Realistic Grades Offer a Critical Feedback Loop

Over the past year, campus-wide conversations about grading have reshaped my thinking about both the urgency of addressing grade inflation and the practical steps that could help.

Despite my earlier reluctance, I now feel genuinely optimistic about the recent proposal to cap A’s for each class.

From this new perspective, I write to encourage colleagues to consider how the recent proposal from the faculty subcommittee on grading could strengthen our shared work. I especially want to underscore my belief that this proposal will improve the experience of students coming from under‑resourced high schools, a consideration that is important to me.

I transitioned from a career as a research mathematician to one in education to help create empowering mathematical experiences for students. This shift was catalyzed by my experience volunteering at an under-resourced middle school in Salt Lake City while I was a graduate student.

There, I saw firsthand how dramatically the quality of math instruction can differ from classroom to classroom and school to school. Socioeconomic differences too often explain differences in instructional experiences and, thus, student learning outcomes. Years later, these observations continue to motivate my work coordinating the introductory math program at Harvard, where I know our students arrive with a similarly wide range of prior math experiences.

Our promising and talented students from across the nation and around the world enter our gates with incredible potential and a wide range of mathematical preparation. Thus, we are committed to creating pathways for all to access the highest levels of science and engineering, starting in any of our introductory courses.

Over the years I have taught and helped design Math M: Introduction to Functions and Calculus, the Emerging Scholars Program, and the Rising Scholars Program to support students from less-resourced schools.

Stepping back, I see that our programs’ innovations prioritize learning through two main commitments: setting high standards for an ambitious curricular agenda and providing consistent support, feedback, and resources to help students deepen their understanding and adapt their learning strategies as needed.

Grades are an essential part of this feedback. When grades fail to give students accurate information about their progress, we deprive them of the chance to adjust their strategies and reinvest in their learning.

In “Teach Students How to Learn,” Saundra Y. McGuire identifies feedback loops as crucial for changing students’ behavior. She has framed these essential pieces of information for learning as a matter of “metacognitive equity:” all students can develop strong learning strategies and reflect on their learning, but they need both the impetus to change and concrete guidance on how to learn more effectively.

All of this supports the idea that we must give informative grades that help students reflect on their learning and find more effective ways to engage.

At first, last fall, I was strongly opposed to the idea of capping A’s. I believed our task as faculty was simply to do better: set higher standards, provide robust learning opportunities, and design assessments that accurately report students’ standing.

Now, I see things differently. I am grateful to my colleagues from other disciplines for helping me see how grade inflation is a tragedy of the commons.

Faculty want students in their courses because they believe their disciplinary lens is essential for addressing the world’s challenges. As a mathematician, I certainly see mathematics this way.

But under our current system, when faculty grade more accurately, their enrollments decline: students shy away from courses where they might receive lower marks, and those faculty lose the very opportunity to shape students’ intellectual journey.

Introductory math is somewhat insulated from this dynamic. Our courses are required for many concentrations, and there are no substitutes. As a result, we have been able to return to pre-pandemic grading standards without any drop in enrollment.

All introductory math courses now include short “mini-exams” early in the semester that give students a chance to reflect on their learning strategies and the teaching team a chance to identify students who may benefit from additional support. Students in need of extra support are connected with an academic coach who focuses on both course content and their learning processes.

Data from our coaching program makes clear that students can meet our rigorous expectations when they engage productively with course resources.

In this way, high academic standards, when paired with strong supports, greatly improve student learning. I would welcome a policy that offers colleagues across the disciplines the same kind of privilege of rigor that the introductory math courses receive.

Capping A grades is only a first step. We must align this change with effective pedagogical practices, deepen our investment in the student experience, and recenter the classroom as a primary instrument of our academic mission. This policy change should support a broader cultural shift that will require significant time and energy from all of us.

As discourse on the proposal progresses, I hope we can center our conversations on how this policy can empower us, as faculty, to design learning experiences that truly support students and help them unlock their potential.

Brendan A. Kelly is the Director of Introductory Mathematics and a Senior Preceptor in Mathematics.