Grading Policies in Academic Institutions

In many academic institutions, grading policies are vague or undefined, leaving mid-level management and lecturers to interpret practices independently. This lack of standardization can result in grade inflation and ambiguity, impacting both faculty and students.

Grades are a prominent feature of higher education, highly valued by students, lecturers, and supervisors. However, there is little uniformity in grading practices, and many institutions lack clear criteria or policies to ensure consistency (Lipnevich et al., 2020; Foster, 2024). Without national discussions or institutional regulations, grade inflation persists, with only a few institutions addressing the issue (Hurwitz & Lee, 2018). Universities often avoid tackling grade inflation to maintain student satisfaction and avoid dissatisfaction among stakeholders (Baglione et al., 2024). Lecturers may also inflate grades to protect students' career prospects or address social inequalities (Chowdhury, 2018).

This study aims to explore the characteristics of institutional academic policies focusing on grade differentiation.

The research questions: What characterizes institutional policies regarding the differentiation of grades in academic courses? What policies do institutions have for addressing grade inflation?

The Social Perspective on Grading

Grades reflect educational efforts and skills development, serving as indicators of employability and societal contributions. Higher grades correlate with scholarships, job opportunities, and increased earnings (Becker, 1964). They also encourage diligence and critical thinking, which benefit society (Hanushek & Woessmann, 2012). According to signaling theory, grades and education signal traits like intelligence, perseverance, and punctuality to employers, streamlining hiring processes and reducing evaluation costs (Spence, 1973). However, grade inflation weakens the signaling value of academic achievements, making it harder to differentiate high-performing students (Herron & Markovich, 2017). According to Human Capital Theory, investments in education enhance individual capabilities, benefiting both individuals and society economically (Becker, 1964). Grades embody this concept by reflecting the returns on educational investments. While the expansion of higher education has increased opportunities (Huang et al., 2022), overemphasis on grades as a measure of success can overshadow education's broader value and lead to misalignment with labor market needs (Brown et al., 2020).

Academia’s Role in Society

Higher education institutions are legally obligated to uphold standards established by the state. This social contract grants institutions the authority to confer degrees in exchange for regulatory compliance (Elken & Borlaug, 2024). States regulate institutions to ensure quality, accountability, and alignment with societal goals, including workforce development, innovation, and equity (Showunmi & Tomlin, 2022). Oversight mechanisms, such as admissions policies and degree validation, protect academic integrity and promote accessibility.

Despite their societal responsibilities, institutions often face internal and external pressures. Competition among universities, influenced by rankings, government policies, and corporate interests, drives priorities such as research output, graduate outcomes, and reputation (Naidoo, 2018). To enhance their standing, some top institutions may lower grading standards to secure better placement opportunities for graduates, leveraging their reputations to benefit students (Popov & Bernhardt, 2013).

This study employs an interpretive qualitative methodology to examine the characteristics of institutional academic policies focusing on grade differentiation. Data collection was conducted in three phases, in 2012, 2021, and 2024. The study involved interviews with 13 middle-management academics from higher education institutions in Israel, including program and department heads. These participants represented six institutions: three colleges and three universities. The institutional participation varied across the three phases, with five institutions participating in 2012, five in 2021, and three in 2024. Research Procedure: The study initially began as an examination of institutional policies on grade differentiation in a single academic institution in Israel. It subsequently evolved into a broader research initiative encompassing multiple institutions. The interviews, conducted following the approach outlined by Taylor et al. (2016), lasted between 20 minutes and 1.5 hours. The interviews centered on the following questions: What are the guidelines and actions in the program you lead regarding grade differentiation? Are there any steps you take in your program to address grade inflation by lecturers? What do you know about the institution's policy on grade differentiation? What are your sources of knowledge on this subject (e.g., the institution, other academic institutions), and how concerned are you about it? What do you think are the implications of academic oversight of grade distributions for students and lecturers, whether from personal experience or as a hypothetical consideration? The data were organized into themes and grouped into four models. Their analysis followed the stages proposed by Marshall and Rossman (2014): data organization, category creation, theme and pattern identification, hypothesis examination, and category comparison. Context: Israel is a relatively small country where all academic institutions are supervised by the Council for Higher Education. The Council primarily sets boundaries for academic conduct, especially for new programs developed by institutions. Universities generally have more autonomy in their academic operations than colleges.

Four policy alternatives range from maintaining the status quo to balancing organizational control with faculty discretion. Assumptions: A. Courses with over 20 participants do not follow normal distribution, rendering average grades uninformative. B. Student composition remains consistent across years and courses. Types of grading policies: 1. Technological Mechanism: A technological system is implemented to monitor and normalize grades. Academic management sets a grade distribution, enforced via a computerized normalization formula. The grade weights and distribution data are visible to lecturers, department heads, and faculty deans. Lecturers can manually adjust normalized grades with justification, enabling dialogue. 2. Grade Normalization: Balancing Rules and Judgment: Grade normalization follows program- and department-specific regulations aligned with institutional guidelines, with oversight from academic middle management. Policies are not technologically monitored but rely on discretion. Constraints are reviewed annually, considering program status. Lecturers are informed of policies and overseen by academic leadership. 3. Institutional Guidance: Emphasizing grade differentiation through non-binding principles, policy execution is left to faculty heads and academic administrators, with no regular follow-up. Implementation varies by department and program based on their discretion. 4. "Laissez-Faire" – There is no formal policy on the matter, and faculty members typically avoid addressing it. Grading is widely acknowledged as flawed, particularly due to grade inflation. The prevailing attitude is, "If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it," especially in the absence of complaints or external pressure. New or less engaged lecturers often feel free to grade at their discretion, and senior faculty feel less constrained, bolstered by their established tenure. Academic institutions can adopt varied models suited to their specific contexts, prioritizing survival, growth, or reputation. Challenges like COVID-19, natural disasters, and conflicts drive institutions to adapt and implement strategies to navigate these crises effectively.

Baglione, S. L., Smith, Z., & Roach, O. (2024). Grade inflation: graduate students’ perspective. Educational Research and Evaluation, 1-22. Becker, G. S. (1964). Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education. University of Chicago Press. Brown, P., Lauder, H., & Cheung, S. Y. (2020). The Death of Human Capital? Its Failed Promise and How to Renew It in an Age of Disruption. Oxford University Press. Chowdhury, F. (2018). Grade inflation: Causes, consequences and cure. Journal of Education and Learning, 7(6), 86-92. Elken, M., & Borlaug, S. B. (2024). Implementation of ambiguous governance instruments in higher education. Higher Education, 88(3), 1111-1126. Foster, G. (2024). Grading standards in higher education: Trends, Context, and Prognosis. Second Handbook of Academic Integrity, 341-359. Springer. Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2012). The Knowledge Capital of Nations: Education and the Economics of Growth. MIT Press. Herron, M. C., & Markovich, Z. D. (2017). Student sorting and implications for grade inflation. Rationality and Society, 29(3), 355-386. Huang, B., Tani, M., Wei, Y., & Zhu, Y. (2022). Returns to education in China: Evidence from the great higher education expansion. China Economic Review, 74, 101804. Hurwitz, M., & Lee, J. (2018). Grade inflation and the role of standardized testing. Measuring success: Testing, grades, and the future of college admissions, 64-93. Johns Hopkins University Press. Lipnevich, A. A., Guskey, T. R., Murano, D. M., & Smith, J. K. (2020). What do grades mean? Variation in grading criteria in American college and university courses. Assessment in education: Principles, policy & practice, 27(5), 480-500. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2014). Designing qualitative research. Sage Publications. Naidoo, R. (2018). The competition fetish in higher education: Shamans, mind snares and consequences. European Educational Research Journal, 17(5), 605-620. Popov, S. V., & Bernhardt, D. (2013). University competition, grading standards, and grade inflation. Economic Inquiry, 51(3), 1764-1778. Schultz, T. W. (1961). Investment in human capital. The American Economic Review, 51(1), 1-17. Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355-374. Showunmi, V., & Tomlin, C. (2022). Understanding and managing sophisticated and everyday racism: Implications for education and work. Rowman & Littlefield. Taylor, S.J., Bogdan, R., & DeVault, M.L. (2016). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guidebook and resource. 4th ed., Wiley, Hoboken.