Harvard University is currently evaluating a significant change to its grading policy, specifically a proposal to cap the number of A grades awarded in courses. This recommendation, put forward by a faculty subcommittee on grading, suggests that the top mark be reserved for a limited percentage of students, potentially affecting how academic achievement is recognized across the institution.
The proposed cap aims to redefine what an 'A' signifies, shifting its meaning from a measure of mastery to one of relative distinction. This move could introduce a new level of competition among students for the highest academic honors.
Key Takeaways
- Harvard proposes capping A grades to 20% of students per course.
- The policy aims to define 'A' as a relative measure of distinction, not just mastery.
- Critics argue it prioritizes competition over genuine academic achievement.
- The change could impact student GPAs and feedback accuracy.
- Debate focuses on whether grades should reflect mastery or relative standing.
Proposed Grade Cap and Its Implications
The faculty subcommittee on grading recently shared a set of policy recommendations, with the most notable being a cap on A grades. Under this new rule, an A would be awarded to a maximum of 20 percent of students in a given course, plus an additional four students. This means if the policy is implemented, students would be in direct competition for the highest marks.
This proposal marks a shift in the philosophy of grading at Harvard. The subcommittee views an A as an indicator of work demonstrating "full mastery of the subject" and "extraordinary distinction." They define distinction as a "relative measure." This contrasts with the idea that mastery of content and skills should be an absolute, not relative, achievement.
Grading Policy Fact
The proposed A grade cap would limit the top mark to up to 20 percent of enrollees in a course, plus four additional students. This effectively makes an A a relative measure of performance.
Impact on Student Achievement and Feedback
Many argue that tying an A to a relative measure rather than individual mastery could be detrimental. If a student demonstrates complete understanding of course material, their achievement should be recognized regardless of how many other students also achieve that level. The new system could potentially provide inaccurate feedback on student work, focusing on comparison rather than genuine academic success.
The purpose of grades, for many educators, is to communicate a student's level of understanding and progress. When grades become primarily a tool for differentiation or comparison among peers, they may lose their core pedagogical value. This could lead to a system where students receive lower GPAs despite demonstrating high levels of competence.
"The new proposal fits in with a continuous effort by the College to 're-center academics' in light of concerns that students do not sufficiently prioritize their coursework."
The Debate: Mastery Versus Distinction
The core of the debate lies in defining the purpose of an A grade. Should it reflect a student's absolute mastery of the subject matter, or should it signify a level of distinction relative to their peers? Critics of the proposed cap argue that mastery is not a relative concept; a student either understands the material or they do not, independent of other students' performance.
If Harvard aims to provide a top-tier education, the argument goes, it should expect a high percentage of its students to produce work worthy of the highest commendation. Limiting A grades to a fixed percentage might not accurately reflect the overall academic excellence of the student body.
Background on Grade Discussions
Discussions around grade inflation and academic rigor are not new at Harvard. The College has previously issued guidance to increase course rigor and tighten attendance requirements. This current proposal is part of a broader effort to 're-center academics' and ensure students prioritize their coursework.
Preprofessional Aims and Academic Culture
An October 2025 report by Dean of Undergraduate Education Amanda Claybaugh, cited in the proposal, highlights the importance of grades in communicating "areas of distinction to employers and admissions committees." This suggests that preprofessional considerations play a significant role in the push for grading reform.
However, some faculty members are concerned that this focus on external validation and comparison might overshadow pedagogical concerns. If the feedback model becomes primarily about constant comparison for awards or career prospects, students may miss out on valuable indicators of their true academic growth and areas for improvement.
- External Focus: Grades serving employers and admissions.
- Internal Focus: Grades for student learning and growth.
- Potential Conflict: Balancing these two objectives in grading policy.
Alternative Approaches to Academic Excellence
While the goal of ensuring rigorous academic standards is widely supported, the method for achieving it remains contentious. Some argue that rather than capping grades, the focus should be on raising the standard for mastery itself. This approach would involve increasing the difficulty of coursework while also providing substantial intellectual support to students.
There is precedent for such an approach. For example, professors teaching Ethics and Civics General Education courses have agreed upon common policies that emphasize complete attendance, rigorous assessment, thorough feedback, and extensive intellectual support. This allows for a higher standard of achievement without arbitrarily excluding most students from attaining top marks.
Previous Grade Adjustments
In a related move, Harvard faculty cut A grades by nearly 7 percentage points in Fall, indicating a trend towards stricter grading practices even before this new proposal.
The Role of Collaboration and Support
By increasing both the difficulty of and available support for coursework, students can be held to higher standards while also benefiting from collaboration with faculty and peers. This fosters an environment where achieving an A is challenging due to rigorous academic demands, rather than due to intense competition for a limited number of spots.
Ultimately, the debate at Harvard underscores a broader tension in higher education: how to accurately assess and reward student achievement while maintaining academic rigor and preparing students for future success. The outcome of this grading policy discussion could set a precedent for other institutions grappling with similar issues.
