<p>I've been seeing these terms thrown around a lot. I was just wondering what they really mean? And why are some people so against it / for it?</p>

<p>Grade inflation: the average GPA is 3.7
Grade deflation: the average GPA is 1.7</p>

<p>I am against grade inflation because it destroys the point of grades. When everyone gets good grades, grades cannot be used to differentiate between students anymore and students may lose some of their motivation. Why learn the material throughly when skimming the reading is enough to get an A-?</p>

<p>Grade deflation is problematic because it can be very frustrating for the students on the one hand, and on the other hand outsiders who do not know that you went to a school with grade deflation may misjudge your performance/potential because of your GPA. Imagine if a GPA of 3.1 would place you in the top 10% of your class...</p>

<p>This is why when you operate on a bell curve, you want the class average around 50-70, because if the class average is 90+ then the bell curve gets smushed against the upper end.</p>

<p>Essentially grades are suppose to both represent how much you learned and also serve as a way to rank you among your classmates. If you give out A's willy nilly, then it defeats the purpose of an A.</p>

<p>I was just curious.. what's the average GPA at your colleges?
For Reed is around 3.2 -> no grade inflation.</p>

<p>I am actually much better served under grade deflation for graduate schools because grad schools KNOW the reputation of my university and appreicate how hard I worked to get my GPA (though lower than an average accepted applicant). Also it forces me to work harder to make those grades count. </p>

<p>My first school had massive grade inflation and well, I did lose my motivation to really study for those classes because As were being given out like candy. (And they DID give out candy!)</p>

<p>I think the average gpa at my school is about 2.9-3.0.</p>

<p>2.86 last Fall</p>