Search News


Browse Archives

News

Red Grader, Blue Grader

May 20, 2011

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Republican professors and Democratic professors presumably produce different outcomes when they enter the ballot box, but what about when they record grades?

A forthcoming study finds that there may be notable differences. Democratic professors appear to be "more egalitarian" than their Republican counterparts when it comes to grading, meaning that more of the Democratic grades are in the middle. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to award very high grades and very low grades.

Another key difference is that black students tend to fare better with Democrats than with Republicans.

While the study documents those differences, the work will not satisfy political partisans hoping to demonstrate that Republicans are trying to encourage Darwinian competition with grading or that Democrats are Lake Wobegon graders afraid to suggest anyone did poorly. That's because the study makes clear that the researchers lacked the information to determine whether the Democratic or Republican grades were better reflections of student performance. The only thing the researchers could vouch for was the politically linked pattern in grading.

The study -- forthcoming in Applied Economics -- is by Talia Bar, an assistant professor at Cornell University, and Asaf Zussman, assistant professor of economics at Hebrew University of Jerusalem. They examined thousands of grades in a dataset covering the grades awarded at an unnamed elite American university between 2000 and 2004. Party registrations were used to identify professors' political inclinations, and the faculty at this university leaned Democratic, especially among humanities professors. Using SAT scores as a proxy for the preparedness of students, the researchers were able to rule out patterns in which Republican or Democratic professors had better students.

On grade distribution, Republicans were more likely to give very high and very low grades. Among grades given by Republicans, 6.2 percent were C- or lower, compared to only 4.0 percent of the Democratic grades. But Republicans were also more likely to give out A+ grades (8 percent of their grades, compared to only 3.5 percent from Democrats).

With regard to race of students, the study found that black students received lower grades, on average, than did white students whether classes were taught by Democrats or Republicans. In courses with Democratic professors, the gap was 0.27 on a grade point average. In Republican-led classrooms, the gap was 0.42.

While the authors don't endorse the grading style of either Democrats or Republicans, they conclude their paper by arguing that people (such as those concerned about grade distribution) seeking to influence grading policies should pay more attention to the political factor. "Our results suggest that the allocation of grades is associated with the world view or ideology of professors," the authors write.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Red Grader, Blue Grader

  • Posted by David M. Horton, Ph.D. , Chair, Forensic Science at St. Edward's University, Austin, Texas 78704 on May 20, 2011 at 7:15am EDT
  • Professors do not "give" grades, they report what the student has "earned."
  • What about department differences?
  • Posted by Psychology Prof on May 20, 2011 at 7:45am EDT
  • The article doesn't say whether or not the researchers controlled for differences across departments. I'm sure there are some departments with greater percentages of Republican-leaning professors than others, and perhaps classes in those departments tend to yield a broader grading distribution. So, for instance, I could envision a narrower grade distribution in English and History classes (which seem to be taught mostly by Democrat faculty)as opposed to a course in the STEM areas (which have somewhat greater Republican representation).

    Also, I would love to teach a class, any class, that resulted in such high grades. An average of about 5% of grades C- or lower? That's not what my grade distribution looks like. And that is not because of my political affiliation--that is because of how many students I have who can't (or more typically, won't) do the work.
  • professors don't "give" grades
  • Posted by R. Audibert on May 20, 2011 at 8:00am EDT
  • Oh sure! Grading is a perfectly objective and precise process . . . Trust me.
  • Posted by Russell Pfau on May 20, 2011 at 8:00am EDT
  • If professors report what the student has earned, then why do different professors report different grades when asked to grade the same piece of student work? Try it, next time you're grading a student's written work, give it to you colleague and ask them to grade it. See if you both give the same grade. Unless you're grading a multiple choice test, there are many things that can potentially influence grading! This is not restricted to professors, out in the 'real world' employers evaluation of employees are biased by the same things. That's because each person's brain is different!
  • Posted by trellis on May 20, 2011 at 8:45am EDT
  • A great percentage of professors do in fact "give" grades, not report them. This is why we so often have discussions regarding grade inflation.

    Regardless, as Russell pointed out, grading in higher education is often subjective. Different professors assign different grades to the same work. And anyone who has studied basic psychology or even read a couple articles on bias, knows that conscious or unconscious opinions will affect grading if students' grades are not solely limited to scores on scantron graded exams. (This however is not the best way to teach/test students.) Point being, if you can't even acknowledge that this happens, you are likely one of the biggest violators.
  • 8% or 3.5% A+?
  • Posted by English Prof. , associate prof. / English at Wittenberg U on May 20, 2011 at 9:00am EDT
  • I rarely give A+s. I think I have given out fewer than 20 in my 22 years of teaching.

    But I guess I'm not teaching at an elite institution....

  • Grading by political persuasion
  • Posted by feudi , FAO on May 20, 2011 at 9:15am EDT
  • This article has to be bogus. There is no such thing as a Republican professor...
  • Posted by barbarashell on May 20, 2011 at 9:30am EDT
  • This is really no surprise...Republicans tend to view the world in absolutes, e.g., right/wrong; pass/fail; black/white [no pun intended]. Seriously, when is the last time you talked with a Republican who wasnt adamant about whatever the subject? It doesnt matter - they are right; you are wrong.
  • Agree with Dr. Horton
  • Posted by jdcarmine , Professor Philosophy on May 20, 2011 at 9:30am EDT
  • I agree with Dr. Horton, and will extend his comment to say I also suspect the writer of the article is likely a Democrat, in light of the tone of article. Grades are not an egalitarian entitlement. Students earn them or do not earn them.
  • Grades and Race
  • Posted by mcmurph on May 20, 2011 at 9:45am EDT
  • Just guessing, but I'd say it's likely that Democrat profs grade blacks more leniently as a group. I believe that was once expressed as the "soft bigotry of low expectations."
  • humanities grades
  • Posted by PiledHigher&Deeper , PhD/Humanities at Southeastern Diploma Mill on May 20, 2011 at 10:00am EDT
  • The article also does not account for this fact: in the humanities, students tend to write more than they do in STEM courses. As an English prof, I almost never give students As on essays; likewise, I almost never give students Fs. It is very hard to fail an essay; it is also very hard to write a perfect one. So the nature of the assignments tends to "pool" grades in the middle. And, as another comment does point out, the disciplines seem to be somewhat divided along party lines--more Republicans in STEM, more Democrats in humanities. I consider myself a Malcontent, unwilling to choose a lesser evil (I an holding out for a greater good!), so partisanship, in my experience, has less to do with it than does the nature of assignments.
  • Posted by John Nugent on May 20, 2011 at 10:00am EDT
  • The notion that a professor is somehow just a neutral, objective reporter of student performance just can't be taken seriously. In a workshop on grading philosophy and practices, our faculty members articulated at least three broad approaches to grading: a metric of the degree to which the student had learned the material, a carrot to hold in front of students to get them to do their best work, and a way to reward individual effort and improvement without reference to other students' performance. Each of these has widely varying implications. It strikes me as reasonable that an instructor's party identification or ideology could correlate with one of these three approaches (or some other approach), but I suspect there are a number of other variables in the mix as well (course level, discipline, kinds of assignments, etc.).
  • Grades and Race
  • Posted by dave on May 20, 2011 at 10:00am EDT
  • Or...just guessing, but I'd say it's likely that Republican profs grade blacks more harshly as a group. I believe that was once expressed as "bigotry."
  • Posted by Millie Fink on May 20, 2011 at 10:00am EDT
  • Wow, how could someone read this article and then claim that instructors don't give grades, students earn them? Quite obviously, what happens is a combination of the two, and most instructors are less objective than they think they are.

    Also wanted to second what babarashell wrote--my experience too.
  • Posted by Millie Fink on May 20, 2011 at 10:00am EDT
  • @mcmurph--And Republicans are NOT more likely to grade lower because the hard bigotry of low expectations, and of blindness to actual non-white talent, ability, and performance? Give me a break!
  • Posted by From MN , Natural Sciences on May 20, 2011 at 10:15am EDT
  • Okay, let's assume professors "report" grades, not "give them." Even then, why are Republican professors more likely than democrats to "report" lower grade for blacks than others? Unless you are arguing that the report is fundamentally wrong, whether you believe professors "report" or "give" grades does not explain the disparaty gap mentioned here between republican and democrats professors when it comes to grading blacks!
  • Fatal flaw
  • Posted by Meta-Dog Diogenes on May 20, 2011 at 10:15am EDT
  • Sigh. After the $ucce$$ of "Freakonomics," every PhD-Econ candidate has to come up with a 'cute' idea. Which, of course, has nothing to do with reality -- like inside the D.C. beltway. But don't let that get in the way of 'hot' topic.

    Yo, Cornell peoples! Big difference between 600-student Econ 101 classes and 25-student victim-studies classes.

    What does the former require? As opposed the latter?

    Math skills, perhaps?

    OK. Apply for another grant. Read another book. Repeat.
  • What Blather!
  • Posted by MajorWebUser , Consultant on May 20, 2011 at 10:15am EDT
  • The 'grades game' has been going on since the first classroom of students was gathered.

    Drawing any "solid" conclusions from this study is a fool errand — or one driven by politically charged motivations. How about conducting some serious research?
  • Biases within Biases
  • Posted by Murphy Bowen , Another Planet at Another Galaxy on May 20, 2011 at 10:30am EDT
  • All this begs the question why the universe has only two political parties, or two world views.

    In ancient Athenian democracy and Roman republicanism the ruling classes (patricians) tended to divide into more or less "liberal" and "conservative" factions while the commoners and plebeians were expected somehow (erroneously) to identify their interests with one or the other as their only two choices, revolution being utterly out of the question.

    Never mind the women.

    Never mind the slaves.

    Never mind the imperialist protection rackets.

    Never mind the colonialism and sacking of other lands.

    Never mind the economic domination and coercion.

    The progress we've made since then is that today the global economy no longer makes significant use of slave labor.

    A freshman student once argued that--including the profound irony of that last point--in a research paper within the topic "Is America Over?" The paper was brilliantly written, even if at a still somewhat naive, vulgar Marxist upper division level. I thought she earned an "A." It might have been an "A+" but for one slightly ambiguous citation and a couple minor glitches on her Works Cited page.


  • ...a more interesting study
  • Posted by DocV on May 20, 2011 at 10:45am EDT
  • I think a more interesting study would be to look at grades based on teacher-to-student party affiliation and include race.

    on the race issue (looking through rose-colored glasses)....I would like to think that the study appears to indicate that because the majority of Black students are probably Democrat or come from a democratic household/way of thinking, then they would tend to have different points of view from their Republican professors thus accounting for the lower grades.

    I wonder if the study would hold with Black Republican students as compared to grades earned from Republican professors.
  • JIJO
  • Posted by mb on May 20, 2011 at 11:00am EDT
  • I suppose I'm not really surprised that the authors are quite sparse with their info - that seems par for the course for these sorts of Republican vs. Democrat "studies." For example, we read that there are differences between Republicans and Democrats, however, the differences are relatively small and we don't know if they are even statistically significant. As others have noted, we know nothing about the breakdown of department and courses between the two groups, the sample size and distribution, (I assume that the sample is highly imbalanced and that the Republican group is quite small), statistical methodology (if there really was any beyond descriptive stats), etc. Thus, I consider this to be another sound bite/talking point bit from academia designed to make Republicans looks like bad guys. Yawn.

    However, I did find this comment amusing: "Seriously, when is the last time you talked with a Republican who wasnt adamant about whatever the subject? It doesnt matter - they are right; you are wrong." I had to laugh out loud at that one. My experience is exactly the opposite - of all the most arrogant, intransigent ideologues, every single one of them is a leftist, probably Democrat but also I'm sure there are Communists and Socialists among them as well.
  • @barbarashell and Millie
  • Posted by Dr J on May 20, 2011 at 11:00am EDT
  • So, we generalize that all Republicans tend to hold to a set of standards and values that not all behavior is okay (child rape in the case of Polanski; sexual harassment in the case of a certain President; child torture and enslavement in the case of Karl Marx) and inherently view the world through a dichotomous lens and transfer that perspective to grading with a perspective that sometimes there are wrong answers. And this is bad because…? Perhaps the problem is not that conservative thinkers tend to believe that some things are wrong but rather that liberal thinkers believe too strongly in the perspective that ‘if it feels good, do it, and don’t worry about the consequences.’

    Maybe the problem is that liberal professors extend their perspective that everything is okay to grading thus making nearly every answer right. Reality check, regardless of absolutes, not every answer is right.

    A failure of the study; what about conservative professors who register as a democrat in those states that track in order to have a better chance at promotion and tenure in a decidedly liberal profession that has been known to run off those of a conservative persuasion.
  • Posted by Jonathan Dresner on May 20, 2011 at 11:00am EDT
  • I want to wait until I've read more details about this study. The differences described may be statistically significant, but they're so small that it would be impossible to be sure that any specific grade was being affected by the political/ethical mindset of the instructor. That won't affect the badly written editorializing we're in for, or the grade-grubbing.
  • How about a little consitency?
  • Posted by zachgarber on May 20, 2011 at 11:15am EDT
  • Hey commenters: How about a little consistency?

    Every so often, a study is done showing many more Democrats teaching in higher-ed than Republicans. Some Republicans argue that this is the result of Democrat administrators and faculty wanting to hire only those who toe-the-line of the Democrats’ world-view. Some Democrats argue that there are fewer Republicans in higher-ed because they are just not as bright as Democrats. Some on both sides of the political spectrum argue that the worldview of Democrats and Republicans push them toward different career paths.

    The comments posted here are interesting because many have said that the lower grades black students receive from Republican professors are the result of bigotry. I would guess some of those same people assume Republicans don’t get higher-ed jobs because they are not as bright as Democrats. Not one post has suggested that the world-view of Democrats and Republicans affects grading in the following way: Democrats are less likely to give someone in a protected class the lower grade that that individual deserves than are Republicans, which would mean that Republican profs are giving students in protected classes the grades that they actually deserve while Democrat profs are giving the students a break. Because Democrat profs are much more likely than Republican profs to favor affirmative action, why would that tendency not also be played-out in assigning grades?

    I am not saying that this IS what happens, but I am saying that it is telling that the commenters here have seized upon this “study” to reinforce their own bigoted views of Republican profs with a sense of righteousness, while not considering that the disparity might be the result of Republican profs playing it straight and Democrat profs being too nice. That scenario is completely consistent with how many commenters here stereotype both Republicans and Democrats –Democrats are fair-minded, Republicans are uncompromising—yet, to reiterate, the possibility that Republican profs play it straight while Democrat profs let some individuals slide is not considered at all as a possible outcome by a commenter here. It boggles the mind but is not unexpected.
  • Not so fast
  • Posted by Mark D on May 20, 2011 at 11:15am EDT
  • Two of the commenters have stated that there are more Republicans in STEM fields. I'm not sure about Technology and Engineering, but the surveys with which I'm familiar indicate that Democrats outnumber Republicans even more in Science and Math than they do in the humanities. I'm wondering where the commenters have seen surveys with different results.
  • Smug
  • Posted by imcmullin , adjunct at Art Institute of Austin on May 20, 2011 at 11:30am EDT
  • A study designed to generate maximum PR by flirting with stereotypes, but too many unknowns to be useful. Too many stereotypes in the responses, as well. Anyone who thinks their own political party is more open to reasoned discourse is too comfortable with the biases of their own kind. Next time the faculty conversation turns political and everyone's in accord, listen for the smug.
  • PHD - An A = perfect?
  • Posted by MelBel on May 20, 2011 at 11:45am EDT
  • This is in response to PiledHigher&Deeper's claim that he/she never gives As on essays because he/she has never seen a perfect one. Does your grading rubric define "A" as "perfect"? Is that clear to students in your syllabus? If so, I'm surprised you can get any students with ambitions to grad school to ever enroll in your classes.
  • more questions than answers
  • Posted by bradley bleck , english instructor at Spokane Falls CC on May 20, 2011 at 12:00pm EDT
  • There isn't enough in this article to really make much sense of things. One of the questions I have is about statistical validity. Are the variations enough that they matter?

    There are of course the sweeping generalizations in some of the comments that are more heat than light. I'm a liberal. My students can tell, but I'm not an "anything goes" person, at all. Students often want this to be the case, that a story or poem (since I'm an English teacher) means what they think it means. I do all I can to disabuse them of that notion, that they have to base what they come up with on the text and argue from it. After that, they have lots of options, and I suspect I'm not alone in this. If I were to be "anything goes," I'd be in a lot smaller group.

    Same concerns with the grading of writing. Yes, there is no absolutely objective measure of quality student writing. However, we can, and do, a good bit of norming, particularly in our first year comp portfolio process, so we can say my 'C' is roughly analogous to any other 'C' in the department. Now, the 'C' in our department might elicit a 'D' from school 'X' or a 'B' from school 'Y,' but we do have a way to treat students similarly.

    Besides, maybe the score of a multiple choice test seems objective, but the construction of that text is as subjective as anything anyone can do. But I'm not arguing subjective is bad in and of itself.
  • Cynical... maybe
  • Posted by Idealist on May 20, 2011 at 2:15pm EDT
  • Political persuasion affects the grader! Really, that’s the message? This article seems to indicate something else… grading is a poor indicator of anything. There are no real standardizations, some are arbitrary, heavily based on judgment and no two graders will issue like grades for like work. Grading has been and probably always be nothing more than a motivational tool for the motivated students and a rubber stamp for the rest. Yet we all use grading as universal evaluation tool and it seems to work.

    Once one moves beyond academia, grades are all but meaningless, after all a doctor, engineer, or a social worker are still doctors, engineers, or social workers as long as they achieved a 2.0 average or better and are reasonably competent.
  • Adamant!
  • Posted by William Briggs on May 20, 2011 at 2:15pm EDT
  • Are you sure of your opinion, barbarashell? Do you adamantly assert it?

    Paper is statistically suspect. Grade it "BS." In math/physics, where there are more Rs than Ds, more students are As and Fs than in subjects where Ds outnumber Rs.
  • two can play at that game
  • Posted by jack on May 20, 2011 at 2:15pm EDT
  • Barbarashell said: "This is really no surprise...Republicans tend to view the world in absolutes, e.g., right/wrong; pass/fail; black/white [no pun intended]. Seriously, when is the last time you talked with a Republican who wasnt adamant about whatever the subject? It doesnt matter - they are right; you are wrong".

    You seem to be pretty adamant about your point of view Barbara.
  • Posted by Patrick on May 20, 2011 at 2:15pm EDT
  • I think the relationship more has to do with what types of classes GOP or Dem professors are more likely to teach. Humanities and Social Sciences, (term paper writing classes) I would think see a wider veriaty of grades, and grasps of the subject matter. Dems are more likely to teach these subjects. Math and Science have more republicans teaching them, but it's also more likely for students to know all the material (or none of it) in these subjests.
  • Posted by Assistant Professor on May 20, 2011 at 2:30pm EDT
  • Partisans will flog this to no end 'showing' that Republicans are bigoted against blacks because they are bigots, or that Democrats are lenient against blacks because they are bigots.

    The question I have is this: What are the sample sizes? What are the classes? It's well-established that there are fewer 'Republican' professors than 'Democrat' professors; did they correct for that? Did they choose one discipline or across a college?

    Without knowing any of these things, the research may as well have been a partisan hit job - as if we need more of those.
  • Good grief!
  • Posted by Pleb Underfoot on May 20, 2011 at 3:00pm EDT
  • Politics is bane of our lives, isn't it?

    You know, I had professors of all stripes when I was in UG/Grad school: Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, Randian acolytes,...and avowed Marxists! You know what I came to think after exposure to them all? That none of them was entirely right, nor entirely wrong.

    No religiously-held political belief is infalible, in my humble estimation. But understanding that another's worldview might color their judgement in "objectively" weighing the quality of essays seems a pretty basic, and realistic, thing to expect.

    I always assumed bias, knowing how irrational even the "educated" are, and tailored my work accordingly. I didn't have to agree or disagree with them. I just had to write in a way wasn't obviously a logically fallacious attack on their irrational political stances.

  • Adjectives, Nouns, and Marx
  • Posted by cts on May 20, 2011 at 2:30pm EDT
  • I suppose an inflammatory – and silly – study would have to produce inflamed comments. But, could we academics, at least, keep in mind that ‘Democrat’ is a noun and ‘Democratic’ is the related adjective?

    As an aside: Karl Marx tortured and enslaved children?? Cite, please.
  • Posted by Pat Dolan on May 20, 2011 at 2:30pm EDT
  • If anyone here really cares what the study suggests or doesn't suggest, they can go read it (including the methods and stats sections) in Applied Economics when it comes out.

    This is a news story. It puts the stereotypes in play, so that we'll read it, and maybe think about what's said. But if we're genuinely interested in the issue (i.e., how to make grading fair), we'll look at the scholarship and assess it.

    Maybe Republicans will give the study an A+ and Dems a B+. Maybe the two grades will be D+ and B- respectively. You can tell I'm a leftist: I freely admit, I don't know.
  • Mark D - The Study Indicated More Dem in Humanities
  • Posted by C. S. Wyatt , Ph.D. on May 20, 2011 at 3:00pm EDT
  • "Party registrations were used to identify professors' political inclinations, and the faculty at this university leaned Democratic, especially among humanities professors."

    I have a report from the Kennedy School of Government that found the same held true nationally. See: "The Social and Political Views of American Professors," a draft paper by Neil Gross (Harvard) and Solon Simmons (George Mason). Conservatives at "Elite, PhD Granting" universities (9.8 percent of faculty) were concentrated in business, medicine, and engineering.

    I assume the exams in these fields are not along the lines of, "Write an essay explaining how Hauser's Law makes you feel."

    You don't find many "Marxists" in business schools, but a great many were found by Gross and Simmons within social studies departments. Yes, they really did self-identify as Marxists in the Harvard survey. I'm sure they graded in a unique manner.
  • we work in a political context after all
  • Posted by Gary Davis on May 20, 2011 at 3:15pm EDT
  • The outpouring of comments on this article proves that Dean Dad was on the right path when he declared himself a Republican candidate for president a couple of days ago.

    We do labor in a political context. There's no getting around that fact. Political discussion is relevant to the things we do.
  • Answer
  • Posted by Meta-Dog Diogenes on May 20, 2011 at 3:15pm EDT
  • " .. Karl Marx tortured and enslaved children?? Cite, please."

    Here's a start --

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Killing_Fields
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_leap_forward
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_II_of_Russia
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Il-sung

    Blame it on the Rapture, Scott .. if we're here on Monday.
  • Comrade Meta-Dog
  • Posted by Malvern Hill on May 20, 2011 at 3:45pm EDT
  • Way to go.

    And Friedrich Nietzsche also, just like Karl Marx, tortured and enslaved children.
  • Citation
  • Posted by Dr. J on May 20, 2011 at 3:45pm EDT
  • Schlafly, P. (2003). Feminist Fantasies. Spence Publishing.

    As for the reference that fewer Rs pursue faculty positions. Reminds me of the old adage that those who can, do while those who can’t, teach...

    A good weekend to all.
  • Posted by JD on May 20, 2011 at 4:30pm EDT
  • So if R's grade more bimodally, and black students tend to do worse than whites no matter who grades, wouldn't we automatically expect black students graded by R's to do worse than black students graded by whites?

    I doubt the article can have overlooked this, but the writeup here should mention it. As it is, it implies racism where it may just be the mathematical result of the R's bimodal grading style.

    (I'm a D, btw, for those thinking I might be a republican apologist.)
  • Read the article
  • Posted by Paul , Student at UW on May 20, 2011 at 4:30pm EDT
  • For all of the angst in the comments regarding the differences between professors there has been little attention paid to the actual results. If you look at the numbers you see the R profs are marginally more likely to give low grades defined as all grades C- and below (ie inluding D & F), and twice as likely to give the top A+. Of course we don'T know how the study dealt with schools that don't have an A+ grade. We also don't know the R prof sample size or distribution by subject taught. We also know that R profs are marginally more likely to grade "black" students more harshly but we are not told how the race of students was identified of how grading broke down on other race and ethnicity metrics ( it is possible that in fact white students also got graded lower by Rs since Asian students, a substantial catagory in some fields are not accounted for).
  • Garbage In; Garbage Out
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on May 20, 2011 at 5:00pm EDT
  • Three things ...

    First, I suggest, Scott, that IHE cease publishing reports of so-called research studies to which its readers do not have easy access. The results reported here are almost certainly based upon research activities and procedures that are sophomoric, at best ... and with no insult intended to all of you sophomores out there. Since we cannot evaluate the intellectual foundation of Bar and Zussman’s research, we are stuck with responding to results that are (1) probably not meaningful and (2) almost certainly not the result of careful analysis. And the fact that the paper was peer reviewed and will appear in “Applied Economics” means virtually nothing.

    Second, in a recent response to another ISE report of an intellectually indefensible “research” endeavor, I wrote ...

    “Consider the matter of a ... decision that must be made. The analyst starts the process by ascertaining what important constructs might have an impact on the decision and what constructs will be affected by acting on that decision. Since these choices are invariably incomplete, this part of the process is subjective ... so we are already once removed from reality. Then we must operationalize the constructs and measure the variables ... so now we’re thrice removed from reality. Next, we collect data (with the myriad difficulties of doing that both correctly and well), choose our analytical tools, and then, up to some degree of probabilistic ‘certainty’ and making seat-of-the-pants adjustments for all of the analytical assumptions which must be met (but never are), we draw conclusions about the analytic results.

    So now we have a statistical decision that is at least six times removed from reality. If we think all of that makes sense, we should then be prepared to make the gigantic leap from our model’s conclusions back into a real world in which the consequences of the decision will affect jobs, incomes, families, communities ... even lives. I encourage you to ask Robert McNamara how that works ... for a CEO of Ford Motor Company ... or for the President of the World Bank ... or for a Secretary of Defense managing a war, say, in Viet Nam.”

    See http://www.insidehighered.com/views/mclemee/mclemee_antiwar_no_more

    If the Research by Bar and Zussman is about Democrats and Republicans, then it is so trite it does not deserve our attention. If “Democrat” and “Republican” are their measurable variables representing meaningful constructs, then you know their “research” is simply absurd. In any event, we haven’t seen their research strategy, so it’s difficult to decide whether their “theory” is trite or absurd.

    Third, I really have no intention of criticizing all of the commenters who have made rather definitive statements about grades and grading, but once one attempts to rationalize grading in a contest that is broader than the response to one’s students in a particular class, one discovers that grading is a very complex process that is dependent upon more than a few factors. Here is an excerpt of something I wrote in response to an IHE article of several years ago ...

    “Early in my professional career, while teaching mathematics at Virginia Tech, I graded students on a curve ... although the curve was definitely skewed to the left (who says ‘the curve’ must be normally distributed?). Later I found myself teaching statistics at Princeton and then political methodology at Yale, and in those august environments most of the students were smarter than I am anyway. About then it occurred to me that I should set standards for each class and grade students according to how well they met the standards. My students were highly motivated – by me and by themselves – and low grades based on an arbitrarily chosen probability distribution – least of all a normal distribution – seemed absurd to me. You may call that grade inflation if you like, but given the levels of student achievement I was witnessing, ‘giving’ those students low grades seemed pretty bizarre to me.

    Later, however, I had positions at respectable universities (take my word for the fact that, despite their above average USN&WR ratings, they were really quite mediocre) that had high percentages of under-prepared and poorly-motivated students ... and with learning cultures in which students were not required to work very hard to get good grades. Early on my D and F rates were in the neighborhood of 70%. Obviously that wouldn’t work ... for my students ... for the universities ... or for me ... so I dumbed down my courses. I didn’t do that by giving grades away (per se) or by making tests easier ... I simply decided to do more than a little remediation myself and cover, on average, about 60% of what one would normally cover in the courses I was teaching. And take my word for it, many creative strategies for 'dumbing down' are the modus operandi of college and university professors in classrooms all over our beloved land.

    Now, for the tragedy of the situation ... and I will admit to not caring very much about the difference between a B in a first course in regression analysis at the university of Michigan and a B in my course in regression analysis at Bonehead U. What really killed me was that not all of the students at Bonehead U. were actually boneheads. So in each of my classes I encountered a very large number of boneheads who really did not care very much at all about getting an education and a much smaller number of really top-notch young people who deserved much more than they were getting from the university ... and from me.

    No criticism please ... I really did do special things for the ‘special’ students (although, truth be known, they were not that special at all ... they were merely doing what one would expect any serious student to do). In any event, it was too much for me ... so I walked away from that and am ‘back on the market.’. It would kill me to retire, but I will never, never, ever accept a position at a college or university that fits the model of ‘tuition-driven.’”

    See http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/03/15/ncat

    I conclude ... Democrats' grades and Republicans' grades? Let's all chip in and get these "research scholars" enough funding to take a few statistics and research methodology courses.
  • Higher ED reflects Lower ED
  • Posted by Ivy Grad , Professor/Medicine at USC on May 20, 2011 at 5:45pm EDT
  • How can one deduce that Rep. profs produce different outcomes that Dem. counterparts, when no actual outcomes, nor an agreed upon standard outcome were compared? As a grad of a presumably elite American univ, Rep. students themselves were a destinct minority-as were Rep. Profs (therby skewing the numerator AND denominator), another acceptable conclusion would be that Rep. Profs recognized all their students had already been pre-selected as "elite" and recognized the amazing individual variation among students, and rewarded excellent performance at only a slightly higher 8% rate since they were already at a higher level elite university, and felt that poorer performance should be acknowledged as such. While the Dem. professors were ideologically bound to see all students as representing members of the same "student class", but felt that a certain minority was deserving of a little "AFFIRMATIVE ACTION", or perhaps, it was just a case of the far fewer Rep. Profs taking more time and exercising more rigor in separating the wheat from the chaff!
  • Posted by Matt on May 20, 2011 at 5:45pm EDT
  • This article and the responses have left me...exhausted. Is anyone else tired of politics? Is anyone else tired of people assuming they're stupid for not sharing someone's polical stance? Is anyone else tired of assuming others are stupid for not sharing your own political stance? I did well in college and graduate school and only learned the political leanings of one professor the whole time. I thought her discussions of her political leanings were rather unprofessional, and totally irrelevant to the class, but not a big deal. Also, she was a very easy grader and a republican. I'm not saying it's impossible that one's prejudices could alter how one grades students, but I just really doubt that it's a common occurrence. Unless you're a politician, your personal politics just really shouldn't even play into your work life, and it's been my experience that it usually doesn't anyway.
  • waste
  • Posted by Having A Laugh on May 20, 2011 at 5:45pm EDT
  • "That's because the study makes clear that the researchers lacked the information to determine whether the Democratic or Republican grades were better reflections of student performance. The only thing the researchers could vouch for was the politically linked pattern in grading."


    So this was essentially a waste of time and money.
  • Republican Professors?
  • Posted by Alan Davidson on May 20, 2011 at 5:45pm EDT
  • This whole "study" is moot. Why?

    Because there are so few Republican Professors that the ratio skews the outcome of the posit anyway.

    Republican Professors?

    You mean the five of them?

  • Posted by motionview on May 20, 2011 at 6:30pm EDT
  • <i>and the faculty at this university leaned Democratic, especially among humanities professors</i>

    The percentages wouldn't have been relevant here?
  • Response: "Republican Professors?"
  • Posted by Reg. Independent since 1973 on May 20, 2011 at 7:30pm EDT
  • I don't know where you teach, but GOPers rule my English department and must other departments at my 4-year college with a firm fist! (Yes, the English department!) One English faculty member has a blog where she makes fun of non-GOPers. Go figure.
  • Wow
  • Posted by Independent on May 21, 2011 at 10:15am EDT
  • Amazing how much defensive noise and stereotyping of the other this post has generated!

    The crucial matter does appear to be the failure of the study to control for material variables. Subjects like intro calculus or Latin will tend to produce a much greater natural disparity than a general survey course. It is also true that different disciplines have differing ideas about the correct distribution for upper level work.
  • Posted by melkman on May 21, 2011 at 6:00pm EDT
  • What I found amusing about Barbarashell's comment was that it is itself was rather absolutist and black/white, regarding her take on Republican professors.
  • Too many variables
  • Posted by Kathleen High , Student Success at Dreams & Goals on May 22, 2011 at 5:15am EDT
  • I teach in Counseling and Student Learning departments.

    Understanding what affects students success is my specialty. While this article is interesting and offers some potentially relevant information, student success can't be determined by professor's attitude alone. I do agree that this report could give professors information to ponder, but that i as far as this report should go.

    Yes a professor's attitude can impact grades, but internal motivation is the most important factor indetermining succcess.

    This report does not account for too many things. For examples, such as why student takes a particular class. Typically apathy will be greater in G.E. than in major classes.

    Another variable that affects success is whether or not the student likes or agrees with the teacher's philosophy. If for whatever reason a student doesn't like the professor, the student is much more likely to disengage and not put out as much effort -- and then blame the teacher.



  • Grading
  • Posted by Cheap Seats on May 22, 2011 at 2:30pm EDT
  • Thank you Matt for your question whether anyone else was tired of the endless reduction of complex issues and fields of study to a simplistic politicized grid. It exhausts me.
    I was one of those "left wing" professors, that is, if you were to have a political discussion with me at a party or some suchlike event. Worse, I taught the dreaded English, home apparently, according to some, of ideologically-driven conformity. I may have even occasionally commented in class on some aspect of politics (e.g., civil rights, war, what have you). BUT I would defy anyone to show that my classes, assignments, reading lists, grading, etc. were in any meaningful and significant (statistically and otherwise) manner structured by my alleged politics. Insofar as the texts we studied had ideological positions (and of course they did, often multiple and contradictory ones), the points was to understand those ways of thinking and how they functioned in the text, maybe even to think about how text and genre enabled certain modes of thinking and being.
    Moreover, I'd say what was true for me was true for almost everyone I've known. If you're teaching Milton, you have a lot to concern yourself with and probably never get to what he might have thought of troops in Afganistan or disability access.
    The desire to politicize and reduce reeks of resentment, a hostility toward the complexity and difficulty of the fields we study and teach.
    People are angry, that's for sure.
  • This is the craziest thing I have ever heard
  • Posted by Patricia Spurr on May 23, 2011 at 7:00am EDT
  • I believe the people who conducted this study should certainly find more important things to study-- there is no much wrong with this it is hard to know where to start. Give me a break! I just hope they were not funded by a US grant money.
  • Grading Should Be Neutral
  • Posted by Franklin Stovall on May 23, 2011 at 12:00pm EDT
  • I am a centrist in that I believe the best answer to all our civil problems lies somewhere in the middle of the far Left.

    Consequently, I am very proud that upon leaving my courses my students cannot tell whether I'm a Trotskyist or an anarcho-sydicalist.
  • @Metadog
  • Posted by Fluffy at University of Minnesota on May 26, 2011 at 1:15pm EDT
  • First of all, none of those articles cite were actually of Karl Marx, but rather people who claimed to be Marxists. A lot of heinous crimes have been committed by people who claim to follow Jesus, so it's like saying that Jesus molests children because priests, who are Christians, molest children.

    Second, every single article you cited was from Wikipedia. I don't know about others, but I only allow my students to list Wikipedia as one source among many when they turn in research papers. Citing all Wikipedia articles is just bad scholarship.

    I find this whole discussion both very interesting and very frustrating on both sides. The whole discussion is an example of how polarized are country is as well as poorly some people (again, on both sides) read even a simple article and pull out whatever they want to, not what the articles actually says.
  • Non Bias Grading
  • Posted by Nicole at FGCU on May 27, 2011 at 5:30am EDT
  • The study states that blacks scored lower on average. Since republican professors have lower grades reported it would explain why the average lowest scoring group of students would be lower in republican graded classes than democratic graded classes. It's not because the professors discriminated them during the grading process but if it is easier to obtain an average grade in a democratic lead class their chances of passing is higher. In fact all of my professors in my STEM courses required us to enter our work and tests with our student number to prevent bias during grading. I don't think racial discrimination is a factor in this study but merely an outcome that happened because republicans may give lower grades, of which the lower scorers on average for the university would obviously score lower in this situation.
  • I am content to wait...
  • Posted by Jeff K. on May 27, 2011 at 12:45pm EDT
  • All of the partisan bickering aside, I really do not know what to make of this study until I actually see it. I have followed up on too many studies touted in news reports to find they a)actually reported something different or b) were methodologically flawed. On the latter, it reminds me of something a professor of mine once said - doing solid work rarely gains notice, but something that is outrageous, no matter how flawed, will make headlines.
  • Numbers
  • Posted by McCowan , teacher at YDBE on June 4, 2011 at 11:30am EDT
  • I wonder how they corrected for the fact that 95% of college professors are independent or Democrat.
  • Gawker had their take on this as well...
  • Posted by J. King , NA at Not Applicable on June 7, 2011 at 8:45am EDT
  • Gawker took this article and butchered it even more.

    http://gawker.com/5803966/republican-professors-are-racist-study-more-or-less-says

    The NKYvoice found a copy of the actual paper and debunked some of the accusations of what was being said about the research. Links to the paper are provided as well.

    http://www.nkyvoice.com/2011/06/gawker-turns-to-race-baiting-for-ad.html