The University Times

Olly Donnelly | Contributing Writer

More Irish students are getting firsts and 2:1’s than ever before, according to statistics in the Irish Times, with Trinity being top of the pile. Over the past 10 years, 71.7 per cent of TCD graduates have received a first or a 2:1. This is much higher than the national average: at the University of Limerick, for example, that number is 50.2 per cent. Trinity claim this is because of the “exceptionally bright cohorts of students” that the college attracts, which is about as close to a compliment from the Provost as most of us will ever get. However, some are accusing Trinity (and others colleges) of “grade inflation” – essentially giving out better grades over time because being nasty is hard and examiners, as we all know, have hearts of gold. So this “grade inflation” thing, why is it happening, and is it really all that bad?

As students in 2014, we have access to a lot of things that people in previous decades would not have benefited from: smartphones, Wikipedia, even half-price lattes from Insomnia during exam time.

ADVERTISEMENT

The sceptics among us would point out that grades getting better and better looks suspect, claiming that the tests themselves are getting easier, and the quality of students or the work they do is fairly constant over time. This is an argument heard so often in the UK that it’s almost a parody of itself.  The occasional balding Tory backbencher, groaning about the exams having been harder “back in my day” is almost as much of a Newsnight stalwart as Jeremy Paxman’s own cynicism, though only the latter was ever useful. Yes, more people are getting top grades in the GCSE and A-Level system now than say, 20 years ago, but the reasons for this are less obvious, and certainly less insidious, than easier exam papers or softer marking. Teaching, for example, has come on a lot in recent decades, with students being encouraged to think independently, rather than just rote learn. Both in school and in college, this is an incredibly valuable skill to have, and is making for the most articulate, conscientious cohort of graduates the world has ever seen, with future generations standing only to gain further from advancements in teaching skills.

Furthermore, as students in 2014, we have access to a lot of things that people back in previous decades would not have benefited from: digital library catalogues, smartphones, Wikipedia, even half-price lattes from Insomnia during exam time. With all of this advancement, one would expect us to be getting better and better at studying while we’re at university, and better grades thus seem natural, rather than an unusual development. I personally don’t know how I would make it through my course without Google Books, Evernote, or Spotify. Additionally, lecturers are becoming better at providing us with information. We take things like Powerpoint and Blackboard for granted, whereas in the past, readings were obtained by actually going to the library (the horror!), catching up with lectures missed due to a particularly bad hangover was a nightmare, and the only blackboard in use was dependent on the availability of chalk and erasers. What I’m getting at is that we have an easier time learning than any generation preceding us, and with the deck stacked so heavily in our favour, a higher standard of work is inevitable.

We have an easier time learning than any generation preceding us, and with the deck stacked so heavily in our favour, a higher standard of work is inevitable.

So here’s the big question: with the fact that our generation is naturally producing better work having been established, should we be rewarded for that work with higher grades? Some would argue that we shouldn’t, owing to the fact that students in the past had a harder time, and were just as intelligent. If it was much more difficult for Mum or Dad to get a 2:1 than it is for you now, how can it be fair that you get that grade and they don’t? While I understand this line of reasoning, I feel compelled to disagree by simply acknowledging what a degree actually is, i.e. a “qualification”. A degree is a certificate showing you are ‘qualified’ in something, and to what level. If you go to a job interview with a first from today, against someone with a 2:1 from 20 years ago, you’re still more qualified, even if they had a harder time getting their grade than you did. Although you had far more advantages to help you get to where you are, those advantages have also improved the standard of your work, and that’s what really matters in the labour market, not how easy or difficult it was for you to get there. I sympathise with those graduates of times gone by who feel their degrees are being “devalued” by higher grades today, but I also have to disagree. Their qualification should be worth the same as it was, but the ease of getting there is what’s changed, and today’s students shouldn’t be punished for our good fortune.

The UK has seen a recent backlash to apparent grade inflation, with GCSE and A-Level grades being artificially deflated for the past few years as a result. As someone who missed two separate A-Level grades by less than a percentage point, I feel like a victim of this backlash. If it comes to Ireland, and to Irish colleges, I won’t be alone in this respect. I hope I won’t be the only one to speak out against it either. If someone ever says your good grades are because of inflation, shrug it off. You’re worth more than that.