In fact, if students are really learning better, grades would rise in the same way. Leo does not try to prove that students are not improving and simply assumes that this is not the case. Leo does not assess the other end of the spectrum to see how many students are failing at the same time, which would undercut much of what he says about grade inflation.
There can be other reasons why the competition for students means better grades, such as the fact that only the highest percentile of applicants is being accepted. If many of those who would have failed in the past are removed from the pool, grades overall would also rise unless a strict curve is demanded so that a balance is maintained between those who pass and those who fail. That would not be a fair system and would not reflect learning, only levels of competition. We may simply have better students than in the past and good reasons why this is so.
Competition is the lifeblood of American society. It is celebrated as a virtue at all levels of our society. It fuels business and determines who succeeds and who does not--those who are able to compete succeed, while those who cannot will fail. We celebrate it in sporting events and teach it as a value to the young from the time they begin school. School itself becomes an arena for competition--students compete with one another for a high position on the infamous "grading curve" which of necessity means that some will fail simply because others succeed. It should come as no surprise that competition is an essential and unavoidable element in our economy and that fostering competition has become a strategy for spurring growth, ending recession, and creating jobs, revenues, and a higher standard of living for everyone.
Opponents of grading see it as spurring competition, as noted, and they find that this is not the best way to get people to learn. However, ther