Christopher Schorr, Ph.D., who authored a recent report on academic rigor at the University of Texas at Austin, argues that activist-driven disciplines—particularly those found in ethnic, gender, and identity-focused studies—are less academically demanding and contribute disproportionately to grade inflation.
Schorr’s report, “Are the ‘Studies’ Worth Studying?” for the America First Policy Institute’s Higher Education Reform Initiative, analyzes grade data across departments at UT Austin from 2020 to 2024.
Among its findings, so-called “Studies” departments awarded “A” grades to students at exceptionally high rates, including Critical Disabilities Studies (89.3%), Asian American Studies (89.3%), and Women and Gender Studies (84.4%). The average GPA approached or exceeded 3.8 in each of these disciplines.
In contrast, disciplines like economics and chemistry awarded “A”s to fewer than half of their students, with GPAs closer to 3.1.
Schorr’s research defines this pattern as a symptom of a broader “collective action problem,” a concept in economics and political science that describes situations where individuals or institutions fail to act in the group’s long-term interest because it’s easier to go along with the status quo.
“If everybody wins, you can’t compare students, and you can’t separate the wheat from the chaff,” Schorr said to The Dallas Express.
He described the issue as one of academic credibility, not political ideology. Although studies of regions like Asia or the Far East can be “rigorous, disciplined, and legitimate,” Schorr said, others—such as African-American studies—often fail to account for the entire population that should be studied. One example he pointed to was the alleged propensity of African American Studies programs to ignore non-leftist blacks, including figures like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
“These subjects are not particularly rigorous or disciplined,” he said.
To address the issue, Schorr has proposed a cap on “A” grades—what he called an “incredibly generous” limit of 40% per course or department. He explained that these students are at least above average by the very definition of being in the top 40%. He suggested that this approach would restore the signaling function of academic grades.
His findings reflect broader concerns in higher education. According to national data cited in Schorr’s report, GPA averages have risen more than 16% over the last 30 years. “Grade inflation diminishes the value of grades as repositories of information pertaining to academic quality,” the report notes.
Critics of capping grades or targeting certain departments may argue that students pursuing graduate or professional programs need high GPAs. But Schorr countered, “It doesn’t help to have all A’s if everyone has all A’s.” The consequence, he said, is a race among students to accumulate other distinctions—many of which are “not always helpful or relevant to their ability to succeed academically.”
Regarding whether such reforms would unfairly disadvantage people-focused disciplines compared to STEM fields, Schorr cited internal data from UT Austin. That data showed that psychology, a social science field, had a lower percentage of “A”s awarded (43.89%) and a lower GPA (3.06) than many STEM disciplines, including biology and engineering—suggesting that rigor can exist in any field.
While his recommendations include eliminating low-rigor departments, Schorr said the issue could be tackled at various levels of government. “The larger the scale, the better,” he said, endorsing both federal action and state-level compacts.
One reform he supports would require universities to publish average SAT and ACT scores by major at the degree level to allow better comparisons of student caliber and program rigor.
However, Schorr also warns about the reputational risks universities face when they fail to address these issues. In his view, when entire programs shift their focus from the pursuit of truth to activism, they stray from the original spirit of academic freedom. He believes this trend can ultimately devalue a university’s brand, depending on the programs it chooses to support.
The report’s implications could ripple far beyond UT Austin. Schorr points to similar findings at Yale, where departments like Women, Gender, & Sexuality Studies awarded “A” grades to more than 90% of students. Studies-focused departments at the University of Michigan ranked among the least rigorous out of 25 surveyed.
“Universities sometimes provide official answers” to what a grade means, the report reads. “However, most students and faculty know grading rigor often differs by course, department, and field.”
In a competitive environment, Schorr contends, this lack of consistency is untenable. “They can’t all be winners,” he writes—at least not if higher education still values excellence over entitlement.
Bills that could possibly address some of these issues are on the horizon in Texas. Sen. Brandon Creighton introduced SB 37 this session.
“SB 37 strengthens university governance by enhancing oversight, ensuring institutions operate with integrity, fairness, and a commitment to student success… The bill also establishes General Education Review Committees at each institution, composed of industry leaders and faculty, to review and refine core curriculum courses—ensuring they are foundational, practical, and free from ideological bias,” Creighton said in a press release.
Creighton added, “Additionally, low-performing minors and certificate programs will undergo regular evaluation, with regents having the authority to phase out programs that fail to attract students, improving efficiency and cost-effectiveness.”
Opponents of the bill say that it fixes something that is not broken. “I am very concerned how this bill will impact us because we’re not broken,” Angie Hill Price, the speaker of the faculty senate at Texas A&M University, said during her testimony at the Capitol in March, per the Texas Tribune.
SB 37 is still under consideration in the Texas House and would need approval from both the House and the governor to become law.