The Lake Wobegon Effect and Grade Inflation:

The American University in Cairo Case Study

Paper presented at the IAMCR conference, Taipei, July 2005

Dr. Ralph D. Berenger

The American University in Cairo
berenger@aucegypt.edu

ABSTRACT
Grade inflation, defined as the gradual upward trend in the mean GPA of undergraduate and
graduate students over time without a corresponding increase in student effort or achievement, is a
persistent problem on college campuses around the world. Academics fret that grade inflation can
debase the currency of a University degree by creating a “Lake Wobegon Effect”1 where all
students are regarded as above average. Few University students receive C’s anymore as the class
averages steadily climb toward the A-B ranges.
After a decade of upward creeping grades that followed the trend set by U.S. colleges and
universities, one institution of higher education met the problem head on and has come up with
suggestions to reverse the trend; many involving increased communication among departments and
faculty. Early results have been encouraging and the AUC Case Study could stand as a model for
other universities concerned with the impact of mass consumerism in academia.
Using data collected over a 10-year period, 1993-2003, this analytical study, conducted by
the University Senate’s Student Affairs Committee, examines grade levels, the effect of student
evaluations on grade inflation, and compares different disciplines and departmental grading patterns
with some surprising findings.

1
So named for the mythical place in the popular National Public Radio program, “The Prairie Home Companion,”
where monologist Garrison Keillor’s says “the children are all above average.”
 The Lake Wobegon Effect and Grade Inflation:
The American University in Cairo Case Study

Grades at AUC had been inflating annually over the past decade, following a trend in the

United States that goes back to the mid-1960s.1 This paper examines the phenomenon and points

out positive signs that the trend can be reversed, at least temporarily.

A half-century ago, the average grade point average at American universities, and AUC,

was a C, and even the most lackadaisical student who did a modicum of work could be expected to

receive a “Gentleman’s C.” Today, a “C” is an endangered species regardless of student effort.

Grades of D and F are nearly extinct, with few – if any – AUC students receiving such a semester

grade in any given class. In some classes, semester grades of “A” or “A-minus” can constitute the

majority of undergraduate grades, and “B’s and B-minus” are regarded as “shameful grades,” At

both the undergraduate and especially the graduate level.2 Today grade point averages risk

becoming meaningless measures of student achievement and professors bend to societal, parental

and student pressures to give higher than average grades. It is as though academia has become

Prairie Home Companion monologist Garrison Kellior’s “Lake Wobegone,” where “all the children

are above average.” The impactof grade inflation could be called the Lake Wobegon Effect.

Grade inflation has been defined as the gradual upward trend in the mean GPA of

undergraduate and graduate students over time without a corresponding increase in student effort or

achievement. Professors who deviate from consistently handing out high grades risk poor student

evaluation and possibly shortened careers. Such fears were supported by a 1999 study at Duke

University by biostatistician Valens E. Johnson that found a positive correlation between grading

patterns and student evaluations, course and major selection by students, and student satisfaction.

The study found that faculty who gave out higher than average grades were rewarded while tough

graders were “punished” since students tended to believe high grades resulted from whatever effort

they gave, and low grades were attributed to poor pedagogy.3

1
 Shapiro, reviewing Johnson's book listed five persistent "myths" about grades and grade

inflation generally accepted in academia that were exploded by the 1999 study: 4

• Student grades do not bias student evaluations of teaching.

• Student evaluations of teaching provide reliable measures of instructional effectiveness.

• High course grades imply high levels of student achievement.

• Student course selection decisions are unaffected by expected grading practices.

• Grades assigned in unregulated academic environments have a consistent and objective

meaning across classes, departments, and institutions.

Many researchers have verified the positive correlation between GPA and teacher

evaluations. Rundell, for example, surmised in 1996:5

The correlation between positive student evaluations and grades awarded is

sufficiently strong to indicate that a procedure based on numerical scores such as we have
described is surely going to lead to grade inflation in the long term.

Goldman’s (1985) study of student behavior found that 70% of students in his survey

indicated that their expected grade influenced teacher evaluations.6 Birnbaum (2000) found that

72% of the faculty at one university purposely “watered down” courses, gave easy tests at

evaluation time, and/or eased up grading patterns in order to secure high teacher evaluations.7

Educators should be concerned about grade inflation because, in effect, it debases the

currency of an AUC diploma in an era of competitive higher education in Egypt and at American

universities should AUCians decide to pursue a higher degree.

Analysis of the problem

For the past two years, the Student Affairs Committee (SAC) of the University Senate has

been examining a variety of reasons for rising GPA’s, such an increase in the quality of students

admitted, grades that were linked to financial aid, “easy majors” with inflated GPAs, and lower

standards required by professors. While intuitive, these factors were unsupported by data collected

by the Office for Planning and Institutional Research.8 The strongest SAC conclusion was that

2
grade inflation was direct result of market forces that treated education as a commodity and

students as consumers because a similar trend occurred in the United States.9 In short, students –

and parents – demand a tangible return on their education investments, and professors and

administrators feel obliged “give the customer what it wants.”

At the mid-term commencement in February 2004, for example, 38 out of 57 students

graduated with honors in one undergraduate major, a 3.4 GPA or better – well above the

University’s mean GPA.10

Results and Discussion

The good news is that AUC’s grades are nearly the same as grades given students at a

variety of US schools. In fact, GPAs might be inflating faster in the US than at AUC. Figure 1

shows recent GPA trends in the United States. Line shows average AUC GPA of 3.086 in 2002.

Figure 1 shows that AUC grades are nearly the same as the average for all U.S. schools. It is

higher than public colleges and universities, but lower than private colleges, a category that fits

Figure 1. GPA trends at U.S. Universities

________________________________________

AUC. In Figure 1 the straight line indicates the average AUC grade point average for the same

period of time as the U.S. study was conducted.

3
 Grades have been inflating in the United States since the mid-1960’s, according to Stuart

Rojstaczer, a Duke University professor and author of a Washington Post article on the subject.11

This trend of the dominance of the A and the diminution of the C began in the 1960s,

abated somewhat in the '70s and came back strong in the '80s. The previous signs of academic

disaster, D and F, went by the wayside in the Vietnam era, when flunking out meant

becoming eligible for the draft. At Duke, Pomona, Harvard and elsewhere, D's and F's

combined now represent about 2% of all grades given.

He continued:

A perusal of grade inflation rates at those few institutions open enough to publish such
information indicates that, on average, grade-point averages are rising at a rate of about
0.15 points every decade. If things go on at that rate, practically everybody on campus
will be getting all A's before mid-century, except for the occasional self-destructive
student who doesn't hand in assignments or take exams – if exams are even given.12

Results and Discussion

Figure 2: Undergraduate AUC Courses

(100 Level through 400 Level)

3.150
Grade Point Average

3.100
3.050
3.000
2.950
2.900
2.850
2.800
Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Semester

Over the past decade, the mean AUC grade rose from 2.991 in 1993 to over 3.1 in 2003.

However, the rising trend was reversed in the Fall of 2002, almost wholly attributable to the shift

from a pass-fail to a graded system in the Freshman Writing Program. The downward trend in

Figure 2 for undergraduate grades continued into the Fall 2003.

4
 It should be noted that graduate students’ GPA’s continued to climb in 2002 and 2003. The

average GPA for an AUC graduate student in Fall 2003 was 3.559, a B+. A decade ago it was a

3.376, a B. This paper concentrates on the undergraduate grading patterns, however.

It should be further noted that differences in grade point averages can vary from semester to

semester, and that in many cases grading is a subjective assessment by the professor of a student’s

academic performance. Grading philosophies vary greatly not only from department to department,

but from instructor to instructor. The differences in GPA charges are mathematically slight but

measurable, and trends can be discerned.

Grade point averages had declined at AUC once before over the past decade. From 1997 to

the Fall 1999. As with all trends, the Student Affairs Committee in 2003 and 2004 could find no

statistically valid reason for the decline, or in the resulting increases in GPA between 1999 and

2001. Regardless, the decade-long trend is still upward, though a variety of factors were considered:

improved quality of students; changes in grading structures at the University; persistent student

(and parent) complaints to professors; direct relationship between grades and tuition; extension of

the drop period; and increases in the full to part-time instructor ratio.

Figure 3: Course Level Comparisons

3.300
Grade Point Averages

3.200
3.100 100 Level
3.000 200 Level
2.900 300 Level
2.800
400 Level
2.700
2.600
Fall 1993
Fall 1994
Fall 1995

Fall 1996
Fall 1997

Fall 1998
Fall 1999
Fall 2000

Fall 2001
Fall 2002
Fall 2003

Semesters

The SAC found students taking 400-level classes were awarded the highest GPA’s, which

might be rationalized as courses taken by students with declared majors who are motivated and

interested in their major. There was little difference between GPA’s awarded students taking 200-

5
and 300-level courses; about two-tenths of a grade point lower than 400-level courses. The 100-

level courses, again, were driven by the Freshman Writing Program, which just over 2.5 GPA in

2003 (up nearly a tenth of a point since 2002).

Figures 2 and 3 indicate that the SAC grade inflation report of 2003 might have had its

intended effect: raised the awareness of faculty and administrators about the grading issue. Such

awareness might have involved staff meetings at which time grading patterns were discussed to

informal and formal reviews of faculty grading patterns by department chairs and school deans.

There was little difference in the grading patterns of the core curriculum, which all students

must take, and University’s three academic schools. Grades in three of the four entities declined

slightly from 2002. Less than a tenth of a grade point separates them.

Though not measured for the Fall 2003 semester, the 2002 student did find a slight

difference between full-time faculty and adjunct faculty, and the SAC urged continued monitoring

by departments of grading patterns for part-time instructional staff. Part-time faculty grading

patterns increased slightly faster between 1997 and 2002 than did full-time faculty.

Figure 4. Average of Grades Given by Department (Subject Area) Falls 1997,

2002 & 2003

3.8

3.6
Grade Point Averages

3.4

3.2

3.0

2.8

2.6

2.4
Ch ilm
y

ry

gin ry

gin ic
s

So ics
re Art

g
gy

ce

y
yp s

in s

ar
e

gy

th ogy
g

un ce

gy
n

ge
te
r se
Eg atic

P s die
c
Ec log

ph
nc

in

rin
rin

tio

En us
ist

En to

in
i

ien
lo

lo

lo

a
ys
m

ea
F

er

gu
cie

om Scie

An ciol

LT loso
a C Co u

M
Ar e m

ee
n His
ee
o

em

ica
to

ho

po
in em

Ph
ca ono

Th
e

St
Sc
Bi

ur n
lS

yc

ro
eS

at La
rit th

ic

EC Phi
ng

s C ter
g

00
ica

ab

m
W Ma
LT

or
Co

ter ic
lE

pu
-4
lit

L i rab
EC

ti s
00
Po

ra nic
t

io
en
-

-A
Co
ni

l1
ct

ist o
em

lin
ha

tru

as

in ectr
Al
t

g
un

rin

ip
ec

M
ag

ns
co

isc

dm E l
M

ee
an

d
Co
Ac

an
rd
gin
M

te

t
m

en
En

I( n

sA

Fall 1997
lis

em
na

es
ag
ur

sin
an
Jo

Bu

Fall 2002
M

Departments (Subject Areas)

Fall 2003

Chart 1. Grading Patterns by Department (Subject Area) Change

Semesters Fall Fall Fall 2002

1997 2002 Fall 2003 to
F 2003
Grade Point Averages
100-400 Level 3.016 3.086 3.075 (0.011)

6
All BEC courses 3.044 3.148 3.120 (0.028)
ECON Economics 2.857 2.975 2.972 (0.003)
Journalism and Mass
JRMC
Communication 3.120 3.154 3.187 0.033
ACCT, FINC Management - Accounting 3.053 3.093 2.918 (0.175)
Management - Business
* Includes
Administration 3.319 3.412 3.366 (0.046)
* BADM, BPST, INTB, MGMT, MKTG, OPMG,
ORGN, PADM, SYST

All HUSS courses 3.037 3.024 3.058 0.034

ALIN, ALNG Arabic Language 3.258 3.289 3.344 0.055
ANTH Anthropology 3.227 3.368 3.272 (0.096)
ARBS/
Arabic Studies
MEHT 2.874 2.940 3.109 0.169
ARTV Art 3.083 3.165 3.063 (0.102)
ECLT1 ECLT - Writing na 2.432 2.542 0.110
ECLT2 ECLT - Literature 3.364 3.174 3.297 0.123
EGPT Egyptology 2.876 3.103 2.904 (0.199)
FILM Film 3.409 3.027 2.999 (0.028)
HIST(WHST) History 3.128 3.047 3.017 (0.030)
LING Linguistics* 2.000 3.238 2.967 (0.271)
MUSC Music 3.564 3.708 3.387 (0.321)
PHIL Philosophy 3.056 3.293 3.289 (0.004)
POLS Political Science 2.821 2.764 2.949 0.185
PSYC Psychology 2.999 3.143 3.135 (0.008)
SOC Sociology 3.143 3.269 3.225 (0.044)
THTR Theater 3.256 3.086 3.139 0.053

All SCE courses 2.989 3.109 3.062 (0.047)

BIOL Biology 2.836 3.192 2.961 (0.231)
CENG Construction Engineering 3.126 2.940 3.035 0.095
CHEM Chemistry 2.922 3.032 3.000 (0.032)
CSCI Computer Science 3.131 3.267 3.148 (0.119)

EENG Electronics Engineering

na 3.529 3.733 0.204
Engineering
ENGR
(Interdisciplinary) 2.839 3.089 3.073 (0.016)
MATH Mathematics 2.716 2.898 2.771 (0.127)
MENG Mechanical Engineering 2.978 3.128 2.987 (0.141)
PHYS Physics 3.084 3.159 3.223 0.064

All Core Curriculum multi-department

courses 2.925 3.108 3.086 (0.022)
SCI Core Science 2.832 3.062 3.071 0.009
SEMR Core Seminar 3.047 3.169 3.102 (0.067)
* Linguistics with few, low enrollment classes, is not
included as a separate item on the graphic charts.

7
 When the SAC examined departmental grading patterns it observed a measurable spread.

These are discernible in Figure 4 and its accompanying Chart 1. In 1997, for example, 11 of the 28

departments were below the University average GPA of 3.016, a solid B. The lowest GPA’s were in

the mathematics, political science and science courses. The highest GPA’s were in music, film and

English Literature. 13

By 2002, only a third (10 of 30) of AUC’s department’s were below the average GPA,

which had risen to 3.086. The toughest graders were in the Freshman Writing Program, followed by

political science, mathematics and Arabic Studies. Music, electronics engineering and

management/business administration gave out the highest grades. The average grade given out in

the music program was an A- at one extreme while the average grade for the Freshman Writing

Program was a C+, while the University mean GPA of 3.086 was a solid B.

In Fall 2003, exactly half of the University’s 30 departments were below the average GPA,

a considerable improvement in grading standards. Nineteen departments decreased their GPA

compared with 11 departments that recorded an increase. The achievement was notable in that the

overall GPA declined slightly (See Figure 2). While instructors in the Freshman Writing Program

(ECLT) were still the toughest graders, that unit’s GPA rose by a tenth of a grade point from 2002.

Still, it continues to be a significant reason for GPA’s overall decline from 2001. Other tough

graders were mathematics, Egyptology – which dropped 12 spots from 2002 to No. 3 – accounting

and political science.

Electronics engineering students averaged a 3.733 GPA, an A- in Fall 2003, an increase of

two-tenths of a GPA since 2002 when the program was added. The department’s average GPA was

the highest found in the 10-year study. Music and business administration granted the next highest

grades. I should be noted, however, that the music department, which had issued the highest grades

in 2002, had dropped three tenths of a GPA in Fall 2003.

8
 However, like a dieter falling off his or her regimen, inflated grades seem to have returned

to AUC in time for the 2005 commencement exercise. Not only has the university gained back its

lost weight, but apparently a few additional kilos as well (See Appendix A).

Conclusions and Recommendations

Grade inflation is a universal phenomenon that requires constant vigilance by departments,

schools and the University itself. Consistently high GPA’s cheapen the value of an AUC degree and

the efforts of outstanding students who legitimately earn high grades and graduate with honors.

The University Senate’s Student Affairs Committee made a series of recommendations in

2003, and again in 2004.14

Among the recommendations were:

• Increased awareness by sharing with full-time faculty and adjunct faculty grading

pattern trends in the department, school and University. Grading patterns should be monitor and

shared with the department at the start of each academic year.

• University should work hard to eliminate the “GPA Culture” by treating GPA as

indications of work and achievement and not a measure of social approval. By clearly stating the

instructor’s grading policies and expectations in class syllabi.

• Since privacy issues are involved grades should no longer be posted since the

University has more efficient ways to notify individual students of their grades through Web for

Students and WebCT.

• Full-time and adjunct faculty should continue to be oriented about the GPA culture

on campus and should be openly supported by department, school and University administrators

for their efforts to grade students evenly and fairly.

• Rolling back the average undergraduate GPA but raising classroom expectations and

implementing more rigor in the classroom and curriculum to challenge students to perform at

their highest levels.

9
 In conclusion, SAC acknowledged that no single department or school alone can lower the

University’s grade point average over time. It will take a University-wide effort. Simply raising

awareness about this issue in the schools and departments was a good first step and the results have

been encouraging. However, as indicated in Appendix A, the recent June 2005 graduation class

shows a disproportionate number of graduates with honors, an indication that grade inflation might

have returne, and additional study is required.

Appendix A. June 2005 Graduation Analysis

Total N of Honors High Honors Highest Honors Percent of
Graduates 3.4-3.59 GPA 3.6-3.79 Above 3.8 GPA graduates
N=422 GPA With honors
Majors N % N % N % N % N %
Accounting 17 4.0 0 0 2 11.8 0 0 2 11.8
Business Admin. 59 14.0 14 23.7 13 22.0 ***11 18.6 38 64.4
Economics 38 9.0 6 15.8 7 18.4 0 0 13 34.2
Journalism & MC 74 17.5 15 20.2 5 6.8 7 9.5 27 36.5
Total BEC School 188 44.6 35 18.6 27 14.4 18 9.6 80 42.6

Arabic Studies 1 .23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Middle East Study 2 .46 0 0 1 50.0 0 0 1 50.0
Modern History 1 .23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Anthropology 1 .23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Egyptology 3 .69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Psychology 18 4.3 2 11.1 2 11.1 *4 22.4 8 44.4
Sociology 1 .23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
English & Lit. 4 .95 0 0 0 0 1 25.0 1 25.0
Philosophy 3 .71 0 0 1 33.3 0 0 1 33.3
Political Science 52 12.3 6 11.5 1 1.9 0 0 7 13.5
Art 5 1.2 1 20.0 2 40.0 0 0 3 60.0
Theatre 5 1.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total HUSS 96 22.8 9 9.4 7 7.3 5 5.2 21 21.9

Construction Eng. 25 5.9 5 20.0 7 28.0 1 4.0 13 52.0

Electronics Eng. 24 5.7 2 8.3 7 29.2 **15 62.5 24 100
Mechanical Eng. 33 7.8 6 18.2 4 12.1 3 9.1 17 51.2
Biology 4 .95 0 0 0 0 1 25.0 1 25.0
Chemistry 2 .46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mathematics 1 .23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Physics 1 .23 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 100
Computer Science 48 11.4 11 22.9 11 22.9 5 10.4 27 56.3
Total SSE 138 32.7 24 17.4 29 21.0 26 18.8 83 60.2

University Totals 422 100 68 16.1 63 14.9 49 11.6 184 43.6

*Includes one with 4.0
**Includes two with 4.0
***Includes three with 4.0

10
End Notes
1
Gradeinflation.Com. (2003, March 17). Grade Inflation at American Colleges and Universities. Accessed
June 1, 2004 at:
www.gradeinflation.com.
2
AUC Student Affairs Committee. (2003, May and November). Grade inflation at the American University
in Cairo, 1993-2002. A report of the Student Affairs Subcommittee, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. Cairo:
University Senate, P. 2.
3
Johnson, Valen E. (2003) Grade inflation: A crisis in college education. New York: Springer-Verlag.
4
Shapiro, Mark H. (2003, June 23). Commentary of the day: Grade inflation by Valen E. Johnson - A
review. The irascible professor. Accessed June 2, 2004, at http://irascibleprofessor.com/ comments-06-23-
03.htm
5
Rundell, William. (1996). On the use of numerically scored student evaluations of faculty. Texas A&M
University study. Accessed June 2, 2004, at: http://www.math.tamu.edu/~william.rundell/ teaching_
evaluations/article.html
6
Goldman, L. (1985). The betrayal of the gatekeepers: Grade inflation. Journal of General Education, 37,
97-121.
7
Birnbaum, M.H. (2000) A survey of faculty opinions concerning student evaluations of teaching.
Available:
http://psych.fullerton.edu/mbirnbaum/faculty3.htm. Also see Megan Millea and Paul W. Grimes (2002
December) Grade expectations and student evaluation of teaching. College Student Journal. Accessed June
1, 2004 at http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCR/is_4_36/ai_96619964.
8
AUC Student Affair Committee, op. cit., pp. 19-21. Some 14 factors were investigated and analyzed
statistically by the committee and discounted as the any single factor.
9
Members of the 2002-2003 Student Affairs Committee included Drs. Zeinab Ibrahim, chair; Ralph
Berenger, Syed Imam, Hanadi Salem, Mark Sedgewick and Maher Younan, and Ms. Yasmin Abdel Aziz
and Mr. Fadl About Wafia. Members of the 2003-2004 committee included Dr. Berenger, chair; Elathir
Eltigani, Imam, Salem, Younan and Amir Zeid; and Ms. Aziz, Ghada Gad, and Amani El-Shimi; and Mr.
Wael El Sahhar.
10
According to the 2003-2004 AUC University Catalog, the AUC grading system is based on a 4.0
maximum and GPA’s are based on the following: Excellent, A=4.0, A-, 3.7; Very good, B+=3.3, B=3.0;
Good, B-=2.7, C+=2.3; Passing, C=2.0; Passing conditionally, C-1.7, D+=1.3, D=1.0; and Fail, F=0.0. For
students entering AUC as freshmen and who graduate with 3.8 GPA are summa cum laude (with highest
honors); 3.6 are magna cum laude (with high honors); and 3.4 (honors). The number of class hours
multiplied by the points assigned to each grade mentioned above, then divided by the total number of credits
to arrive at a GPA.
11
Rojstaczer, Stuart. (2003, January 28). Where all grades are above average. The Washington Post, p. A21.
12
Ibid.
13
All data in this paper was gathered by James Glynn, and presented in his March 14, 2004 report
to the SAC, “Grading patterns to Fall 2003 at the American University in Cairo.” Mr. Glynn also
prepared charts and figures for this paper and presentation at the AUC Research Conference.
14
Student Affairs Committee, op. cit., pp. 21-22. The University Senate did not formally accept the report
since that would require acceptance of the report’s recommendations, some of which were controversial.

11