Distinction Shouldn’t Require a Comp

Do we really want undergraduate consulting clubs to be the arbiter of distinction at Harvard?

The current system isn’t too far off from such a hellscape. Grades at Harvard are now so inflated as to be virtually meaningless. That puts the pressure on extracurriculars to fulfill the role that grades no longer can: to somehow create distinguishing features among a sea of impeccable GPAs.

A system under which students have little choice but to pursue top positions at student-run extracurricular organizations in order to rise up from the milieu is not fair, disadvantaging the many students who would prefer to — and indeed do — excel at their academics, but are awarded the same inflated A as their less bookish peers.

The recent proposal from the faculty subcommittee on grading, intended to address grade inflation at Harvard, advocates for a “20%+4” cap on A grades. The proposal, to put things mildly, has not been entirely well received.

One common argument against deflation goes something like this: “Can one really be so surprised that as Harvard becomes more selective, the students who manage to get in are the ones who are best at getting As?”

Harvard’s acceptance rate may now lie at just 4.2 percent — down from 6.9 percent in 2010 — but Harvard students have not suddenly become much more deserving of As over the last fifteen years.

The notion that only 35 percent of student coursework in the 2012-13 academic year was deserving of an A, whereas some 66 percent of student coursework in the 2024-25 academic year was worthy of an A, is hubristic and absurd. Have students really become twice as good at getting As? Has the quantity of “distinctive” work truly almost doubled?

Such doubts are echoed in Dean of Undergraduate Education Amanda Claybaugh’s October report, which states that many faculty now feel compelled to award A grades for work that does not merit distinction. Students who excel at academics are simply not being rewarded with distinction for their excellence, as they were in the past.

In the absence of other easily decipherable methods of distinguishing themselves, students are left with extracurriculars. As another writer has noted, the admissions process demands that successful applicants engage in a wide variety of extracurriculars, and so it makes sense that students would continue to pursue these commitments in college.

Indeed, it’s good that Harvard has such a thriving extracurricular community; that’s part of what attracted many of us to study here. But our current system, where academic distinction is nearly impossible, has simply placed too much weight on their participation. Extracurriculars ought not to be the only path to distinction.

Many of the most prestigious College student organizations have extremely selective admissions processes, during which your merit is judged by other students. It appears that positions at these organizations are highly sought after, not only because they provide useful training and connections for the job market, but because they offer a means of achieving distinction.

That begs the question: Is this a fair way for a university to allocate distinction?

Academically-inclined students ought to be able to distinguish themselves without turning up in a suit to be interviewed by a third-year double concentrator in Economics and Government who — in his infinite wisdom — will decide whether you deserve to be admitted into the (no doubt distinguished) ranks of an undergraduate finance or consulting club.

Under a grade cap, maybe if you take on a prestigious, time consuming position at one of our illustrious careerist corporate feeders — finding distinction outside the classroom — you might not get As in all your classes, while students who don’t invest so heavily extracurriculars have the opportunity to be recognized for academic excellence with grades that actually mean something.

Andrew W. Shlomchik ’29, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Greenough Hall.