When grades become noise, they stop meaning anything at all
Over 60% of Harvard undergrad grades were A's, prompting faculty to cap top grades at 20% per class plus four additional students to restore meaning to excellent performance. Princeton attempted similar limits in 2004 but abandoned them a decade later after criticism that restrictions harmed student competitiveness for jobs and graduate admissions.
- Over 60% of Harvard undergraduate grades were A's before the policy
- Starting fall 2027, A grades capped at 20% of students per class plus four additional students
- Princeton tried similar limits in 2004 but abandoned them after a decade
- Grade inflation increased 16% nationally at four-year universities between 1990 and 2020
- Policy will be reviewed after three years
Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences voted to cap A grades at 20% of students per class starting fall 2027, addressing grade inflation where over 60% of undergraduate grades were A's.
Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences voted this week to do something most universities have talked about but few have actually attempted: make an A grade mean something again. Starting in the fall of 2027, instructors teaching letter-graded courses at Harvard College will be permitted to award A's to no more than 20 percent of their students in any given class, plus four additional students. It is one of the most aggressive moves yet by a major research university to confront what has become an almost invisible crisis in American higher education—the steady, relentless erosion of grading standards.
The problem at Harvard had become impossible to ignore. More than 60 percent of all undergraduate grades awarded in recent years fell into the A category, according to university data cited by faculty members who championed the change. When the vast majority of students receive top marks, those marks stop functioning as a meaningful signal of exceptional work. They become noise. Professors at Harvard had begun to argue openly that their own grades no longer reliably distinguished between truly outstanding performance and merely competent work. The faculty voted on the measure earlier this month, and the decision arrived with a statement from the subcommittee that proposed it: "The faculty of Harvard voted for their grades to mean what they say they mean."
Harvard is not the first elite institution to grapple with this problem, though it may be the most prominent to act decisively. Princeton attempted something similar in 2004, capping A grades at 35 percent of those awarded. The policy lasted a decade before the university abandoned it, bowing to sustained criticism from students and families who argued that the restrictions put them at a disadvantage when competing for jobs and spots in graduate programs. That cautionary tale hangs over Harvard's new policy, a reminder that good intentions in the registrar's office can collide with the real anxieties of students trying to build their futures.
The problem extends far beyond Cambridge. Across the United States, grade point averages at four-year public universities and nonprofit institutions rose more than 16 percent between 1990 and 2020, according to the Department of Education. The inflation has been gradual enough that no single moment felt like a crisis, yet comprehensive enough that it has reshaped the entire landscape of undergraduate achievement. What once signified excellence now signals merely adequate performance.
Amanda Claybaugh, Harvard's dean of undergraduate education, called grade inflation a "complex and thorny issue"—a problem that many people have recognized but that no one has managed to solve. Her acknowledgment of the difficulty is telling. The new policy attempts to solve it by fiat, by simply restricting the number of A's that can be awarded. But it also includes a secondary measure that may prove more durable: the faculty approved a proposal to use average percentile rank instead of grade point average when comparing students for honors, awards, and recognition. This shifts the metric itself, making it harder for grade inflation to hide.
The cap applies only to A grades. Other letter grades, including A-minus, remain unrestricted. A separate proposal that would have allowed courses to opt out of the A-grade limit by using a satisfactory/unsatisfactory system with a new SAT+ designation for exceptional performance was rejected. The new policies will be reviewed after three years, a built-in moment of reckoning that acknowledges what Princeton learned: that grading policy, once implemented, can be difficult to defend if it produces unintended consequences.
The Faculty of Arts and Sciences is Harvard's largest school, comprising 40 academic departments and housing both Harvard College and all of the university's doctoral programs. The decision affects thousands of students and hundreds of faculty members. It is a bet that restoring meaning to grades matters more than protecting students from the competitive disadvantage that comes with receiving fewer A's than their peers at other institutions. Whether that bet pays off will become clear in the years ahead.
Citas Notables
The faculty of Harvard voted for their grades to mean what they say they mean— Harvard Faculty Subcommittee on grading policy
Grade inflation is a complex and thorny issue—a problem that many people have recognized, but that no one has resolved— Amanda Claybaugh, Dean of Undergraduate Education at Harvard
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did Harvard wait until now to act on something that's been a problem for decades?
Because the problem was gradual enough that it didn't feel urgent until it became undeniable. When 60 percent of your grades are A's, you reach a point where the signal breaks down completely. It's not that anyone woke up one morning and decided grades had become meaningless—it's that the faculty finally looked at the data and couldn't ignore it anymore.
Princeton tried this in 2004 and gave up. What makes Harvard think they'll succeed where Princeton failed?
That's the real question, isn't it. Harvard isn't claiming they'll succeed. They built in a three-year review specifically because they know this could backfire. But they're also trying something Princeton didn't—they're changing the metric itself, moving away from GPA toward percentile rank for honors and awards. That might be harder to game.
What happens to a student who gets an A-minus instead of an A? Does that hurt them?
That's where the policy gets complicated. An A-minus is unrestricted, so technically a professor could give out A-minuses to everyone. The policy assumes faculty won't do that, that they'll respect the spirit of the change. But it's a vulnerability.
Is this really about fairness, or is it about Harvard protecting its own brand?
It's both. If Harvard grades become inflated to the point where they're meaningless, then a Harvard diploma means less. But there's also a genuine pedagogical argument here—that grades should actually measure something. The faculty statement was clear: they want their grades to mean what they say they mean.
What about students who came to Harvard expecting the grading culture they found?
That's the human cost no one talks about. Students who chose Harvard partly because they knew they could get high grades are now facing a different bargain. That's why the policy doesn't take effect until 2027—it gives current students time to graduate under the old system.
Will other universities follow?
Some probably will. But they'll be watching Harvard closely. If the policy works and students still get into good graduate programs and land good jobs, it becomes a model. If it backfires and students feel penalized, universities will think twice.