Professors Get an F

A professoriate captured by laziness, self-interest, and left-wing ideology is failing students.

For decades, American higher education sold itself as the gold standard of intellectual rigor and preparation for adult life. Parents mortgaged homes, students took on debt, and taxpayers funded massive subsidies on that promise. Instead, a large segment of the professoriate has betrayed that mission through laziness, self-preservation, and hard-left ideological capture, manifesting in three damning practices: easy As, student self-grading, and the metastasis of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) indoctrination across the curriculum.

Perhaps the most visible symptom of this betrayal is low standards and rampant grade inflation.

Between 1990 and 2020, average GPAs at four-year public and nonprofit universities rose by more than 16 percent—from 2.81 to 3.15. Despite nearing the ceiling, the trend continues. Harvard’s internal data for 2024–25 shows more than 60 percent of undergraduate grades were As, with the median graduating GPA now at 3.83. Yale awarded As or A-minuses for nearly 80 percent of grades in 2022–23.

Today’s students are no smarter or better prepared than those of previous generations, however. At UC San Diego, for instance, large numbers of incoming freshmen test below middle-school math levels despite high school transcripts padded with As. Rigorous grading demands real effort—designing meaningful assessments, providing substantive feedback, defending standards against complaints, and absorbing the hit to student-evaluation scores. But since handing out As is far easier and safer, many professors abandon their educational mission and instead keep the customers—students and their tuition-paying parents—happy.

A companion to this lack of rigor is the ridiculous trend called student self-grading.

Once confined to experimental pedagogy blogs, self-assessment of assignments, participation, or even entire courses is now touted in outlets like Inside Higher Ed as empowering and innovative. Professors who adopt it claim students learn more by reflecting on their own work. In reality, the practice actually outsources the hardest part of the job—objective evaluation—to the least qualified people on campus. And it is self-serving. Why spend hours crafting rubrics, grading papers, or justifying marks when students can simply award themselves points for effort, freeing faculty from the burden entirely?

This abdication is the opposite of education. It erodes any sense of external accountability, rewards self-delusion, and leaves graduates shocked when employers demand real performance. Students do not learn more by grading themselves; they learn that effort and outcomes are whatever they declare them to be.

Perhaps most corrosive of all is the explosion of DEI ideology, which has replaced merit as the organizing principle of university life. Under the DEI regime, faculty are hired on the basis of skin color or gender rather than academic qualifications. Balanced lectures and genuine debate have largely been abandoned as ideologically captured faculty use their posts to preach their own views as fact, assign activist readings, and reward ideological conformity with high grades. Graduates leave not merely unskilled at evidence-based reasoning, but profoundly ignorant of their own country’s history—and in many cases, having spent four years being cultivated toward contempt for America and its Western heritage. (Read Patrick Deneen’s, “How a Generation Lost Its Common Culture.“)

Defenders of the status quo blame consumer demand, administrative pressure, and culture wars—all of which pose real challenges. But faculty control the curriculum, assessments, and classroom climate, and tenured professors enjoy extraordinary job security precisely to resist such pressures. Too many have instead taken the path of least resistance: inflating grades to buy peace, outsourcing evaluation to students to save time, and indulging in political advocacy to signal virtue to like-minded peers. Good teaching is exhausting. It demands rigor over popularity, honesty over comfort, and standards over self-interest. The modern professoriate, by and large, has declined that challenge.

Students deserve better. Employers and society deserve better. Until faculty reclaim their mission to educate rather than coddle or convert, higher education will continue betraying the very people it claims to serve.

Follow Rebekah Wanic on X.

  1. I would suggest going back and look at the expectation of faculty members circa 1950.

    The initial Carnegie unit consisted of a class that met for 50 minutes, once a week, for 17 weeks, exclusive of finals. Now, depending on what day falls, the fall semester can be as short as 12 weeks, almost a third less.

    Back in the 1950s, students went home for Christmas break and then came back in January for their final exams. I argued that such a schedule is more fair to the students and then it gives him a chance to study, should they choose to do so. And the spring semester went into June like the K-12 schedule does, this is how schools in the north were able to have baseball teams.

    Classes were held Monday through Saturday, the 75 minute Tuesday/Thursday classes used to also meet on Saturdays. And as late as the 1980s, classes met on holidays such as Columbus Day and Veterans Day. Canceling class because of snow was unheard of, the faculty all lived close enough to walk to class, and often did.

    And most importantly, professors taught four classes every semester, which is eight classes a year, and sometimes more if it was an esoteric topic they really wanted to teach. It wasn’t like today where they only teach what they want to, everyone taught freshman back then.

    By the 1980s, the four and four had decreased to three and three, professor taught three classes, a semester or six classes a year. By the ‘90s, this had decreased to three and two, or five classes a year. By the ‘00s, this had decreased to two and two or four classes a year. And with release time for the ever-expanding administrative titles/duties, it’s now decreased even less.

    It used to be that professors worked for the university and the public, one forgotten aspect of the land grant university is that the professors there where a resource to members of the public who had questions about their farms. Some of this still exist, particularly in terms of university extension , but much is long gone.

    Today most professors have their own personal, for profit consulting agencies. At UMass Amherst professors are permitted to spend the equivalent of “one day a week” solely on their own personal profit-making consulting agency, with many spending much more.

    It’s not just that the professor is getting a six figure salary for working a five day, 37 1/2 hour week, but the professor is only working 30 hours for the university, and is entitled to spend 7 1/2 hours working for personal gain. Again, many spend much more, and this isn’t really monitored.

    The one thing I will say about the tenured radicals of the early 90s is it most of them knew their subjects. They were too busy with the politics to teach it, but at least most of them knew it. Two generations of faculty later, they don’t. They simply don’t.

    So the flipside of gradeflation is teaching deflation, if we are going to credit a university with academic success of its students, then we also have to hold it liable for the academic failure of its students. No one objectively evaluates faculty members on their teaching building, not objectively. It be a union violation.

    And the other thing worthy of note is a combination of faculty unionization, and pension plans.

    By definition, management cannot be unionized because a union exist to oppose management. So if the faculty truly are to be considered management, they can’t be unionized. Conversely, if they wish to have the benefits of unionization, they need to give up the presumption of running the show.

    And the other side of this is that faculty in the past head skin in the game. Once you made tenure, you were there for life. You weren’t going to go to another university where you will both be paid more money and get tenure like today, even administrative usually came up through the faculty of that particular campus.

    Furthermore, your retirement was directly linked to the financial success of the institution. If it failed, you lost your retirement, so you were worried about how the institution be doing 20 years from now. You knew that your students could well be funding your retirement 20 years from now. You had skin in the game.

    What we have now is a traveling circus of administrators who are more loyal to the search firm they are associated with then they do the campus that currently employs them. Their concept of “no trouble on my watch“ and always looking for the next job 4 to 5 years from now prevents them from making necessary, tough long-term decisions. I have seen administrative push off problems, financial, and otherwise, knowing that they’ll be long gone by the time someone actually has to deal with it.

    I have long felt that an intrepid US attorney to convene a grand jury in Amherst, and this is probably true of most College towns.

    Likewise, I believe that the last college student has already been born, that higher education as we know it simply won’t exist 20 years from now, I doubt much of it will exist in 10.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *