(The iatlg ®ar Hrrl
Adhering to
Existing Scale
Would Make
A’s Meaningful
■
RICHARD CRAMER
POINT OF VIEW
Although I think it would be draconian to try to
impose a fixed grade-distribution plan for indi
vidual courses, departments or the whole
University, I am not sympathetic to those who totally
dismiss the phenomenon of rising grades as nothing
about which to be concerned.
Every college course (not just in math or natural
science) should present new facts, concepts and per
spectives. It should also challenge students to show
how well they understand, communicate to others
and apply new materials. Individual or group pro
jects, homework, term papers, quizzes and exams are
ways of demonstrating a student’s degree of mastery
over a subject.
If an instructor cannot differentiate among stu
dents, this is, I feel, (a) willful derogation of an
instructor’s obligation to give meaningful feedback to
students and/or (b) evidence that the instructor has
not offered enough new and challenging material so
that variations in effort and ability will produce rec
ognizable differences in student performance.
I understand that egalitarian values argue against
classifying students through differential grading. But
we are misleading students if we give high grades that
encourage all or most of a class to think that they
have greater aptitude in a subject than they have real
ly demonstrated. Showing some competence does not
deserve such high grades that they devalue the per
formance of those who display truly outstanding com
petence. Moreover, a reputation for high grading
tends to attract students who care more about grades
than learning.
Finally, when a substantial number of faculty are
giving very high grades, this puts pressure on other
faculty to follow suit to avoid being singled out as
“bad teachers” who stand in the way of increasingly
devalued honors like Dean’s List, Phi Beta Kappa,
chances for post-graduate education, etc.
I should report in this regard my experience as an
adviser in hearing students beg for my help in getting
them into high-graded courses or to be allowed to
drop courses where As or Bs are not virtually assured.
It is embarrassing to hear students report that “my
friend got an A in Instructor X’s section and didn’t do
nearly as much work as another friend who got only
a B in another section.” 1 usually find that the instruc
tor of the latter section awarded a substantial propor
tion of As, but clearly expected more of her or'his
students to get that grade than the first instructor.
One of my colleagues has argued for a philosophy
that would lead the instructor to put in whatever
extra effort was needed to bring weaker students up
to the standard of excellence that would merit an A
grade. This is certainly noble, but even if many high
grading instructors were operating under this philoso
phy, 1 question why the best students should be short
changed by an instractor who would have little time
left for them after devoting so much effort to the
other students. This philosophy seems to put an
unnecessarily low ceiling on what the best students
might learn in the course. They will come away from
the course with an A, but will they value that A and
the'course as much as they would have if they had
been challenged to go beyond the standard the
instructor is willing to accept for an A?
It has also been argued that cooperation with fel
low students (and the teacher) should be an important
feature in the process of learning. I do not disagree.
But I cannot agree that group projects with a single
grade for all group members should be the sole, or
even primary, basis for assigning grades in a course.
More often than not, there is wide variation in the
contribution made by gToup members to the final
product, and they come away with different levels of
understanding of what was done in the project and
how it made use of course concepts and ideas.
Students will not be able to rely on the group from
their class if they are expected to apply course materi
als in some future endeavor.
We need to be able to give them realistic feedback
on how much they personally actually know about
what the group has done. This can really only be
done by assessing each student separately.
In sum, I would argue that the grade distribution
problem would be resolved if the following were to
occur:
a) Instructors really taught new college-level mate
rials of sufficient quantity and difficulty,
b) They made a serious effort to measure individ
ual students’ level of learning of these materials and
c) They made use of already extant University
approved definitions of letter grades (e.g., A = “out
standing mastery of course material”; B = “superior
mastery”; C = “satisfactory mastery”; and D = “unsat
isfactory mastery”).
While I would oppose any University-wide formal
rules or formulas on this matter, I think it is reason
able for departments to include the above among cri
teria used in evaluating their instructors’ teaching per
formance when it comes time for decisions about
salary, promotion and tenure.
One final matter: the concern students express
about being placed at a disadvantage relative to stu
dents from other schools where “grade inflation” con
tinues to exist. As it is now, most outsiders whom stu
dents will want to impress (graduate or professional
schools, employers, etc.) recognize that a 3.2 average
doesn’t mean much from a school where 3.0 is the
overall average. It would be far better to have that 3.2
when the overall average was 2.7.
To this end, I think it would be quite reasonable
for-students to inform outsiders what our overall
grade-point average is when reporting their own aver
age - if grades return to more meaningful levels.
Sociology Professor Richard Cramer is a former
associate dean in the College of Arts and Sciences.
Reach him at mrcramer@email.unc.edu.
Baby Dumping Shouldn’t Be So Easy
Our society is obsessed with conve
nience. We have 24-hour everything.
We can shop from our living room
through the Internet. And with the enactment
of recent social programs, it has never been
easier for a mother to abandon her newborn.
Residents of Hamburg, Germany, call it
the “baby bank.” A mother can approach the
Sternipark Clinic and discard her baby in a
chute, where the infant is placed in a baby
carrier. A silent alarm sounds within the clin
ic and a nurse soon arrives to retrieve the
child. No cameras monitor the outside of the
clinic where the chute is located, allowing the
mother to avoid criminal charges.
“Operation Foundling,” as the program is
called in Hamburg, has similar incarnations
in South Africa. Here in the United States,
California is discussing a program that would
allow parents to abandon a newborn in a
“safe place” such as a hospital emergency
J ' t7/sjov4 (JtMEMPeR ,MS>J H
l j n
3CfrWHiO!OFTHeFOU.OWIKJG CONSTITUTES fl
□ an HONOR OFFENSE? N
□®CHMT)t4&ONAVeMM. ® jeopAßplZ|N6 A
n® PIAGIARWWe A UAR 6& MtKliotf TO
p© PROTESTiK&A&AIWST CAREER SERVICES.
■T KRApT FOODS, - - B
5 Easy Steps to Score
Ah, spring. The time
of year w'hen a
young man’s
thoughts turn to romantic
pursuits and the fairer
sex. Everywhere on cam-
pus, couples in love are blissfully enjoying each
other’s company. But you, loser boy, are sitting
at home watching demolition derby on TNN
and wondering why you can’t seem to attract
the ladies. Is it your personality? Your breath?
That unsightly fur growing on your back?
Wonder no more, hapless suitor. You too can
be successful in love.
(EDITOR’S NOTE: The opinions expressed here
in are those of Mr. Slagle alone. The Daily Tar Heel
assumes no responsibility for the results of those opin
ions. Those results might include: public humiliation,
loss of funds, feelings of inadequacy, arrest, incarcera
tion, flogging, hair loss and itchy rash.)
Lesson No. 1: Honesty Is Not Your Friend
Many people have said that the best way to
attract a mate is to be yourself. These people
are idiots. Chances are, you have been yourself
for most if not all of your life, and it has gotten
you nowhere. You must therefore stretch the
truth a little to make yourself more enticing.
With any luck, when she figures out who you
really are, it will be too late.
(EDITORSNOTE: Lying is wrong.)
First, you need to create an occupation for
yourself. Choose one that conveys a sense of
power, prestige and mystery (Internet guru,
Wall Street broker, CIA assassin) rather than
one that says minimum wage, no responsibility
and questionable personal hygiene habits (fry
cook, supermarket bag boy, DTH columnist).
Lesson No. 2: Dress for Success
Now that you have a power job, you must
look the part. Your wardrobe will reveal what
kind of person you are. Here are some helpful
examples:
Suit and tie: Serious professional
Hawaiian shirt: Carefree beach bum
ButUess chaps: Gay cowboy
Indian chief outfit: Indian chief or member
of the Village People.
(EDITORS NOTE: The DTH does not endorse
the stereotyping individuals on the basis of their
clothes. It should be noted that Mr. Slagle turned in
this column wearing a pink bathrobe, fuzzy slippers
and a pirate hat.)
Lesson No. 3: Planning Your Date
If you have correctly followed Lessons 1 and
2 (and shaved that fur off your back), then you
should have found a woman willing to spend at
least a few hours in close proximity to you.
Viewpoints
room or fire department
anonymously and with no
threat of punishment. Such
a law already is on the
books in Texas, and varia
tions of this are present in
some communities in Alabama, Florida and
Minnesota.
Let me preface my argument by saying
that infant abandonment is a societal ill with
no simple solution. In Germany last year, 130
infants were abandoned in trash bins and
cardboard boxes. Thirty of them died. By
estimates, twice as many children are aban
doned in the United States than in Germany.
But the answer is not providing an easy,
inhumane way for panicked mothers to throw
away their children. As one German religious
group puts it, “It’s creating disposable chil
dren for the disposable society.”
The majority of mothers taking advantage
FAWN PATTISON
POINT OF VIEW
MARK SLAGLE
EDITORIAL WRITER
the proper restaurant and film.
When choosing an eating establishment,
remember that cheaper is not always better.
Yes, the free toy with the Happy Meal is an
added bonus, but you may want something
slightly more upscale.
In choosing a movie, remember that you
want to be perceived as sensitive, cultured and
tasteful. Good choice: “The English Patient.”
Bad choice: “Naked Sorority Slumber Party.”
(EDITOR’S NOTE: What’s wrong with “Naked
Sorority Slumber Party”?)
It will lead your date to believe that you are
a hormone-addled sex fiend devoid of class.
(EDITORSNOTE: Oh.)
Anyway, “Naked Sorority Slumber Party 2 ” is
better.
Lesson No. 4: Concluding Your Date
After the movie is over, you need to take
your date home, because you are running out
of witty things to say and because kidnapping is
a crime. Once you arrive at her house, you will
face the most crucial part of your date: the
good night kiss.
In deciding whether to go for the kiss, you
must pick up the discreet clues your date will
be dropping. If she lingers at the door, fidgets,
casts coy looks in your direction or jumps on
top of you while screaming, “I want to ride you
like a pony,” then proceed at will. On the other
hand, if she runs to the house, slams the door
and throws the deadbolt, your chances might
be less than optimal.
Lesson No. 5: Following Up
After your date, you want to maintain casual
contact with your potential paramour. You
should appeal' interested, but not too interested.
Do: Call her a few days later. Don’t: Watch
her through binoculars from across the street.
By following these instructions, then you
should be well on your way to romance. But if
you follow these lessons and are still unable to
snag a girl, you should resign yourself to the
fact that you are a hopeless, pathetic goon who
will never have a meaningful relationship with
anything other than your microwave. But cheer
up: at least you got rid of the back fur.
Mark Slagle is a junior journalism and mass
communication major from Raleigh. Send
restraining orders to slagle@email.unc.edu.
JONATHAN CHANEY
EDITORIAL WRITER
But “Operation Foundling” and its cousins,
as with most social programs, do nothing to
combat the root of the problem of teen preg
nancy and a lack of culpability for their
actions and subsequent repercussions.
The communities who see these baby
banks as an appropriate solution to unwanted
pregnancies should expend extra effort to
promote safer sex and abstinence. They
should step up education in schools and
advocate more parent-child discussion.
But most of all, they should promote the
word shunned more and more in today’s
society: responsibility. These mothers made
the choice to have unprotected sex. They
chose to have sex at a young age, out of
wedlock or even a stable relationship. It
would seem that they have already
made some tough decisions that mature
adults have to agonize over. These deci
sions have consequences pegged on to
them, including children.
So if these mothers were responsible
enough to spread their legs nine months
before, they should be responsible
enough to deal with its aftereffects.
Abortion is available. For those who
find that practice reprehensible, adop
tion is another option.
But abandonment is not a viable
choice. It’s a crime that should not be
mitigated by a drop-slot, where a baby
can be anonymously dropped like an
overnight rental at Blockbuster Video.
Hey, let’s make it even more conve
nient by allowing unwanted infants to
Current Tuition Setup
Aids Rich, Hurts Poor
consider a
policy initia
-A. five for the state
of North Carolina.
Knowing how diffi
cult it is for young
people to make the transition to adult
hood, I propose we soften the blow by
taking a couple hundred million dollars of
general tax revenue each year and provid
ing several thousand $50,000 grants to
some of the state’s young adults.
However, I suggest that we structure
the grants to ensure that a third of the
grants go to the children of the 10 percent
of N.C. families with the highest incomes
and that at least half of the grants go to
children of the 25 percent of the families
in the state who earn at least twice the
median state income.
I would hope that by now the hairs on
the back of the necks of members of
Students for Economic Justice are begin
ning to bristle.
However, before you storm Gardner
Hall to bum me in effigy (or in person),
realize that what I have just described is
the distribution of benefits of the current
UNC-Chapel Hill tuition structure.
As reported in The Daily Tar Heel on
March 2, more than a third of the UNC
CH entering freshman class came from
homes in the top 10 percent of the income
distribution (family incomes in excess of
SIOO,OOO per year).
The median income of families of
entering freshman was more than SBO,OOO
a year, roughly twice the state’s median
family income.
Though you can quibble with my num
bers if you wish, the troth is that a UNC
CH education costs about $50,000 more
than is covered by in state tuition. The dif
ference between what your education
costs and what you pay is made up largely
by general tax revenue.
You are feeding at the public trough,
and the majority of the feed is going to
N.C. families who need it the least. This
might or might not have been the intent,
but it is the result.
If you support the current tuition struc
ture, you are supporting a tax-funded sub
sidy that flows disproportionately to the
state’s highest income families. How can
you justify this result? Let’s examine the
logical possibilities.
You could argue that we should be using
tax revenue to benefit high-income people.
This argument can be as simple as individ
ual preferences. If you just are willing to
state that you favor subsidizing high
income families, then fine. We’re done.
That’s exactly what we are doing now.
You could, however, take the argument
a little farther than just whom you like and
whom you don’t. Maybe you could find
some logical basis to argue high-income
people are more “deserving” than low
income people.
Or maybe income really isn’t the issue
here. If the state is going to subsidize high
er education, shouldn’t it put its money
where the return is the highest and subsi
dize the best, the most deserving, students
without regard to income?
Anyone with any knowledge of the relation
ship between socioeconomic status and most
measures of educational achievement knows
that students from higher income families have,
on average, hitler test scores, higher grade
Now you must plan your
evening. The quintessen
tial dinner and a movie
is always a safe choice.
That said, you must take
great care in selecting
of the drop-boxes are
young and their pregnan
cies are unexpected and
hidden from their fami
lies, if a stable one is even
present.
be put in roadside recycling bins.
Obviously, the program has dedicated,
good-hearted people who believe in the cause
working in these clinics. But if this type of
“surrogate parenthood" spreads, teen preg
nancies and subsequent abandonment will
not be reduced. It will skyrocket
By making the entire process anonymous
and simple, with no threat of punishment for
the crime of abandonment, deterrence is
completely lacking. The first pregnancy may
be one full of fear for the mother. But after
getting rid of her first kid unscathed and with
relative ease, her subsequent unwanted preg
nancies will be much easier for her to handle.
Under the program in Germany, a mother
can return for up to eight weeks to reclaim
her child. So I guess it’s a type of layaway for
infants. I’m sure that she’ll make a great
mother once she retrieves her kid. And in 15
years or so, that child will be making the
same drop-slot trip her mother made.
Maybe Mom can even drive her there.
Though its aims are noble and well-mean
ing, programs such as “Operation Foundling”
are not solutions to societal problems.
Anonymous abandonment without due pun
ishment does not promote the responsibility
that will curb future teen pregnancy. For that
to happen, parents need to be more involved
with their children’s fives. Safe sex and absti
nence must continue to be taught in school.
And for those who are irresponsible, the
consequences for their actions must fall on
their shoulders, not those of surrogate moth
ers in the clinics carrying out the program.
You got yourself into this, so take it like a
woman. Step up and face reality.
Jonathan Chaney is a sophomore political
science and history major from Concord.
Reach him at jhchaney@email.unc.edu.
JOHN F. STEWART
POINT OF VIEW
Monday, March 20, 2000
point averages, higher
high school graduation
rates and so forth.
Though this pro
vides an explanation
of why high-income
families get a disproportionate share of the
subsidy, does it justify the subsidy? On
this point, we often hear Frank Porter
Graham’s “education is a public good”
pronouncement. Because the general pop
ulation benefits from education, they
should cover the cost.
At risk of committing a heresy second
only to publicly criticizing Dean Smith,
Dr. Graham was wrong or partially wrong.
Though higher education undoubtedly
produces some external benefits, most of
the benefits of education go to the individ
ual receiving it.
The student gets the consumption value
of what many will recall as the four best
years of their fives, the student gets the
warm glow of the knowledge he or she
accumulates and the student gets the addi
tional half million dollars of lifetime earn
ings a college education confers.
Even if the public benefits exceed the
cost of the subsidy, support for the current
distribution of the subsidy requires you to
argue that:
1) The public benefits more from edu
cating a rich students than from educating
an economically disadvantaged ones, and
2) In the absence of a subsidy, the rich
are less likely to purchase education on
their own than the poor.
Neither strikes me as particularly
plausible.
What if you can’t buy the “more
deserving” or the “public good" argu
ment? How else could one rationalize the
disproportionate subsidy to the rich?
You could argue that taxpayers would
never support a system of higher tuition
for those able to pay while providing a
generous subsidy to low-income students.
Maybe the only way to get affordable
higher education for the poor is to subsi
dize a lot of rich families in order to get a
little trickle-down.
Or I suppose you could argue that the
current system of low tuition combined
with increasingly inadequate state funding
will ultimately diminish the quality of
UNC-CH to the point where high-income
families will choose to send their children
elsewhere, leaving more room for low
income students to receive a subsidized,
albeit lower quality, education.
If you want to justify the current tuition
structure using one of these last two argu
ments, I will have to admit with great sad
ness, you might have a point
John F. Stewart is a professor in the
Department of Economics. Reach him at
jfstewar@emai I. unc. edu.
OPEN TO All:
Shf Saily (Jar Serf
welcomes reader submissions.
Their opinions do not
necessarily represent the
opinions or views of
the DTH or its editors.
11