Harvard College Delays Proposed A-Grade Cap to 2027, Adds ‘SAT+’ Designation

Dean of Undergraduate Education Amanda Claybaugh announced Monday that Harvard College will delay implementation of its controversial grading reform to fall 2027 and introduce a new “SAT+” grade, marking the most significant revisions yet to a proposal aimed at curbing grade inflation.

The updated Subcommittee on Grading plan — which will be put to a Faculty of Arts and Sciences vote at its meeting next Tuesday — comes after months of debate among faculty, students, and administrators since the proposal was first introduced in February.

The original version, centered on a strict cap on A grades, drew sharp backlash from students and cautious concern from faculty. If approved, the policy would be reviewed at the end of its third year.

The revised proposal makes three major changes: it pushes back the implementation timeline by a year, modifies how the cap on A grades is calculated, and adds a new grade within the SAT/UNSAT system.

Under the new timeline, the policy would take effect in fall 2027 rather than the originally proposed 2026-27 academic year. The plan also calls for a committee, appointed by Harvard College Dean David J. Deming, to oversee the rollout.

The proposal has become a flashpoint on campus since its release, with students and faculty raising concerns about the A-grade cap and the speed, and breadth, of the proposed reforms.

Student opposition to the original February plan was swift and widespread. In a Harvard Undergraduate Association survey, nearly 85 percent of respondents said they would “definitely not” support the policy, and the HUA’s leadership urged students to lobby faculty ahead of the vote.

Faculty reaction, by contrast, has been more mixed. Some instructors have voiced cautious support, arguing the cap would address a collective action problem that has made it difficult for individual instructors to grade stringently. Others, however, warned it could impose unrealistic standards in small, advanced courses and threaten faculty autonomy.

The revised proposal introduces a new “SAT+” designation, aimed at addressing concerns that the original plan failed to recognize exceptional performance in courses graded on a pass/fail basis.

Under the February proposal, instructors who opted out of the A-grade cap were required to use a satisfactory/unsatisfactory system, a structure that some students and faculty said flattened meaningful distinctions in student work.

The “SAT+” grade would allow instructors to distinguish students whose work exceeds the baseline for a SAT. It would be awarded at the instructor’s discretion, though the proposal notes it is “generally expected” to be used sparingly.

At the same time, the proposal places limits on how the new grade can be used. Internal rankings for honors and prizes will not distinguish between SAT and SAT+, and concentrations will be barred from requiring a SAT+ for courses to count toward requirements. Faculty policies are also prohibited from treating the two grades differently beyond their appearance on transcripts.

The proposal also revises how the 20 percent cap on A grades — plus four additional A’s per course — is calculated. The cap would now apply to the total number of Harvard undergraduates enrolled in a course, including those taking it on a pass/fail basis, rather than only to students receiving letter grades.

According to the revisions document, the change was made in part because instructors cannot reliably predict how many students will opt for letter grading early in the semester. Modeling suggested the shift would have only a minimal effect on the cap in practice.

The updated proposal also broadens the scope of the policy, clarifying that the cap applies to all letter-graded Faculty of Arts and Sciences courses with undergraduate enrollment, rather than only “Harvard College courses” as previously stated.

That divide has led to broader concerns among Harvard affiliates about how the policy might influence student behavior in the classroom. At a February event, Harvard President Alan M. Garber defended the proposal’s long-term goals but cautioned that strict grading caps could discourage students from enrolling in more demanding courses.

—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.