By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Harvard University’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences has voted to limit the number of A grades awarded to undergraduates, a significant measure to combat grade inflation. This policy, set to begin in fall 2027, will cap A grades at 20% of students in a class, plus four additional students. The aim is to restore the value of an A grade, ensuring it accurately reflects exceptional achievement for students, employers, and graduate schools. This move addresses concerns that the prevalence of top grades had diminished their meaning and could disadvantage students with genuine high achievement.
Read the original article here
Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences is taking a notable step to address grade inflation, a phenomenon widely acknowledged as prevalent across top-tier universities. The recent vote aims to limit the number of “A” grades awarded to undergraduates, a significant move designed to reintroduce a more rigorous grading standard. This initiative, however, applies specifically to the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, which encompasses Harvard College, the John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, and the Extension School. Other Harvard schools, such as the Business School or Kennedy School, are not included in this particular policy change.
The long-standing issue of grade inflation has, for years, meant that earning an “A” or “B” at prestigious institutions has become almost commonplace, even for students who might be performing at a less than stellar level. This has, in turn, devalued the meaning of GPAs, making them less indicative of true academic mastery and more of a reflection of a student’s ability to navigate a particular institution’s grading system. This can create significant stress for students, particularly when they are striving to maintain a high GPA for academic opportunities like becoming a Resident Advisor or for graduate school admissions.
The fundamental question of a grade’s purpose comes into sharp focus with this policy change. Is a grade intended to objectively measure a student’s understanding of a subject, or is it meant to reflect their performance relative to their peers? The concern with a system that heavily relies on relative performance is its potential negative impact on students applying to graduate programs, which often scrutinize GPAs without always considering the context of grade inflation at a particular undergraduate institution. For instance, a student with a high GPA from a less rigorous or more grade-inflated undergraduate program might have an advantage over a peer from an elite university with a lower GPA due to stricter grading.
Introducing an artificial cap on the number of “A” grades raises questions about fairness. If students genuinely meet the established standards and demonstrate mastery of the material, should they be penalized simply because a predetermined quota for top grades has been reached? There’s a strong argument that individual course evaluations are crucial. Some subjects, like organic chemistry, have historically been challenging with high failure rates, and making them intentionally harder without regard to the inherent difficulty of the material seems counterproductive. In many cases, a significant portion of a student’s course load might benefit from increased rigor, rather than a manufactured scarcity of top marks.
The intention behind combating grade inflation is understandable, but coupling grades directly to the performance of other students can undermine the very purpose of grading, which is to measure individual achievement. When grades become a zero-sum game based on peer comparison, it can foster unhealthy competition and even lead to students actively hindering each other’s progress to boost their own relative standing, a dynamic sometimes observed in law school grading systems. The mechanics of such a system can be confusing: if a high percentage of students achieve perfect scores, but only a fraction can receive an “A,” how is that distinction made?
It’s important to remember that students attending elite institutions like Harvard are generally exceptional. However, a grading system that strictly enforces a rigid distribution, such as limiting “A”s to 20% of the class, could disadvantage even these bright students. A “C” or “D” at Harvard, under such a system, might represent a performance that would earn an “A” at a less selective university. This disparity could put Harvard students at a disadvantage when applying for graduate studies, even if they possess the necessary skills and knowledge. The idea of having both internal (peer-based) and external (absolute mastery-based) grades could offer a solution, providing students with feedback on their standing relative to their peers without negatively impacting their future academic prospects.
The lack of standardization in grading and GPAs across universities is a significant issue. Some institutions use simple A=4, B=3 scales, while others incorporate pluses and minuses, leading to GPA inflation. The core principle should be that if a student masters the material presented in a class, they should receive a top grade. If everyone achieves mastery, then everyone should receive an “A.” Conversely, if no one earns an “A,” it might indicate a problem with the course difficulty or the instructor’s ability to effectively convey the material. The notion of capping “A” grades based on a fixed percentage seems disconnected from actual academic performance.
The question of whether GPAs at Harvard truly matter, particularly for non-academic career paths, is also raised. While for highly specialized fields like theoretical physics or prestigious scholarships, grades might be scrutinized, for many other professions, technical interviews, practical experience, and discussions of prior work take precedence. The perception of Harvard’s grading system as having been a “joke” for some time suggests a history of grade inflation, perhaps influenced by a desire to appease donors or maintain a positive image for affluent students. The idea that failing a student at Harvard is difficult, especially if they have influential connections, further fuels this perception.
Some trace the roots of current educational challenges, including the need for grade inflation, back to initiatives like “No Child Left Behind,” suggesting a decline in academic rigor over time. This decline, coupled with broader societal trends, may have led to a situation where universities feel compelled to curve grades significantly to account for a perceived drop in student preparedness. The worry is that this might disproportionately affect certain student demographics, though the exact outcomes are complex.
The argument against strict “limits” on grades is that it can stifle genuine excellence. If a student masters material but is surpassed by a peer who masters it *slightly* better, and therefore misses out on an “A,” it doesn’t necessarily drive excellence and can contribute to an unhealthy academic environment. The core issue, for some, isn’t necessarily “too many A’s” but rather the perceived ease with which “A’s” can be obtained today compared to past expectations. The focus, therefore, should perhaps be on restoring the rigor and depth of the curriculum itself.
It’s worth noting that the new policy applies to undergraduates and does not extend to graduate programs like Harvard Law or the Business School, where grading structures can differ significantly. For instance, some graduate programs have adopted pass/fail systems. The absence of an “A+” grade at Harvard and the unlimited availability of “A-” grades also play a role in the nuances of this discussion, as an “A” remains the highest achievable grade.
The effectiveness of such a grading overhaul is debated, especially when considering the potential for extreme curves. One anecdote describes a statistics class where the highest grade achieved was a mere 22%, yet a student still managed to secure a “B” due to a substantial curve. This highlights the potential for grading systems to become detached from absolute performance. Furthermore, the practical impact of undergraduate grades on career prospects is often minimal, with employers typically focusing on other qualifications, unless one is pursuing further academic studies.
The disparity in academic expectations between different educational backgrounds is also a significant factor. Students from less-resourced high schools or districts may struggle to adapt to the rigorous demands of elite universities, which often require extensive reading, independent note-taking, and substantial written work – elements that some argue have diminished in prevalence in contemporary college courses. The observation of students entering university with a foundational knowledge gap, even while receiving high grades, points to a broader systemic issue in K-12 education that is now manifesting in higher education.
The pressure for perfect grades can also have severe consequences, leading to extreme stress and, tragically, even suicide attempts among some student populations. While the intent might be to differentiate truly exceptional students, the execution can create an unhealthy environment. The notion of an “Asian rating scale” where “A” is average and “B” is failure, though anecdotal, speaks to the intense academic pressure some students face. Conversely, some universities pride themselves on having more moderate average GPAs, with a smaller number of students achieving perfect scores, suggesting a different approach to academic evaluation.
The idea of a student receiving a “B” because their 98% score fell short of a peer’s 99%, due to a cap, embodies the contentious nature of relative grading. The crucial question becomes: who are the “peers” against whom performance is being measured? Is it a national cohort, similar institutions, or specifically within Harvard? Historically, “A” grades were reserved for exceptional performance, distinguishing candidates for top career paths or graduate programs. However, this system only functions effectively if employers and graduate admissions committees interpret lower GPAs from such institutions as indicative of strong performance, rather than simply below average. If Harvard stands alone in this endeavor, its students might face a uniquely stressful academic journey.
The difficulty of certain subjects, like organic chemistry, is often attributed to its status as a prerequisite for many pre-med programs, leading to a high number of students repeating the course until they pass. The requirement to demonstrate a certain level of understanding before being awarded a passing grade is a valid concern. However, there are also instances where professors might be compelled to inflate grades or offer extensive extra credit to meet institutional requirements, even when students demonstrate a lack of discipline or engagement with the material. This creates a disconnect between the stated rigor of a curriculum and the actual outcomes, as evidenced by students failing to grasp fundamental concepts despite receiving high marks. The question of why students believe they deserve to pass when they haven’t mastered the required material remains a significant challenge. Ultimately, the move to make earning “A”s more difficult at Harvard signals a broader conversation about academic standards, the purpose of grading, and the future of higher education.