<p>I dont think you’re getting my point AceAites.</p>
<p>I put in X amount of work, and I’ll get a B at UCSD. If i put in X amount of work, i’ll probably get a C at Stanford. If i also put in X amount of work at a community college, i’ll probably get an A.</p>
<p>My point here is that if you get a certain GPA at a certain school, people will take into consideration the college you attended as well. A 3.0 at Stanford is favored over a 3.0 at UCSD. Prestige of the school should be the only area where a student’s workload should be depended on to make determining the capabilities of certain students easier for employers, and varying GPA’s between colleges will only make this more confusing.</p>
<p>Now if most schools give a GPA at around a 3.0, and one school out of the bunch decides to suddenly give students their average GPA a 3.5, then people will mistake a student’s capabilities because of the inflation. This is what I mean by grade inflation.</p>
<p>I’m hoping you noticed the link i posted. You can clearly see a steady increase in the inflation of the GPA of certain schools while other schools like UCSD has remained steady at 3.0. I hope you can provide an explanation for why this happens. Did students at these schools all tend to work harder these last few years(thus in your opinion, should deserve a higher GPA) while other schools like UCSD had students who performed at the same work load?</p>
<p>You can make the argument that students in the present work much harder than students in the past, thus in your opinion, they deserve a higher GPA. But how will you be able to explain the GPA of students from other schools who keep the average GPA the same while they too work harder as well?</p>