The Inflation of Distinction: Rethinking Academic Honors

Vietnam: The Friction of Educational Reform

I entered the University of Architecture in 2009. That year, Vietnamese universities transitioned from cohort-based programs (niên chế) to credit-based systems. This change forced schools to convert the traditional 10-point scale into letter grades and a 4.0 GPA.

Before this reform, professors graded work very conservatively. Earning a 5.0 brought huge relief—students jokingly called it a “salvage 5.” Scores of 6.0 to 7.0 were solid, while an 8.0 was rare. Top marks like 9.0 or 10.0 existed almost purely in theory. In design and fine arts, reviews depend heavily on individual taste. As a result, our transcripts showed a dull wash of 5s and 6s.

Trouble started when old grading habits collided with the new conversion formula. In the old system, a 5.0/10 meant passing. Under the credit system, however, scores from 5.0 to 5.4 dropped to a “D” (1.0 GPA). Students needed at least a 5.5 to secure a safe “C” (2.0 GPA) for graduation. A tiny gap of 0.1 points caused a massive penalty on the final record.

Our lecturers kept grading strictly by old standards. When processed through the new formula, those 5s and 6s turned into disastrous Ds and Cs. Consequently, cumulative GPAs across entire cohorts plummeted.

Grades have never worked as a universal language.

Europe: Rewarding True Excellence Over Compliance

In Belgium, I encountered the traditional 20-point scale. This framework shapes pedagogical philosophy across France, Belgium, and continental Europe. Here, 10 marks the passing threshold. Most students receive scores between 10 and 14. Reaching 15 counts as distinctive, while scores between 18 and 20 remain exceptional rarities.

At first, this system felt harsh. A clean, punctual assignment without mistakes still earned only a 12 or 13. Yet European educators intentionally separate basic completion from true brilliance. Fulfilling requirements merits an average mark; only exceptional ingenuity deserves honors.

However, this strict philosophy creates disadvantages abroad. A respectable 13/20 in Brussels looks like a mediocre 65% when foreign institutions convert it mechanically.

Singapore: The High-Stakes Bell Curve

At the National University of Singapore (NUS), I faced a demanding Asian academic model. NUS relies on a 5.0 cumulative average point (CAP) scale. While leadership claims they avoid applying the Bell Curve mechanically, the pressure remains intense. Every fraction of a decimal point influences scholarships, research roles, and multinational career tracks.

Universities designed norm-referenced grading—the classic bell curve—to combat grade inflation. The method forces grades into a strict distribution: few As, mostly Bs and Cs, and mandatory low scores. While this eliminated generous grading, it introduced a fresh flaw. If a class gathers 30 exceptional students, why must an algorithm push some into Cs just to satisfy statistical symmetry?

Students quickly learned to register for courses like chess players. They avoided personal passions to pick classes with easy grade distributions. Many intentionally bypassed lectures filled with academic “superstars.” Behind this tactic lay a harsh truth: their performance rested on outperforming the person beside them.

The United States: Runaway Grade Inflation

I observed the opposite extreme after arriving in the United States in 2022.

At UC Berkeley, the share of A and A- grades jumped from roughly 51% in 2012 to over 64% by 2022. Ivy League schools recorded even higher increases. This trend does not prove that students suddenly grew smarter or worked harder. Instead, course evaluations pressure instructors, while administrators seek glowing transcripts to boost job-placement rankings. When an “A” becomes the baseline standard, grades lose their diagnostic value.

By 2026, Harvard University approved comprehensive reforms to cap top grades starting in fall 2027. This move shows leadership’s urgency as their academic credential loses value rapidly. Still, building an artificial ceiling creates another trap, closely echoing the flaws of the bell curve.

Loose absolute grading creates unchecked inflation. Conversely, strict relative grading turns learning into an adversarial battle.

A Realistic Path Forward for Vietnam

How should Vietnam handle this grading dilemma?

We should not inflate transcripts to please overseas reviewers. Nor should we enforce harsh quotas just to mimic statistical curves.

First, Vietnamese universities must clarify their grading rubrics. Students need to know what constitutes satisfactory work, solid mastery, and true excellence.

Second, universities must attach an explanatory addendum to every transcript. This sheet should detail passing thresholds and show historical grade distributions or class percentiles. An overseas panel views a 6.0/10 from an art academy differently when an official note shows it ranks in the top 15% of the class.

Third, employers and society must stop overvaluing GPAs. An average score provides basic context, but it cannot measure human potential or problem-solving ability. Recruiters and graduate programs should assess practical skills and subject mastery instead.

My journey across four educational systems revealed no perfect, copy-paste model.

Strict scoring does not guarantee academic quality, and high averages do not always prove inflation. The real problem occurs when numbers on a degree detach completely from real competence.

Source: Trinh Phuong Quan / vnexpress.net