<p>I have a slightly different take than decillion. While it is true that grade deflation hit humanities harder then science, IMO, grade deflation is a huge and complex issue which manifests itself in ways not directly linked to the 35% A “guidelines.”</p>
<p>For example, my D just completed her first year of engineering. In EVERY science/math/computer class (physics, chem, Calc, COS), the classes were packed with students who had achieved 5s on the AP exams, yet we’re taking intro classes. (There are plenty of good reasons to not use the AP results to “test out” of a intro class; but many students were so far beyond what was taught in the intro classes, they were simply “protecting” their GPA.)</p>
<p>Specifically, intro COS was packed with seriously experienced programmers competing with students who knew how to turn on a computer and not much else. The curve would have two peaks - each peak representing prior experience with the subject matter. Guess which peak got the 35% prize? Same was true with the other intro science/math classes.</p>
<p>So, while it is true that grades in science/math were less impacted then humanities, there has been no study of which I am aware that evaluated the effect of grade deflation on course selections. Grade deflation means that each student is NOT evaluated based upon course mastery; rather, each student is evaluated against each other. (How else can one explain mean quiz scores in physics/math routinely being in the 40% range. Poor unprepared students? Poor teaching? Or, perhaps, the need to create tests which create wide grade distributions on which curves can be built.)</p>
<p>Once you get past foundational classes, the playing field evens. But is it too late to recover? I don’t know.</p>