‘OK, I get it. This makes sense.’

The proposal to rein in inflated grading at Harvard College has dominated campus discussion and ricocheted around the Ivy League and across higher education since its February 6 release. The plan, the result of five years of discussion and study, spanning multiple reports, considerable faculty input, and careful review of alternatives, culminating in more than a year of concerted work by the Undergraduate Education Policy Committee’s Subcommittee on Grading, seeks to address the challenges outlined in Amanda Claybaugh’s “Re-Centering Academics at Harvard College” report.

Claybaugh, dean of undergraduate education, warned that current grading practices were not only undermining the functions of grading but were also damaging the academic culture of the College. She emphasized that exhortations alone would not be enough, nor is there a single policy fix. However, coordinated action — individually, collectively, and institutionally — can restore the integrity of the grading system.

The proposed plan focuses on reining in A’s, restoring the integrity of the system, and freeing students to follow their curiosity. The faculty of FAS will vote on the plan in April, and if approved, the initiative would take effect for the coming academic year, with the before-and-after line clearly noted on transcripts.

The policy would limit flat-A grades to 20 percent plus four of the enrolled students in a course. This means up to six A’s in a 10-person seminar or 34 in a 150-student lecture, with no cap on A-minuses. By setting a clear limit on the number of A’s, the plan aims to prevent grade inflation and ensure that grades more accurately reflect a student’s performance.

At the same time, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences would adopt an internal measure for evaluating students for Harvard honors and prizes. This shift would move away from GPA to an average percentile rank (APR) that would not be included on transcripts but would provide more meaningful data about relative performance. The APR system would better capture the range of student abilities and achievements, offering a more nuanced evaluation of academic standing.

The calibrated combination of limiting A’s and introducing the APR system seeks to address the systemic issues plaguing Harvard’s grading practices. By reining in inflated grades and adopting a more accurate evaluation metric, the plan aims to restore the integrity of the academic system while allowing students the freedom to pursue their passions without the pressure of overly generous grading.

The proposal has sparked widespread debate across the campus and beyond, with some faculty members expressing concerns about the potential impact on student morale and motivation. However, proponents argue that the changes are necessary to maintain the rigor and prestige of Harvard’s academic offerings.

As the faculty prepares to vote on the plan in April, the stakes are high. The outcome will not only shape the grading practices at Harvard but could also influence the approach to grade inflation across other prestigious institutions. The ultimate goal is to create a more equitable and meaningful academic environment that fosters genuine learning and intellectual growth.

In the end, the success of the plan will depend on the commitment of faculty, staff, and students to work together and adapt to the changes. By reining in A’s, restoring the integrity of the system, and freeing students to follow their curiosity, Harvard hopes to redefine the expectations and practices that have long dominated its academic culture. The challenge ahead is to balance the pursuit of academic excellence with the need for a fair and supportive learning environment that nurtures curiosity and critical thinking.