Music venues — lately they’ve been dropping like flies. First it was Starr Hill; then it was Satellite Ballroom. Now it’s looking grim for the Gravity Lounge. Whether it’s a new trend in music tastes, the economy or a coincidence, the pattern reflected by Gravity being on the fritz is, well, bringing us down.

Two music venues comprised the C-ville small-venue scene at the time of Gravity’s inception six years ago. Starr Hill presented jam bands and college acts, and Prism presented world music. Gravity’s initial vision, owner Bill Baldwin said, was to cover the genres left out by the venues in place: local acts, singer-songwriters and cross-genre music.

When you walk into Gravity Lounge, you find that the place has a bit of an identity crisis. Is it a bookstore? A café? An art gallery? A music venue?

“The original idea was to have an all-day bookstore café that had occasional events,” Baldwin said. “But when we first opened, the daytime business didn’t exist, so we started concentrating on events.”

The books that line the walls can, in fact, be purchased, but Baldwin noted that the people who usually buy them are the musicians themselves.

Though Gravity might be small, it has hosted Grammy-winning acts like Janice Ian and Buckwheat Zydeco. It has touted “had-them-before-they-were-big” bragging rights for many acts like The Avett Brothers and more recently Lenka. And the little place is, well, cozy. One hundred and fifty people in a living-room atmosphere creates the sense of an intimate show, and the fans love it.

But even though the atmosphere of these intimate shows remains popular, Baldwin said smaller and medium venues closing are a nationwide trend. He specified that these were mostly concert-oriented venues, while “bars with bands” are still going strong. Baldwin attributed the trend to “a lifestyle change. People are staying home more; they are having home theatres installed where their investment recovery is built on using the equipment.”

To combat this phenomenon, various local artists put on a benefit show for Gravity in February, Baldwin said. “The shows have had a good vibe, and have been trying to keep people positive,” he said. Other than benefit shows, Gravity has been staying open on donations.
There also is the possibility of making Gravity a non-profit organization.

“The idea would be to expand our mission to include more educational programs for kids and more multicultural events. That would allow us to receive grants,” Baldwin said. The process, however, would not be easy, and may require Gravity to run as a new entity.
Former Satellite booking agent Danny Shea, who has also done his share of booking for Gravity, suggested that the three local venues’ closings are in no way connected.

“Each venue has had its own story,” Shea said. “With the Ballroom, it all had to do with the landlord having an opportunity to get CVS in there. But with Gravity, to my understanding, they’ve been working in an unrealistic environment for a while.”

Shea went on to explain that Gravity’s financial troubles are not just peeking their head out of the water — they’ve been around for years.
“There’s an ebb and flow [of local music], and right now we’re definitely in an ebb,” he said. “But I don’t think it will be long-term. In many ways, the community here’s gotten spoiled. It’s easy to get used to a lot of activity. In the context of U2 coming to Charlottesville, people start to ask, ‘Why isn’t Radiohead coming?’”

Shea said he thinks Charlottesville will not be deprived of music for too long with the impending opening of the Jefferson Theatre. He also noted that the landlord of Gravity intends to keep the space as a music venue, even if the management and name changes.

In terms of the economy, Shea suggested that places like Gravity Lounge, which allow you to see a show for less than $20, should be prospering instead of expensive venues like John Paul Jones Arena.

“It’s like vacationing in Nag’s Head instead of Europe,” he said.

In an attempt to save Gravity, another benefit show is scheduled for Sunday, March 22 with Terri Allard, Brady Earnhart, Bahlmann Abbot, JJ von Briesen and Thomas Gunn performing.

Britney Spears isn’t the only pop star in need of a comeback. Kelly Clarkson, the original American Idol, has experienced her share of career ups and — most recently — downs. Frequently criticized for her weight, love life and last album flop, Clarkson has a lot to prove, but she hits a high note with her latest album, All I Ever Wanted.

In 2007, the disastrous release of Clarkson’s awkwardly angry rock record My December, precipitated by the infamous wrangle for artistic control between Clarkson and her music mogul boss Clive Davis, resulted in less than memorable tracks and a canceled arena tour. After the flop, many fans wondered what the future would hold for Clarkson. If she got nothing else from the mistake that was My December, Clarkson has seemed to have found her niche as she returns to the pop roots that made her a fan favorite and brought her mega success with past hits like “Breakaway” and “Behind These Hazel Eyes.”

All I Ever Wanted masters the formula for pop success. After “un-inventing” herself in a sense, Clarkson concocts an array of catchy songs on the 14-track album. The first single, “My Life Would Suck Without You,” is already experiencing wild popularity and abundant radio time as an anthem for her female fans, much like “Since U Been Gone” did in the end of 2004 and beginning of 2005.

One of Clarkson’s greatest strengths is her down-to-earth likability, which she plays up on this record. When she is not promoting an album, Clarkson is rarely seen in tabloids, unlike her indulgently overstated musical counterparts. Her rise to fame on American Idol showcased her humble normality as she uncomfortably came to terms with stardom. Clarkson’s ability to be relatable and genuine shines through on tracks like “Don’t Let Me Stop You” and “Cry,” in which she proclaims with earnestness, “If anyone asks / I’ll tell them we just grew apart / Yeah, what do I care if they believe me or not / Whenever I feel your memory is breaking my heart / I’ll pretend I’m okay with it all / Act like there’s nothing wrong.”

The album’s gems are the tracks co-written by fellow pop sensation Katy Perry. Engaging and biting, the unlikely collaboration of Clarkson and Perry on “I Do Not Hook Up” and “Long Shot” puts Clarkson at the top of her game. In “I Do Not Hook Up,” Clarkson quips, “I do not hook up, up / I fall deep / ‘Cause the more that you try / The harder I’ll fight / To say goodnight.”

Unfortunately, the formula for a flawless pop album falls short on the overproduced “Already Gone” and “Whyyawannabringmedown.” Clarkson should have played a more significant artistic role in developing these tracks; this idol has too much vocal talent and spunk to be drowned out by synthesizers and poor production techniques.

Ironically, though All I Ever Wanted might not be the creative direction that Clarkson originally wanted to pursue, the pop genre undeniably suits her. The album offers an agreeable, spirited blend of tunes that will probably come to saturate the radio waves during the approaching summer months. Surely, Clarkson’s fans will embrace the new music as they rejoice in her comeback, turn up the radio and sing along.

Was it really only yesterday that we were listening to the pop-y ass-kicking slogan, “Since you been gone … I can breeeathe for the first time …” from American Idol Kelly Clarkson? Oh wait … It was. With her latest album, All I Ever Wanted, Kelly relaunched her nearly forgotten career and wowed aging Idol fans. Does anyone even remember a time when Simon Cowell’s British sneer struck fear in the heart of Idol audiences everywhere? Kelly, who is arguably the true Idol because, well, she won the first one, deserved a good comeback, and luckily, she got one.

But speaking of comebacks, will I Love You, Man impress audiences as much as corporate Hollywood wants it to? If its press kit has anything to do with it, maybe not. This week we take a look at the inner workings of corporate promotion and come to the conclusion that it really … sucks. But perhaps the film will surprise and delight us all. As a side note, the new spotlight on Jason Segel after his beloved run in the cult favorite Freaks and Geeks is fabulous.

Other major news in the A&E world: Resident Evil 5 is awesome. No, but really. For any nay-sayers out there hating on RE2 or any other part of the franchise, shut up and play — and be wowed by the slick character models, the bloodthirsty battles and the “Mercenaries” mode.
For those who frequent Charlottesville’s music venues, take a look at what’s going on at the endangered Gravity Lounge. Located on the Downtown Mall, Gravity is one of the best venues for music in Charlottesville — and not just because it’s one of the only surviving ones. After the deaths of Starr Hill and Satellite Ballroom — combined with the unending renovation of Jefferson Theatre — live music in town has lost most of its spark and, subsequently, space to play. If Gravity goes under, where will our favorite bands turn? Bodo’s? The Rotunda? On second thought, that’d be awesome. For the local music scene to continue thriving and bringing in those acts we love — Girl Talk, Architecture In Helsinki, Minus the Bear — vibrant venues are needed. Do your part to save these places by moshing, head-bobbing and dancing more at the next Gravity show.

Finally, don’t forget to check our brand-spanking-new tableau blog: cd-tableau.blogspot.com. Check in daily for all the latest updates on everything and anything A&E!

—stephanie garcia

tableau sat down with Jake Small, a first-year College student and Virginia Beach native, to catch up with him and his band, The Greater Good. He’s a music major here at the University, but don’t mistake this virtuoso for being soft. Soon to be hitting local frats, bars and events, this rock star is one guy you don’t want to be missing.

tableau: First, give us some background.

Jake Small: The band is called The Greater Good as of now. The other guys in the band want to change it, but until we think of something better, the name’s kind of in flux. I’m the lead guitarist, and there are three other guys beside myself. Tyler Brady is our bassist, David Johns plays drums and Isaac Pirtel sings and raps. I’m currently looking for a full time keyboard player as well.

tableau: How did you guys meet?

JS: We all live in Virginia Beach and met through mutual friends. I was in a previous band called Parkside Green with the drummer, David Johns. I started playing with him again about a year ago and he was playing with Tyler on bass. We evolved out of us just hanging out and jamming. Finally, through a friend of ours, we met Isaac Pirtel. He jumped in on vocals during a [Red Hot] Chili Peppers song we were playing and nailed it, so we asked him to be our singer. So ultimately this band came together through some local friendships and some cool jams we decided to take further.

tableau: Is it possible to describe your sound?

JS: We play a wide mix of things, but it’s hard to classify us into one genre. If I had to, it would probably be psychedelic-alternative-hip-hop, or maybe reggae-funk-rock — a combination of the two really, but psychedelic-reggae-funk-rock-hip-hop is a mouth full.

tableau: Who are your influences?

JS: We’re influenced by a wide range of music, so I’ll just give you the basic list: Sublime, Radiohead, Red Hot Chili Peppers — and John [Frusciante’s] solo stuff — A Tribe Called Quest, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, the Beatles, Pink Floyd, Kanye West, Lupe Fiasco, Eric B  Rakim and MGMT. It doesn’t really do our tastes justice, but you get the basic idea of where we’re coming from.

tableau: Do you write your own music?

JS: Yes. It’s a collaborative environment. Sometimes I’ll write a whole song — all instrumental parts, melody and lyrics. What usually happens is one person will come in with an idea and everyone else will add to and mold that idea while combining it with other ideas until we have a song we’re all happy with.

tableau: And do you perform or record?

JS: We’re in the process of putting together a five-song EP that we should be putting out sometime in June. We’ll follow it up with frequent shows up here in Charlottesville and around Virginia next year. I have played several shows with various groups in the past. While I was in Parkside Green, we had a local agent and would play cover songs with a few originals at private parties and down at the beach. I also played in a jazz combo with some guys from my high school jazz band and did shows back at home.

tableau: Where do you see yourself going over the next few years?

JS: After college I want to try to make music a career, so in five years my band — regardless if the members are the same or not — should be touring the East Coast behind a record. Near the end of college I’m going to put work into getting signed and hopefully the record we’ll be touring behind will be on a somewhat big label. Nevertheless, I plan on putting out as much music as I can, which will probably result in some Indie label stuff as well.

More info and music from Jake and The Greater Good can be found at www.myspace.com/gr8terg00d. 

James Cox’s Wonderland first premiered at the Toronto Film Festival in 2003, and tells the story of legendary porn star John Holmes’ (Val Kilmer) association with the infamous Wonderland murders that occurred July 1, 1981 in Los Angeles. The story of this horrific homicide may be more familiar to previous generations, but this gives us all the more reason to watch it. Cox organizes the film via a police investigation of the murders in which drug addict Holmes relates his account of his association with the crime through a series of flashbacks. Holmes’ convincing account is then compared with heroin addict David Lind’s (Dylan McDermott) equally telling narrative of exactly what went down on Wonderland Ave., causing even the most knowledgeable viewer of the incident to wonder how these men were involved in what was considered one of the most grisly murders up to that time.

While the story of the Wonderland murders is interesting in itself, the construction of the film turns it into a truly intriguing investigation that explores much more than just who took part in the homicide. Wonderland explores an era in which sex, drugs and money were a prevalent and fascinating lifestyle. However, these indulgences are proven to be purely destructive not only in Holmes’ life, but also his mistress’ (Kate Bosworth), his drug dealing friend Ron Launius’ (Josh Lucas), infamous night club-owner Eddie Nash’s (Eric Bogosian)  and numerous other individuals’. Holmes’ estranged wife (Lisa Kudrow) seems to be the only one in the film who has got it all together, but at the same time, she suffers from the loss of her once beloved husband and marriage that has seemingly turned into a “John Holmes charity” for whenever he needs help. Thus, while Wonderland investigates a murder, it also explores the personal lives of the prisoners to drugs and money that invoked it.

Anyone who has seen the more widely known film, Boogie Nights, which stars Mark Walberg and is based on Holmes’ successful career within the porn industry, will be interested to see how life turned out for him once he could not resist the surrounding temptations. It is obvious that once Holmes touched cocaine he never got back on track, and his craving for drugs and money somehow caused him to become a prime suspect of the gruesome Wonderland murders. While Wonderland depicts a historical murder, the characters’ problems that lead to their involvement with the crime are still very prevalent in today’s world. Hopefully this film will warn viewers of the life-threatening consequences of such a lifestyle. However, even if you’re not interested in history or health lessons, Wonderland will prove to be a fascinating film to anyone who enjoys crime thrillers combined with the drama and action associated with sex, money and drugs.

Back in early 2005, if you asked me if I’d ever want to play a survival-horror game, my answer would have been an emphatic ‘hell no.’ Often plagued with poor controls and even worse camera angles, I was never quite sure how this genre managed to spawn famous video game franchises like Silent Hill, Alone in the Dark and, of course, Resident Evil.

Then, as that year came to a close, I noticed that Resident Evil 4 was raking in awards, including Game of the Year from Spike’s Video Game Awards and — more respectably and notably — from the ever-popular game Web site Gamespot. After seeing these awards, I figured I needed to see for myself whether this game was actually worth playing, or if game critics had just gone completely insane. Suffice it to say, the critics were not mentally ill. Resident Evil 4 was a fantastic game that broke all of the rules of the old dinosaur that was the survival-horror genre, creating an intense, visceral experience that left players hankering for more.

And, quite frankly, last week’s release of Resident Evil 5 for Xbox 360, Playstation 3 and PC delivers more of this powerful game play in spades. Even though the game plays very much like RE4, there are more than enough improvements as well as additions to the game’s core mechanics that make the sequel feel superior to its four-year-old predecessor.

Beside the obvious graphical improvements that come with each new platform iteration, there is one immediately glaring change to the RE formula that, arguably, removes the ‘horror’ from the game, making it more like a ‘survival-action’ game. While the game still pits the player against overwhelming swarms of grotesque enemies, the fact that you are not alone certainly makes the ride a more comfortable one. RE5 thrusts the player into the role of Chris Redfield (of Resident Evil 1 fame), but he is now constantly accompanied by his new partner, Sheva Alomar. When playing by yourself, Sheva is a slightly-above-idiotic AI controlled puppet that allows you to progress through the game reasonably well, but the game also allows for your friends to join the action via split-screen or Xbox Live multi-player. It may be needless to say this, but the game is almost always more fun with a human player, even if it means cutting down the screen size to play locally.

The developers also seemed to strike a good balance when tweaking the control scheme for modern-day audiences. Because a flood of third-person shooters hit the market after the release of RE4, including the insanely popular Gears of War games, RE5 has changed just enough to feel more accessible while also retaining the series’ old quirks. Players can now strafe and take cover, but still have to remain stationary to shoot and have to equip items from their inventory to use them. While the retention of these archaic control choices may annoy some players, the game is designed such that the controls can rarely be faulted for the appearance of a “Game Over” screen.

At this point you may be wondering why I haven’t mentioned the plot of RE5 yet. Well, truth be told, the game does not offer a whole lot on that front. The narrative is basically a mix of every generic biological virus sci-fi horror story you’ve ever heard combined with a handful of predictable plot twists that are standard fare in Japanese game storytelling. If you just make it 12 hours long and set it in Africa, RE5 is the end result. Great pacing and enemy design, however, keeps the whole campaign feeling fresh. Paired with a hearty list of unlockables and extra features, like the return of the combo-based time attack frenzy that is “The Mercenaries” mode, RE5 is more than worth the $60 price tag.

I barreled through RE5’s single-player in only three sittings, but, even now, I have a pretty strong desire to check out everything I’ve unlocked and play through the campaign at least one more time; if that’s not a testament to how strong a title Resident Evil 5 is, then I don’t know what is.

If there’s one thing the studio cash cow is good at, it’s over-hyping. Two weeks before the film came out, Paramount shipped out press kits in tempting packaging for the upcoming comedy I Love You, Man. The actual disc, however, proved way more disappointing than stimulating.

Inside, there is a mini-novel of production notes tucked in the front sleeve and a disc with the theatrical trailer and a handful of production stills all with essentially the same synoptic caption. The “Meet the Cast” description goes on and on, calling Rashida Jones — an actress who’s only claim to fame is a few episodes in The Office getting in between the most lovable couple on TV — one of Hollywood’s “bright young stars.” The rest of the production notes blab on with unnecessary “trivia” and a synopsis that is basically the theatrical trailer translated into text.

What’s the point in wasting big bucks pushing a film that already has perks to its name? Paul Rudd (Knocked Up, The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Role Models) and Jason Segel (Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Knocked Up) have already built up plenty of fan base as members of Judd Apatow’s all-star comedy crew. Plus, the story itself looks like it has the potential to really shine. Writer and director John Hamburg has more than enough comedy chops to his name, co-penning Meet the Parents, Meet the Fockers and Zoolander.

Wouldn’t the obvious star power of all three of these rising comedy stars be enough to sell a movie to the masses? The press kit seems like a desperate attempt to build and sustain hype for a film that likely is already garnering support. Paramount is obviously trying to develop that deafening buzz that either completely turns people off from the movie or makes them turn out in droves at the theatre wearing I Love You, Man paraphernalia. Now, a comedy is worthless to studio execs if it doesn’t generate recognition on par with powerhouses like Caddyshack or Airplane, films whose legacies live on throughout generations. The trend now is push, push, push and hope the jokes don’t fall flat. Comedic genius is becoming calculated and the fresh originality of films that captivated not too long ago, like The 40-Year-Old Virgin, might all together disappear. Comedies should speak, or rather joke, for themselves, and not be put on a pedestal by endless chatter from the studio backing it.

Only time will tell if I Love You, Man can live up to the press kit hype. Most want to see Segel and Rudd succeed because both have been toiling away in best friend roles and deserve more time in leading man roles. Who knows, maybe I Love You, Man could even be the first real step on Jones’ quest to become a “bright young star."

On his new album Scream, Chris Cornell explores new territory. The famed rock singer (Soundgarden, Audioslave) teams up with R&B megaproducer Timbaland to create a decidedly more pop-like album. While many of the singles, such as “Part of Me,” “Long Gone” and the title track created great expectations for the album, the album as a whole is a bit spotty.

Cornell billed this record as an “album-oriented album,” and that describes the flow very well. The end of each song has an interlude that transitions the listener into the next song. Many of them are guitar-driven, recalling Cornell’s past as a rock singer. Some of these transitions lead into the next song smoothly, such as the transitions between “Part of Me” and “Time” and the one between “Ground Zero” and “Never Far Away.” Others, however, seem forced and unnecessary, including the one between “Get Up” and “Ground Zero.” At the end of “Get Up,” Cornell begins to sing the first verse of “Ground Zero,” which he then repeats after the track changes, leaving the listener wondering if the transition was all that necessary. Other transitions, like the one between “Sweet Revenge” and “Get Up,” are more herky-jerky and simply do not flow well.

The album also suffers from overproduction in stretches, especially during the first half. Timbaland adds many strange sounds and beats that do not contribute anything to the listening experience. The listener can pick up on these unfitting additions at the very beginning of the album, when he inserts this weird voice that made me think I was listening to an alien overlord. This sort of effect also happens on “Sweet Revenge,” when Timbaland introduces a Daft Punk-esque vocoder voice that seems very out of place. He often tries to do too much and distracts the listener from Cornell’s voice and lyrics, which prove to be quite good. The most enjoyable parts of the album are when Timbaland pulls back and lets Cornell sing, such as in “Other Side of Town.” On that track, Cornell proves that one can have a creative beat without freaking out the listener.

The best songs on the album are “Long Gone,” the title track, and “Enemy,” which may be the best non-single on the record. Cornell’s still-amazing-after-all-these-years voice is able to shine through. His lyrics also are solid, offering up such lines as, “Throwing out the blame when you know it ain’t my fault / Messing with my brain when you wanna see me fall / There may come a time when I don’t bother you at all / It isn’t my call; it isn’t my call,” from the title track.

The album concludes with “Watch Out,” which features my favorite sound effect at the end of the song, where the listener hears a zoom-click that sounds like an old movie reel running out. Cornell also meshes genres well on the hidden track “Two Drink Minimum,” which has acoustic rock, blues and country influences.

Overall, while the album does not quite live up to the expectations set by its singles, it is still worth a listen. It succeeds at times and fails at times, but Cornell should be applauded for experimenting with other genres and styles and for refusing to be labeled.

The last time Student Council tried to pick a topic for the 2009-10 University Unity Project, students made a mockery of the process. Online polls closed with 25,000 votes cast, even though there are only about 20,000 students at the University.

It seems that Council has learned from this folly. For the re-vote on the project, which began yesterday, a more secure process makes sure that each student can cast only one vote, guaranteeing some semblance of legitimacy.

Improved security is not the only improvement in the Unity Project selection process for which Council merits praise. The new voting system also allows students to rank the possible projects, instead of casting only one vote. Hopefully this proactive stance to improving the voting system will be a lasting trend, for there is still work to do. Though votes are now secure, and the opinions of those who do vote are more accurately reflected, the vote will only be a legitimate reflection of student opinion with high voter turnout.

So far, Council’s publicity effort has been lacking in two key areas. First, its attempt at reaching the student body is too small in scale. Second, the time period for voting, three days, is too brief given the delayed publicity.

Council has relied thus far on the following methods: a press release, a mass e-mail to listservs across the University and a Facebook group invitation to University students. While these are respectable attempts at diversifying the approach to publicity, they suffer from a reliance on viral publicity. The listserv blitz will only work if others get the message and pass it on. This is effectively out of Council’s hands, which limits this method’s usefulness, especially when speed is necessitated by the lack of advance notice and the short, three-day voting period.

Even worse, most of the listservs the e-mail was first sent to were either related to Council or composed of those on Council. As for the Facebook group, there were only 1,000 invites, which is about 5 percent of the student population. The Unity Project vote will not be legitimate without high turnout, but its legitimacy will be even less if the turnout is concentrated in those areas of the University that are already well-represented on Council.

Though the press release had the potential to spark coverage which would reach a broader base of constituents, it was rendered less effective by the fact that it was sent less than 24 hours before the polls opened. Students, who likely had not already heard about the vote, would at the earliest be informed on the day voting began. Because the release was sent so late, after the news stories for Wednesday’s Cavalier Daily had already been chosen, students won’t be reading about it until today. Council was wise to ensure the voting ended before the transition to its newly-elected successors, and three days would have been sufficient, but the lag in publicity effectively truncated the voting period to an unreasonably short length.

Even utilizing the same methods, Council should have started its media blitz to the public a few days earlier. This blitz, however, should have been aimed at a larger segment of students instead of merely those few who already have close contact with Council. Although the new process by which the Unity Project is being chosen is a clear improvement, it will not be fully legitimate unless there is large and diverse voter turnout.

In Monday's Cavalier Daily a story highlighted recent research by a retired Duke professor Stuart Rojstaczer on the widespread grade inflation on college campuses around the country (“Research cites grade inflation as cause for national increase in GPA,” 3/16/2009). Recently, the Department of Spanish, Italian and Portuguese here at the University shifted its grading policy to remove the A+ from its grading scale and making it more difficult to get an A in its language courses. In general, complaints about grade inflation are founded in statistical truths: multiple studies have shown average GPAs have risen over time; Rojstaczer’s website, gradeinflation.com, highlights the steady increase for all schools, from 2.93 to 3.11 between 1991 and 2007. While critics believe this has made schooling easier than in the past, this trend is better analyzed as a realization that previous grading was overly harsh; moreover, that current grading scale better represents the ever-increasing number of college students and is tempered by changed expectations.

Grade inflation started to become an issue in the Vietnam War-era and has continued all the way to today. There are a number of theories on why grade inflation became more and more prevalent from the 1960s on. One is that college professors were interested in keeping students in good academic standing to maintain their places in college to avoid the draft. Another suggests that professors did this to gain favor with their students whose course evaluations featured as an important part of tenure decisions at universities then and now. A more controversial theory claims the beginning of grade inflation during this period had to do with the influx of minority students and professors loosening their grading systems to aid a group of people who were not as well prepared for college work. There are other theories, such as blaming parental expectations for the high costs of education to result in good grades.

According to studies of grade inflation at Harvard by former dean Harry Lewis, twenty percent of students made the dean’s list in 1920. With only one-fifth of the student body making it at that time, that indicates that the average GPA must have been very low compared to today. Considering that only three percent of the college-age population was enrolled in college in 1900, the fact that today over a third of eighteen to twenty-one year olds are college-enrolled, the average student body has changed significantly. If anything, prior to World War II, most of the people attending college were wealthy and affluent, which means professors might have had higher expectations of students; at the same time, it seems unlikely that such low GPAs accurately reflected how well students were doing in school because of the segment of the population going to school. Therefore, grading systems were too harsh prior to the 1960s — the completion of an assignment that might earn someone a B today may have gotten only a C then even though a student correctly completed the assignment.

To have such a grading scale in today’s college setting would be misguided. With the expanded variety of students, the odds of having only hard-working or intelligent students is not a given, thus making it more reasonable for a school like the University to have a higher average GPA because many students here fit that stereotype. This can be seen by Virginia’s Institutional Assessment and Studies’ statistics which in an e-mail reported a slow uptick in the number of students to make the Dean’s List over time from the College of Arts and Sciences, with 44 percent achieving it in the Fall 2007 semester. Consider Harvard and its very high average GPA; its students are generally regarded as the best in the country. Is it inaccurate, then, to give out such high grades? Probably not. Moreover, the National Center for Education Statistics found that in the 1999-2000 school year 33.5 percent of students had a GPA of a C or lower, thus indicating that grade inflation may be over-hyped. Beyond the modern make-up of students, there has been a major shift in expectations. A 3.0 now is not considered particularly great unlike in 1950. Today, a 3.4 or 3.5 is the dividing line between levels of academic success, and employers and graduate schools recognize it.  

Concerns about grade inflation are relatively unfounded — the fact that many look back on the pre-Vietnam era as a good place for GPAs is foolish because the grading scale at that time was too burdensome, penalizing students with low marks for work that was likely above-average considering the make-up of the student body (I’m not equating wealth to success; rather I’m saying the homogeneously affluent student bodies at that time means an average GPA in the low 2s was way too low). Now granted, grades may be getting slightly out of hand when we consider that Harvard had over ninety percent of its 2002 class make the Dean’s List before abolishing it that year. But if people are so bothered by this, the qualifications for the Dean’s List can be altered, just like businesses and graduate schools have altered their expectations for academic performance. In sum, grade inflation is not something that academics should get too hot and bothered about — professors will continue giving grades that fit the product in their eyes. Only if there is a sudden recognition of robustly inferior work should there be any reason to overtly address this issue.

Geoff Skelley’s column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at g.skelley@cavalierdaily.com.