I was disappointed to see the concern over GPA inflation described as "outrageous" and "insane" in the letter "High GPAs should not be viewed as a problem" (March 31). Perhaps I can help the author see the problem.

First, it's important to realize that grades are assigned, not earned. Some professors choose a midpoint for a class's grades regardless of students' abilities. This is most overtly accomplished by adding back points post-test to center the grades on a chosen number. More covertly, some professors design tests with a mind for their students' aptitude and the difficulty of an exam is influenced by the average score a teacher hopes to effect. Because this is so fluid and arbitrary, better scores do not mean that students are getting smarter or trying harder. Rising scores characterize professors' choice, not students' achievement.

Second, I think the author failed to realize that grades are a description of relative performance. "C" is average; most students should have one. Those who do a little better or worse should get a "B" or "D" respectively. Students who perform outstandingly well or poorly get an "A" or "F." But if everyone has a "B," then an "A" is not "outstanding" work, it is "a little above most." This is why GPA inflation is troubling: it devalues "A" work and a Penn State education as a whole. The flap over grade padding is not "insane." The value of your diploma hinges on the solution.