‘Inflation Devalues’: Faculty Welcome Cap on A Grades, With Reservations

Faculty voiced cautious support for a proposal that would cap undergraduate A grades at roughly 20 percent and introduce an internal ranking system, saying the policy would curb longstanding grade inflation at the College.

But the proposal has also prompted concerns among some professors, who warned that the cap could impose an unrealistic standard for distinction, threaten faculty autonomy, and foster unhealthy competition.

A faculty committee released the proposal last week as part of a broader effort to rein in grade inflation. The recommendations, which will come to a full faculty vote later this spring, would limit A grades to 20 percent per course, with flexibility for up to four additional As per class, and introduce a percentile-based ranking system to determine internal honors and awards.

In interviews and statements, more than a dozen faculty welcomed the attempt to impose a systematic check on grade inflation.

Although professors already dropped the share of A grades they awarded from 60.2 percent to 53.4 percent last fall, several said the new proposal would address a structure problem by shielding individual instructors from pressure, or backlash, for grading more stringently.

“Grading is a collective action problem. When some instructors raise their grades, that puts pressure on other instructors to raise their grades too, and the pressure for higher grades snowballs over time, making it hard for any course to hold the line,” Economics professor David I. Laibson ’88 wrote in a statement.

Some faculty initially worried that the cap could discourage students from enrolling in demanding courses.

Molecular and Cellular Biology professor Sean R. Eddy, who teaches an undergraduate course that averaged nearly 12 hours of work a week in 2024, said he feared the policy would deter students from taking classes like his.

After reviewing the committee’s report, however, Eddy said he was reassured by its framing of A grades as markers of “extraordinary distinction” rather than mastery alone.

“Now, if I adopt it, 20 percent of the grades are actually designed to mark distinction on top of full mastery, and if I incorporate that into my worldview, then the A-minus for me becomes the goal of MCB 112 because that’s the full mastery,” Eddy said.

Other professors cautioned that the proposal could pose a danger to faculty autonomy. Government professor Steven Levitsky said he disliked what he described as the inflexibility of the recommendations, arguing that they infringed on faculty authority in the classroom.

Still, he said, the proposal was preferable to the status quo.

“I would characterize it a bit like the way that Winston Churchill characterized democracy, which is that it’s the worst possible arrangement — except for all the others,” he said.

FAS spokesperson James M. Chisholm declined to elaborate on how the proposal would affect faculty autonomy, instead pointing to the grading report’s discussion of academic freedom.

“Our deliberations revealed that the critical question is not whether to prioritize the academic freedom of the faculty, but how best to balance competing academic freedoms,” the faculty committee wrote. “Under the current system, a great many faculty feel unfree. They feel unable to give grades that accurately reflect the quality of student’s work, denying students useful feedback and opportunities to distinguish themselves in the classroom.”

Some professors also raised concerns about how the cap would operate in classes with many exceptional students. Earth and Planetary Sciences professor Charles H. Langmuir ’72 said he saw the advantages of the proposal but argued that students should have an option to appeal grading decisions.

“What do you do if a group of students has the same score but only half of them can get A’s?” Langmuir wrote in a statement.

Others warned that the policy could intensify competition. Yiddish preceptor Sara M. Feldman called the proposal a “missed opportunity” to reform a grading system she said was already riddled with competition and cheating.

“Further bean-counting would foster an adversarial, instead of collaborative, relationship between classmates and between students and their instructors,” she wrote in a statement.

“It would reward for their mastery students who take courses where they already know the material and have less to master.”

In response to concerns about competition, Chisholm again pointed to the grading report itself.

“Competition is inevitable in any evaluative system where distinctions matter,” the faculty members wrote.

“By capping A’s, we increase confidence that grade distinctions reflect both degrees of mastery and distinction,” they added.

Psychology professor Steven A. Pinker dismissed claims that the proposal would increase competition, describing it instead as a return to earlier grading norms.

“This would simply be restoring the situation that was enforced 20 years ago,” he said. “I was here 20 years ago, and the students weren’t knifing each other in the back. ”

Still, some faculty members said they have yet to decide how they will vote.

“I realized a perfect solution probably doesn’t exist and we may have to begin somewhere,” Molecular and Cellular Biology professor Venkatesh N. Murthy wrote in a statement. “I am still debating this issue inside my head and figuring out where I land on the vote.”

English professor Martin Puchner said that the proposal could ultimately strengthen the value of a Harvard degree, despite short-term discomfort.

“The individual grade you get, yes, it matters, and I completely understand that students are worried about that,” he said. “But the bigger picture is that inflation devalues, and I think that for the sake of the long-term value of the degree, I think it’s really important to tackle it.”

—Staff writer Abigail S. Gerstein can be reached at [email protected] and on Signal at abbysg.97. Follow her on X @abbysgerstein.

—Staff writer Amann S. Mahajan can be reached at [email protected] and on Signal at amannsm.38. Follow her on X @amannmahajan.