Dissent: Slow and Steady Wins the A

It takes time to get something right. Pushing back the implementation of the proposed grading policy will only make it more effective.

In February, a faculty committee proposed capping the number of A grades to 20 percent plus four per class, in an effort to combat grade inflation. This week, the proposal was updated: introducing a “SAT+” grade for courses graded on the SAT/UNSAT scale and delaying the implementation of the policy until fall 2027.

The Editorial Board is correct to oppose the new addition of a SAT+ grade, but it naively opposes the year-long delay in implementation, arguing that the sooner the policy is implemented, the sooner we repair our academic culture.

Although quicker implementation may bring about a swifter culture shift, the Board overlooks the transition period necessary to implement such a drastic change — therefore, we dissent.

This one year delay will give faculty the bearings they need for a smoother transition. We do not support the grade cap on policy grounds, but know that its success requires a fundamental shift in curricula, assignments, and pedagogy to make sure that A grades are fairly distributed.

Still, many classes will not need to change much at all, as about 60 percent of classes already comply. Yet many other classes — those designated “gems” by students — will have to make drastic changes to reach a distribution where about 20 percent of students are meaningfully distinguishable in their achievement. We suspect many of these classes are concentrated in a few departments which will need to reevaluate their pedagogy to match the curve.

Even the most well-intentioned professors may struggle to take a class which previously gave, say, 50 percent A grades, down to 20 percent. A temporary delay allows them time to experiment with how they will adapt, without rigid constraints of requiring specific grades should they encounter difficulties.

For example, say a professor adjusts a final exam to make it harder, estimating that only 20 percent of students will score above a 93. Yet after the exam, it turned out 40 percent of students scored an A. During this transition year, they can award all of those students the A they deserve, and the next year readjust the exam to align to the 20 percent curve, armed with insight from their first attempt.

Harvard College Dean David J. Deming himself has stated this is the purpose of the delay: to provide faculty with time before the cap becomes mandatory to modify their courses. In fact, the administration will encourage faculty to attempt capping A’s next year.

The Editorial Board argues that the year delay will create disparities between classes — with some classes adopting harsh grading and others sticking to previous grading schemes. But, we believe this pressure from the administration will likely reduce such disparities. Regardless, courses are already unequal in difficulty — rather than strictly focus on rigor, we must nail this transition to the grade cap.

This extra year also allows for the administration to see early results and adjust policy accordingly. This step demonstrates the administration’s willingness to make amendments, and the extended timeline adds a vital cushion for tweaks to be considered.

The policy is not perfect — in fact, it’s far from it. But delaying its implementation will help iron out the kinks and ensure it is as fair as possible.

Taylor P. Beljon-Regen ’29, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Thayer Hall. Scarlett E. Eldaief ’28, an Associate Editorial editor, is a Social Studies concentrator in Cabot House. L.A. Karnes ’28, an Associate Editorial editor, is a double concentrator in the Comparative Study of Religion and Government in Mather House. Yassin T. Mohamedy ’29, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Hollis Hall. Kai I. Russell ’29, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Wigglesworth Hall. Salma O. Siddiqui ’28, an Associate Editorial editor, is a Social Studies concentrator in Pforzheimer House.

Dissenting Opinions: Occasionally, The Crimson Editorial Board is divided about the opinion we express in a staff editorial. In these cases, dissenting board members have the opportunity to express their opposition to staff opinion.