STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GRADING PRACTICES IN DIFFERENT MAJOR FIELDS

Recent empirical investigations have shown evidence of differential grading standards in different major fields of study (Goldman, Schmidt, Hewitt, & Fisher, 1974; Goldman & Hewitt, 1975; Goldman & Widawski, 1976). Researchers generally have found grading standards to be more stringent in the natural sciences (biology, chemistry, physics) than in the humanities and social sciences (English, psychology, sociology). Specifically, in one investigation (Goldman & Widawski, 1976), a single student's performance in courses taken in one major field was compared to the same student's predicted performance in a second major field. Students thus became their own controls with respect to ability and all possible paired comparisons were investigated. The results of this study pointed to the fact that achieving high grades in certain major areas is more difficult than in others. Whether the difference in assignment of grades is a function of grading practices, more difficult subject matter, or both is difficult to determine; but while better understanding of the cause has theoretical importance, the fact remains that students' performance in some areas consistently exceeds their performance in others. The confounding of grading practices and subject matter difficulty in this study and previous ones in no way reduces the impact of this investigation, since it is the detection of the difference in assigned grades, not their cause, that is of primary importance. Goldman and his associates have suggested that the differential grading practices they have documented may influence such diverse processes as faculty allocations to departments and students' choice of major field. The underlying rationale for the relationship between departmental faculty assignments and grading practices is tied to the system most universities and colleges follow, by which the number of instructors in a department is positively correlated with the number of students majoring in that department. It has been hypothesized that leniently graded majors (provided there exists some minimal level of substantive content) can attract greater numbers of students than those requiring greater academic ability. It has been further hypothesized that students select majors which require performance similar to what they believe to be their capabilities. Indeed the notion of student selection of majors demanding scholarly work commensurate with their abilities not only has intuitive appeal but also seems to be supported by empirical findings. Goldman and Hewitt (1975) presented "adaptationlevel" as an explanation for the positive relationship between differential grading practices and major field selection. In reference to college grading, adaptation-level refers to the judgment of an individual student's performance against the background of all other students in the class. The instructor adapts the grading standard to the performance of the students. Additionally, Hewitt and Goldman (1975) have offered major field selection as an explanation of the often reported sex differences in college achievement. Rather than positing different grading standards or different levels of achievement to explain higher GPAs for women, these authors argued that grad-