it is unlikely
that all schools and instructors would inflate on a
similar scale, don't these premises imply that hiring
decisions will be more risky in the future? After
all, Harvard may have been around for 300 years, but
grade inflation is relatively recent, so it may be
premature to claim that grade inflation is a wise
long-run decision.
-jsh
p.s. Honesty requires me to inform you that I ripped
off at least one of my points from the Economist.
Here's the article address (07 March 2002):
www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=S%27%29H%2C%2EPA%2B%27%200%20%5C%0A
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
