June 24th’s editorial on grade inflation seems to imply that something is wrong with awarding high grades — presuming, of course, that they were earned.

The concept of grade inflation is one of the greatest frauds ever perpetuated upon higher education.

The theory goes, in essence, that students walk through the classroom door in August in the form of a bell-shaped curve and should leave the same way in December. Only a small percentage should do superior work and be rewarded with A’s.

That grade inflation is an issue at all suggests the focus has been shifted away from a university’s real purpose, which is student learning.

As I stand in the front of your classroom, my job as a professor is to teach you. In my pre-course planning, I have determined what you need to learn to apply my subject matter effectively in the real world.

I have orchestrated a variety of learning opportunities for you to interact with, and I expect you to master that material.

My goal is to get as many of you as possible to that mastery point, and if the majority of the class earns (and I emphasize earns) A’s and B’s, I’ve done a pretty good job of teaching.

Now the Daily is telling me I should feel guilty about that — that I’m contributing to a national problem.

What is my incentive to be a good teacher if I’m going to be called on the carpet for awarding high grades (as I once was), as if the performance of my students is irrelevant?

The essential flaw in the idea of grade inflation is that it fails to discriminate between loose grading and superior academic programs.

Tim Frerking’s column noted that 90 percent of all Stanford grades in recent years have been no lower than a B. Considering the extraordinary caliber of students Stanford gets and the excellence of its faculty, is this surprising?

Isn’t it possible that grades are going up at Iowa State because the quality of instruction is improving — the result of stronger faculty teaching skills and greater access to technology?

The best approach is to treat grade inflation as a non-issue and look instead at how well students are prepared to enter the world of employment after graduation, which is, after all, why we’re here in the first place.

THAT is a measure which prospective students should find meaningful.

Michael J. Albright

Instructional development specialist

Instructional technology center

College of family and consumer sciences