Harvard Faculty Implements Cap on A Grades

Recently, Harvard faculty decided to implement a limit on the number of full A grades awarded in courses, a topic discussed for decades but only now enacted. The decision follows a vote, with results announced on a Wednesday, setting the new rule as the ’20 plus four’ formula. This means approximately 20% of students in any given course can receive full A’s, plus an additional four students as an adjustment for smaller, advanced seminars that tend to be more collaborative.

The challenge now is ensuring this change enhances the quality of education, depending on more than just decisions made within the university.

Issues with Grade Inflation

Easy A grades pose multiple problems. They diminish the incentive for students to genuinely learn, resulting in graduates with limited knowledge and skills. Exceptional students struggle to differentiate themselves among peers. Counterintuitively, inflated grades might appear to reduce stress, yet they elevate it, as seen when merely two A-minuses could disqualify students from graduating summa cum laude at Harvard.

During the seven years of teaching the introductory economics class, EC 10, we awarded full A’s to over 4,000 students, accounting for over 49% of those taught. This is below the average seen in the 2024-2025 academic year, where 60% of instructors awarded full A’s. Although the top EC 10 students demonstrated mastery, not all met the ‘extraordinary distinction’ described in the student handbook for receiving a full A.

Collective Action and Consequences

While many educators desired stricter grading, concerns about disadvantaging students or discouraging them from the field of study existed. This scenario depicts a classic collective-action problem discussed in EC 10. Here, individuals agree that actions benefiting society are needed, yet they pursue personal interests. Similar patterns result in issues like depleted fisheries, overgrazed public land, and polluted rivers.

Junior faculty particularly faced pressures, fearing rigorous grading might result in worse evaluations, lower course enrollments, and reduced tenure opportunities. This fear perpetuated elevated and continually rising grades, marking a pattern of inflation. Appeals from various deans urging a reduction in A grades had little effect until the faculty collectively acted to bind themselves as a community.

Setting mechanisms that encourage or require actions for the common good presents a durable solution to such problems. This principle is also taught in EC 10.