Madam, – I taught Soviet and communist politics in Trinity College for almost four decades until 2007, and students and colleagues saw me as a tough marker.
My students’ average grade was frequently below that awarded by colleagues.
This was because I tested not just what students knew, but what they could do with what they knew. I marked students down not only for lack of factual knowledge, but also for poor ability to express themselves clearly and cogently in their written and oral work. To my mind, slovenly prose and upper second class honours are incompatible.
There was no objective need for them to know facts about Soviet politics: few jobs in Ireland required it. But the skills that they gained of acquiring information (from lectures, from reading books and journals, from class discussions), weighing it, making judgments about it, and presenting coherent, evidence-based arguments in clear, unambiguous prose – these skills were precisely what were and are needed in the workplace.
I rated students higher if they possessed those skills: they simply performed better. If I had to struggle with students’ essays I drew their attention to their obvious difficulties, and suggested ways of improving – with some success, I hope.
A lecturer in, say, political science or law is not employed to teach students English composition. But is it unreasonable to expect graduates in the arts or humanities to be able to express themselves accurately and unambiguously in their native language, whatever discipline they are trained in? I’m sure most employers would expect it. Who is being helped by turning a blind eye in the assessment process? And whose responsibility is it to help if not their teachers?
Has “grade inflation” been a consequence of a shift from broad education to discipline training? – Yours, etc,