Harvard Faculty Back 20-Plus-Four Formula Over Square-Root Amendment in Poll on A-Grade Cap

A “solid majority” of Harvard faculty preferred a formula that would cap A grades at 20 percent of enrolled students plus four over an amended version that would have set the cap at 20 percent plus 0.6 times the square root of enrollment, Dean of Undergraduate Education Amanda Claybaugh announced in a Thursday email to faculty.

The result, drawn from an online poll that closed Wednesday, means the original 20-plus-four formula will appear on the May ballot when the Faculty of Arts and Sciences votes on the proposal to cap A grades. Under the rules governing FAS faculty meetings, only one version of the cap can be put to a vote.

Claybaugh wrote in a statement to The Crimson that the poll drew 205 responses, with 123 faculty backing the 20-plus-four formula and 82 backing the square-root amendment — a 60-40 split.

The amendment, drafted by Physics professor Matthew D. Schwartz, would have produced roughly the same overall share of A’s across the College but applied a tighter cap in smaller courses, lowering the maximum allowable share of A’s in classes of 12 or fewer from 70.8 percent to 51.1 percent. (Courses of that size currently award A’s to 77 percent of students, on average.)

Claybaugh wrote that the specific formula was secondary to the cap itself, which is subject to a mandated three-year review.

“The 20% is the part that really matters; the various ‘pluses’ are relevant only at the margins,” she wrote.

In her Thursday email, Claybaugh also addressed several concerns that faculty raised at the April faculty meeting, including the role of the Q guide, what would qualify as “extraordinary distinction” in introductory language courses, and the risk that students would enroll in courses below their placement level to protect their grades.

Claybaugh wrote that she planned to lead a “thorough review” of the Q guide — the online form students use to evaluate courses — over the next academic year, examining “everything from the questions we ask and how we ask them to the ways in which we use the data we gather.”

In her October 2025 report on grading, Claybaugh identified the pressure on instructors to earn high marks on student evaluations as one of the forces driving grade inflation at the College.

But Claybaugh cautioned that revising the Q guide alone would not resolve the College’s grading problems.

“A better course evaluation system won’t be enough to solve our problems with grading, since grading is shaped as much by the pressure of enrollments as it is by the pressure of the Q,” she wrote.

Claybaugh wrote that instructors of introductory language courses could reserve A grades for students who demonstrate equal proficiency across speaking, listening, reading, and writing, and who can apply previously-learned material in unfamiliar contexts.

She drew a parallel to introductory math and Expository Writing, where she said A grades are already reserved for students who synthesize across topics or grapple with complex arguments.

Claybaugh also addressed faculty concerns that the cap could push students to enroll in courses below their placement level. She wrote that under-placement was already occurring, citing a 2019 study that found eight to 10 percent of students were enrolled in math courses below the level they had placed into.

“There’s no reason to believe that math is an outlier in this respect or that the number of students under-placing has since decreased,” Claybaugh wrote.

She wrote that departments should be supported in enforcing placement results and anti-requisites, and that course offerings at varied levels — including special sections for heritage speakers — should continue. Ultimately, she argued, the pressure to under-enroll reflects the same dysfunctional grading culture the cap is meant to address.

“If we succeed in re-establishing an A- as a grade to be proud of, students should feel freer to take the courses that will actually challenge them,” Claybaugh wrote.

The proposal was first introduced in February. If passed, the cap would take effect in the 2027-28 academic year.

Faculty will vote on the grading proposal through an online ballot opening in May, following next week’s faculty meeting.

—Staff writer Sebastian B. Connolly can be reached at [email protected] or on Signal at sbc.23. Follow him on X @SebastianC4784.