Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
In many higher education institutions, grading policies for academic staff are either undefined or vaguely formulated. Consequently, department and program heads determine grading practices independently, often resulting in grade inflation and inconsistencies that affect both faculty and students. This issue warrants attention, as universities and colleges are accountable both to society and to the state, which legitimises their authority to confer academic degrees and regulates them to varying extents. At present, there is no institution-wide policy prescribing how instructors must grade, nor any requirement that mid-level academic leaders (e.g. department chairs, program heads) oversee the grades awarded. There are no clear criteria or standards, and sometimes there are not even informal agreements on this matter. This conceptual article proposes four institutional models for shaping grading policies and analyses their implications through the lenses of signalling theory, human capital theory, and institutional theory. Institutional theory, in particular, is used to explain the gap between formal expectations and actual practices, emphasising the role of middle-level academic leaders in navigating competing pressures. By offering a typology of grading policy models, this article contributes to the conceptual understanding of how academic management influences organisational coherence, legitimacy, and regulation of performance in higher education institutions.
Emanuel Tamir (Sat,) studied this question.