Getting accepted to UNC Chapel Hill might be the most rigorous challenge many UNC students face these days. From the News & Observer:

A new report on grade inflation reveals that about 82 percent of all undergraduate grades at UNC-CH were A’s or B’s in the fall of 2007, and more A’s were given than any other grade.

Now, some faculty fear top students aren’t getting the recognition they deserve as the line between them and the rest of the class blurs.

“We think it is a problem,” said Donna Gilleskie, an economics professor who analyzed more than 1 million grades since 2000 in writing the report. “It’s a disservice to students. Sure, students would all like to get A’s. But you want to reward students who have mastered the material.”

The new report comes nine years after a similar study found 77 percent of the grades issued to undergraduates were A’s and B’s. That report prompted lengthy faculty discussion but no changes, and the trend has worsened since.

Yes, it’s a disservice to students. But it’s also a disservice to taxpayers, who make a substantial investment in the UNC System. One would think the flagship institution would expect more than it does from its students, and deliver more of a return to its funders.

Here are the facts about funding of the UNC System, as detailed in the John Locke Foundation’s Agenda 2008 report (emphasis is mine):

North Carolina’s system of public higher education absorbs a substantial part of the state’s budget — in Gov. Easley’s 2007 budget recommendations, almost 18 percent went to higher education. State spending on higher education is usually justified on public-benefit grounds, namely that increased education and training for those who attend colleges and universities actually benefit everyone because the graduates will add so much to the economy and culture.

In terms of governmental appropriations for higher education, North Carolina is one of the states that most heavily subsidizes its university system, with more than 48 percent of the dollars spent on state colleges and universities coming from government appropriations. The median for the country is 37 percent.

Some states manage to run their higher education systems with only about one quarter of the funds coming from government appropriations. In Michigan, for example, only 26 percent of the funding comes from the state; in Colorado, only 22 percent.

The cost of higher education — both to taxpayers and to families paying tuition — has many people asking about the relationship between costs and benefits.

Meantime, the UNC System has hired a very well connected lobbyist to be its key interface with the General Assembly, which returns to Raleigh this week. Even before Anita Watkins’ hiring, UNC was considered by many to be the most powerful lobby on Jones Street. Based on Watkins’ connections, one can only imagine how powerful UNC will be this session, regardless of the state’s monumental fiscal mess brought on by engaging in a spend-and-tax cycle that has come to roost. Here’s who Ms. Watkins knows (emphasis is mine):

After graduating from NCSU in 1994, she served for three years as a research assistant in the office of state Senate leader Marc Basnight. She later was senior policy analyst for the state Department of Environment and Natural Resources before going to the League of Municipalities.

Let’s hope Triangle-area legislators quiz Ms. Watkins — and Mr. Bowles — about the serious problem with grade inflation at Chapel Hill.