What the History of “Gradeflation” Means for its Solution

Several commentators, including one writing recently in the 1636 Forum, urged Harvard to take the lead in abandoning grade inflation. However, such a recommendation fails to consider the broader community, academic, and institutional implications.

If anything, Princeton University’s attempt to curb grade inflation, henceforth “gradeflation,” should act as a lesson for Harvard that even an Ivy League institution with great standing, high credibility, and plentiful resources can’t just charge in headfirst. It is also unknown that if Harvard followed through, how much damage, and for how long it would need to endure to bring about a systemic change. Given the complexity of this challenge, it is unlikely that Harvard would succeed.

To achieve the best outcome, in such a situation resembling a coordination game, basic game-theoretic reasoning recommends that all institutions adopt the same strategy together, rather than test abandoning gradeflation at yet another “influential” institution alone. A second failure of this kind could ensure that this topic would never be reopened again. At a time when institutions of higher education are encouraged to communicate more with each other, this can be a great opportunity for them to collectively discuss “recentering academics,” as Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean Hopi E. Hoekstra puts it, and come up with a kind of academic Kyoto Protocol.

Why not abandon grades altogether? Prior to the globalization of education, learning was all about mastering one’s craft. Back then, education was not for everyone, but was mostly a privilege of the elite, who enjoyed tailored teaching. Grading came into the picture to solve a problem of scale and create a universal system for communicating students’ aptitude.

This currency became a tool of communication between teachers, parents, institutions, educational systems, employers, and the government. The system was so efficient that it factored into major decisions such as who receives a scholarship, a job, into a graduate or a fellowship program, etc. Grades were too integrated into the system to be abandoned, even though it was always debated whether they capture actual learning, test-taking skills, or something else.

What about getting rid of grade inflation? Universities in the U.S. began gradeflation, around the time of the Vietnam War, because students with good standing could avoid, or at least delay, being drafted into the military. However, when the war ended, gradeflation remained.

Indeed, to keep up, colleges around the world started adopting this practice. Circa the late 20th century, universities became even more market-oriented and tuition-driven, and saw students as akin to customers. Faculty, on the other hand, were obliged to participate and satisfy those customers by giving them higher grades. Collectively, with participation of administrators, faculty, and students, this cycle further reinforced the self-perpetuating gradeflation challenge that we are facing today.

Of course, one would expect grades to track merit. However, given the current gradeflation ceiling effect, “everyone gets an A,” there is little incentive for students to earn it. The consequences are numerous, from the difficulty in genuinely capturing achievement, to a decline in student motivation, to challenges communicating to students that the point is learning rather than achieving a perfect GPA. No wonder so many are going after extracurriculars to distinguish themselves.

There’s little incentive to get rid of gradeflation. The reputation of institutions that do so would likely suffer in comparison to those that retain it; faculty would risk students’ enrollment in their courses and thus job security and promotion; and students would be anxious about their grades, and competition for jobs or graduate school.

What can Harvard do now? One promising step is for it to adopt a skill-based credential system that can coexist in parallel with the traditional grading system — a modernized take on the original form of teaching. Such a system would be geared towards documenting students’ mastery of skills with micro-credentials. Each discipline, department, or course could develop its own “skill tree” customized based on its required core competencies. This comprehensive skill or competency-based assessment would give a more accurate picture of what the students can actually do for employers and graduate programs than a simple “A.”

Having such a system could allow students to focus on demonstrating tangible skills rather than chasing a perfect GPA. A strength-based program can communicate to employers what GPA no longer can: The student has the specific skills to do the job. Classrooms could also benefit from such implementation, as it could turn them from spaces of passive engagement to those of active learning.

Grades began as a practical measure of learning; ironically, now they seem to conceal it. If we go back to assessing students for what they can actually do instead of how well they score on exams, we can finally break the cycle that turned the means into an end. And in doing so, we could remind ourselves of a truth lost in the arithmetic of academia: That education is, at its best, an intellectual transformation, not a number.

Walid Yassin is an Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.