By Musa Al-Gharbi
Monday, September 9, 2019
Many right-of-center students (especially those who are
grade-obsessed) self-censor,
fearing that their professors will punish them for their political and cultural
views if they were to express them in class discussions or assignments.
It’s easy to understand why they are concerned. The
dearth of ideological diversity in the professoriate is significant; in
social-research fields, the left-to-right ratio is roughly 10:1. Professors
rarely assign readings by conservative or libertarian intellectuals, let alone
engage with such thinkers in a charitable way. Faculty regularly make off-topic
jabs at Trump or the Republicans, or even end up digressing into full-on rants.
Professors who are moderate and charitable in the classroom may post highly
political content on social media (or occasionally write highly political
opinion pieces or blog posts) expressing antipathy toward Republicans and
conservatives. And all of this is amplified, and often distorted, by an
outrage-driven media industry.
But do liberal faculty actually demonstrate bias in
grading?
In a new study, three scholars examined the backgrounds,
affiliations, and institutional perceptions of more than 7,200 undergraduate
students at colleges nationwide and found that
liberal students do tend to have closer relationships with faculty
than do conservative students. Moreover, there was a gap between the
grades of liberal students and conservative students, and the difference
persisted even after controlling for things such as race, gender, socioeconomic
status, and SAT scores, but the gap was very small: less than one-tenth of a
point on a 4-point scale (e.g., less than the difference between a 3.0 and 3.1
GPA). That is, professors may be slightly biased in grading, but not so much
that it is likely to change someone’s final letter grade for a course.
This finding may surprise some, because there is
compelling evidence that professors and administrators do engage in
ideological discrimination with respect to peer review, institutional review
boards, admissions to Ph.D. programs, and faculty hiring and promotion. So
what’s up with grading? Is the issue that we just haven’t been measuring
grading bias well enough? Perhaps accusations of bias are overblown across the
board? Is there even reason to suspect that faculty are less likely to ideologically
discriminate against undergraduates than against other groups?
It’s likely the latter. Let me explain.
The first thing people should understand is that most
instructors do not enjoy grading — and we really hate haggling with
students about the grades we assign (let alone with the parents or
administrators they often drag into disputes). Nor do we want to get docked on
our teaching evaluations by kids who turned in mediocre work but are mad they
got a C.
Instructors also understand that the vast majority of
students are just passing through higher-ed institutions on their way to
something else. Undergraduates overwhelmingly identify getting a better job and
earning more money as their primary reasons for attending college. Most
students who obtain a bachelor’s degree stop there; just over a third of those
who complete a B.A. go on to get an advanced degree. Even most who complete
graduate or professional degrees (especially M.A.s, J.D.s, and M.D.s) leave the
academy thereafter.
Faculty are not interested in standing in their way.
Quite the opposite: Many inflate grades, bend over backward to provide
accommodations, and lower their workloads and standards to enable such students
to flow through their classes and out into the world with minimal friction. Put
another way: Instructors often avoid giving students the (lower) scores they
deserve, let alone give them grades below what they deserve, simply
because they disagree with them on a political matter.
Also, faculty don’t take disagreements with
undergraduates particularly seriously to begin with. It is easy (perhaps too
easy?) for us to write off differences in perspectives as products of students’
relative youth, inexperience, ignorance, or unexamined beliefs. We often simply
assume that they would no longer hold the views they do — that their positions
would be closer to our own — if they had read all that we’ve read and thought
about issues as long as we have.
The situation is very different with respect to Ph.D.
students and faculty. Their identities and worldviews are much more fully formed
than those of undergrads. They are much more sophisticated in their thinking
and possess a much deeper knowledge base. Consequently, it is much more
difficult to simply dismiss their views. They have read many of the books and
studies one would be inclined to throw at them — they may even be more familiar
with recent work in their field — and can often point out errors, limitations,
and counterevidence (perhaps even with respect to one’s own work).
Ph.D. students are not nearly as transient as undergrads.
Once admitted, doctoral candidates will be around the department for at least
five years. They work much more closely with faculty than an undergrad
typically does. Many will become colleagues in the discipline. Similarly, if a
candidate is hired as an assistant professor, he or she will be around at least
six to seven years as they work through the tenure track. Once they obtain
tenure, they can stick around indefinitely. In short, disputes with Ph.D.
students and faculty tend to be much more challenging to refute or ignore — and
can be more persistent — than disagreements with undergraduates.
They can also be far more consequential.
Ph.D. students and (especially) faculty can affect the
trajectory of the field through their research. They can change how others’
work is perceived by either challenging or reinforcing published findings. A
professor can attract, cultivate, and mentor students to move the department —
and the field — even further in his or her preferred direction. Such efforts
can have important effects, positive or negative, on the credibility and impact
of one’s own research. That, in turn, can affect one’s ability to recruit
students, win grants, or publish subsequent research in top journals.
A lot more is at stake in the event of deep disagreements
with Ph.D. students or (especially) peers, and faculty react accordingly. Most
ideological discrimination by professors is against other faculty, in
peer review and institutional review boards as well as in hiring and promotion
decisions. There is some discrimination against Ph.D. students (i.e. future
faculty) through admissions committees. With respect to undergrads, however,
instructors have very little reason to discriminate in grading — and plenty of
incentives not to.
Ideological bias within the academy is a real problem. It
undermines the quality and impact of research and teaching. It needs to be
addressed. However, grading is probably not a major way in which the bias is
expressed. That leaves us with something like a “good-news sandwich” for
students whose backgrounds and ideologies diverge from those of the dominant
group:
The first bit of good news is that undergraduates are
probably not being penalized much (or at all) by their professors for holding
or expressing views that diverge from those of their professors.
The bad news is that if these students did decide to
pursue a degree after their bachelor’s, they likely would face more
discrimination in admissions, on the job market, in tenure committees, and when
submitting research for IRB approval or peer review. The self-censoring may never end: Many
faculty conceal
their conservative or religious leanings — and avoid work on controversial
topics — in order to preserve good relations with their left-leaning
colleagues, avoid being targeted by student activists, and otherwise protect
their professional standing. This is
unfortunate, not least because their students and colleagues could benefit from
exposure to different perspectives and ideas.
However, the final bit of good news is that, despite
challenges, those conservatives who do stick with academia all the way to a
professorship generally feel good about their career decisions and tend to
enjoy their work about as much as their left-leaning peers do. So, rather than
being discouraged and perhaps exiting the academy for think tanks, conservative
and religious scholars should commit themselves to being part of the solution,
to staying in the system, and to playing a constructive role in reforming
institutions of higher learning. We’ll
all be better off for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment