Harvard College faculty members discussed on Mar. 26 a new proposal aimed at addressing grade inflation, which has been the subject of extensive debate on campus and in higher education circles since its release in February. The plan, developed after five years of study by the Undergraduate Education Policy Committee’s Subcommittee on Grading, is scheduled for a faculty vote in April and could take effect in the coming academic year if approved.
The proposed policy seeks to limit flat-A grades to 20 percent plus four students per course, while removing any cap on A-minuses. This approach is intended to restore integrity to Harvard’s grading system and allow students greater freedom to pursue academic curiosity rather than focus solely on maintaining perfect grade point averages.
Amanda Claybaugh, dean of undergraduate education, wrote that current grading practices are “not only undermining the functions of grading; they are also damaging the academic culture of the College.” She said coordinated action “can restore the integrity of our grading and return the academic culture of the College to what it was in the recent past.”
Faculty members involved with crafting this proposal emphasized both student well-being and fairness. Joshua Greene said reactions have ranged widely but that more people support it after understanding its goals: “OK, I get it. This makes sense.” Alisha Holland noted concerns about mental health but explained that existing pressures already cause high levels of competition: “A big thrust of this reform is to normalize getting an A-minus or B-plus.” Stuart Shieber acknowledged his own role as a participant in grade inflation due to collective expectations: “We have reduced freedom to grade… We’re at the whim of a classic collective-action problem.” Paulina Alberto described her experience transitioning from broader grading distributions at other institutions and said, “We didn’t set out to impose a grade cap, but we concluded after considering many factors that this was the best way — perhaps the only way — to make this work.”
The plan would shift internal evaluations for honors from GPA-based criteria toward an average percentile rank (APR), aiming for more meaningful comparisons among students without affecting transcripts directly. Faculty say these changes should bring grades closer to historical norms—by 2025 over 60 percent were flat A’s compared with one-third in 2010—and address issues such as increased stress over maintaining perfect records or competition for honors.
Reflecting on similar efforts elsewhere, Shieber pointed out differences between Harvard’s proposal and Princeton’s previous policies by emphasizing Harvard’s targeted restriction just on A grades rather than all A-range marks across departments.
Looking ahead, Greene suggested that implementing these reforms demonstrates thoughtful governance during challenging times: “To govern with integrity is to acknowledge that we have real challenges and… find the best solutions.”
