If the goal of a class is to learn the principals of say....Applied Economic Theory, and at the conclusion of the semester, you have Greenspan-esque knowledge of the material... you deserve an A. It shouldn't matter whether or not three others in class are even greater economic geniuses.
If too many people are able to grasp the content, make the class harder. That doesn't mean assigning more time-consuming B.S. work to weigh down already overly-stressed students. Make the concepts that are studied more advanced and more difficult. But deciding that only 1% of a 200-person class deserve A+'s is ridiculous. If a teacher gives the same material to all of his or her students and half of them master more than 90% of the material, then sorry, but those students deserve A's. Period.
Some argue that giving out too many A's is equivalent to giving participation ribbons to all the players on a team--regardless of a kids' ineptness. While this is a sensible argument, it's flawed. I agree that there isn't enough failure out there. Yes, kids need to understand that sometimes in life you don't get what you want and that losing (but then picking yourself up afterwards) is apart of being an adult. Unfortunately, the lesson being taught is that even working hard is a waste. Do everything you can, bust your ass, but 'sorry that's not enough' is all you'll hear.
Let me conclude by saying this, if someone works at a company that issues sales goals, for example, and with achievement of those goals comes financial rewards. Does anyone think that the organization could go back on their promise and decide to not award the prize because too many people did what they were supposed to do? Absolutely not and it shouldn't be that way in higher education either.
