Letter Grades Cannot Be Our Only Marker of Distinction

Harvard’s current grading system is unsatisfactory. Maybe SAT+ will fix that.

A few weeks ago, the Subcommittee on Grading amended their proposal to curb the escalating grade inflation that has plagued the College in recent years. Amongst its novel features is the addition of a new grading distinction in the College’s current satisfactory/unsatisfactory system: the SAT+.

In their efforts to recenter academics, faculty have repeatedly emphasized that grades should be markers of distinction. But only the latest proposal fully accomplishes this goal. In the pursuit of emphasizing distinction in grading, adapting and modernizing the SAT/UNSAT system is a necessary step.

SAT/UNSAT grading primarily exists in more non-traditional and exploratory classroom environments, most notably in first-year seminars and junior and senior tutorials. These courses typically offer unconventional approaches to learning that warrant a unique grading system.

First-year seminars, for instance, provide freshmen the opportunity to explore niche topics in an intimate setting not replicated in standard lecture classes. Take my seminar, “Finding Connections: Perspectives on Psychological Development and Mental Illness,” in which students are largely responsible for guiding discussions and developing activities to grasp course concepts. In this case, the absence of letter grades removes pressure and allows students to experiment in creating their own pedagogy as a means of learning. An unorthodox class demands an unorthodox grading system.

Critics of SAT+, like the Crimson Editorial Board, argue that the rich learning experience of classes graded SAT/UNSAT should be a reward in and of itself. But the integration of SAT+ will not detract from the value of these courses.

SAT+ adds the level of distinction missing under the current non-letter-graded system. It distinguishes a student meeting the bare minimum from one who excels. The additional plus identifies students who demonstrate exceptional performance — and arguably, who deserve some recognition. It extends the same standard the College uses for an A to the rest of the grading system.

And just like an A, a SAT+ will not make or break you. Under the recent proposal, internal rankings for honors and prizes are not affected by the difference between a SAT and SAT+. Moreover, faculty are not allowed to treat the two grades any differently in their policies. The grade serves as a marker of excellence on a student’s transcript, not a way to penalize them. It puts some students on a pedestal while others aren’t, but isn’t that the very definition of distinction the College is pushing for?

At the end of the day, the College is sticking with its mission to recenter academics regardless of whether students agree with it or not. For this idea to be fully adopted, its implementation must span all types of courses — including SAT/UNSAT.

The SAT+ will not erase the useful idiosyncrasies in these types of classes. Besides marking distinction, the only difference under the proposal is a few extra plus signs on transcripts. Whether the class is letter graded or not, there will inevitably be different levels of engagement from students, and lauding higher achievement will not disrupt the pedagogy of the class.

Under the proposal, first-year seminars like mine will continue to present freshmen with an opportunity to engage in coursework outside the bounds of a standard classroom. SAT+ will not change that. What it will do is incentivize students to display exemplary performance beyond what is demanded for a satisfactory grade.

The addition of this new grade is congruent with everything the College has been standing for, so it should be no surprise that this framework is being introduced to non-letter-graded courses.

If grades are meant to signify distinction, SAT+ should earn the stamp of approval.

Olivia R. Nelson ’29, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Hurlbut Hall.