Faculty Postpone Grading Proposal Vote to May to Allow for Extended Discussion

Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences on Tuesday postponed a vote on a contentious proposal to cap A grades, pushing the decision to at least May to allow for extended discussion.

At the meeting, faculty overwhelmingly approved a series of amendments and agreed to split the final vote into three separate components: a roughly 20 percent cap on A grades, a percentile-based ranking system for internal awards, and an satisfactory-plus, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory grading basis for courses that opt out of the cap.

The decision to table the much-anticipated vote, initially scheduled to take place via email after Tuesday’s faculty meeting, came after faculty comments on the amended proposal ran over time. FAS Dean Hopi E. Hoekstra announced that the vote would be opened after remaining faculty comments were addressed during May’s faculty meeting — the last of the academic year.

By voting for the amendments, faculty agreed that the final proposal would — if accepted — be officially implemented in fall 2027, pushing back the original timeline by a year. (Harvard College Dean David J. Deming said at a forum last week that even with an extended timeline, faculty would be encouraged to implement caps starting this fall.)

More than 200 faculty members attended Tuesday’s meeting, which capped nearly two months of debate over the proposal, an ambitious attempt to curb grade inflation at the College.

Faculty also backed changes clarifying how the cap would be applied during the Tuesday meeting. All undergraduates enrolled in a course — not just those taking it for a letter grade — would count toward the 20 percent limit. Courses that opt out would use a three-tier system of satisfactory-plus, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory grades, replacing an earlier proposal for a simpler SAT/UNSAT scale.

By separating the vote into distinct parts, faculty effectively dismantled a proposal that was pitched in February to work as an integrated system.

But Government professor Alisha C. Holland, who helped draft the proposal, stressed that the cap on A grades was the proposal’s core tenet — with the percentile ranking merely a complementary measure. Now, faculty will have the choice to adopt each of the key elements of the proposal — or reject them entirely.

At the meeting, faculty raised a wide range of concerns, including how the cap would affect language courses, the statistical rationale behind the quota, and the usefulness of introducing a satisfactory-plus designation.

Since the proposal’s release in February, it has drawn widespread criticism from students. A Harvard Undergraduate Association survey released in February, revealed that almost 85 percent of respondents opposed the A cap.

Still, Deming said that in conversations with students in recent months, many acknowledged the underlying concern about grade inflation even while expressing reservations about the proposal itself.

It remains unclear how faculty will ultimately vote. While some see the proposal as a necessary reform, others have warned it could undermine academic freedom and student motivation.

Ahead of Tuesday’s meeting, Dean of Undergraduate Education Amanda Claybaugh asked departments’ directors of undergraduate studies to circulate a Frequently Asked Questions document about the proposal.

“I understand that not all colleagues share my views! Some have objections to this proposal, which I respect,” Claybaugh wrote in an email to DUSes, which was obtained by The Crimson.

“What matters most to me is that the vote on this proposal be an informed vote. This is, as one colleague recently observed, the most consequential matter to come before us in quite some time, and I hope our vote reflects our most considered judgment,” she added.

Correction: April 7, 2026

A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Claybaugh served on the subcommittee that drafted the proposal. In fact, she does not serve on the subcommittee.

—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.