Harvard students slammed a proposal to cap A grades and use raw percentage scores for internal awards, warning that the changes would intensify academic competition, misrepresent students’ mastery of course material, and harm postgraduate prospects.
If approved by faculty, the 19-page plan — released Friday by the Office of Undergraduate Education — would limit the number of A grades to 20 percent of each course, with room for up to four extra As per course. The proposal also included a new “average percentile rank” system, which uses students’ raw numeric scores to determine internal awards rather than grade point averages.
A faculty subcommittee argued that the recommendations “take critical steps towards the College’s goal to re-center academics, restoring confidence in the College’s grading system, and better aligning incentives with pedagogical goals.”
But in more than two dozen interviews with The Crimson, students overwhelmingly urged faculty to reject the proposal.
“You accept a bunch of top 3 percent students in the country and then get surprised that we’re getting all As,” Harlow W. Tong ’28 said. “I don’t understand the point of ranking against each other.”
Tong added that lowering average GPAs would reduce the value of a Harvard education.
“We pay to go here to get the product, which is to have a better signal of performance,” he said. “If you’re just lowering that for everyone, then you’re just lowering the value you provide as a business for the same cost, even while raising tuition year over year.”
Ricardo A. Fernandes Garcia ’27 expressed concerns that the proposal would foster competitive incentives, damaging Harvard’s collaborative academic culture.
“It just cuts collaboration,” he said. “It cuts intellectual conversations. It just encourages people to reserve their own knowledge for the sake of beating everybody in the classroom.”
“I just think there’s many other problems within the institution, and grade inflation should not be one of them that is the main focus,” he added.
Other students argued that an A cap would arbitrarily limit recognition for strong performance. Lily S. Madison ’29 said the policy would penalize students even when many demonstrate excellence.
“There’s no benefit that is derived from just giving fewer people the grades they deserve,” Madison said. “More spread out grades in a class is only harming the kids that are working hard.”
John M. Kipp ’28 questioned whether grading reforms alone could achieve the proposal’s stated goals.
“I would look for a broader cultural shift instead of a rigid program implemented from the top,” Kipp said.
Bhargavi A. Limbachiya ’29 predicted that the proposal would unduly increase students’ stress and anxiety levels.
“It misses the point of college, which is to network, go out there, have fun,” Limbachiya said. “It would create so much pressure where life wouldn’t be worth that much to live.”
Still, some students were hopeful that the new proposal could help address grade inflation on campus.
“Especially in the humanities, harsher grading and higher expectations for work are needed,” Helen H. Mancini ’29 said. “Maybe conversations will yield better strategies to approach this, but overall, I think we’re moving in the right direction as a school.”
“This is overall going to benefit our reputation as a university that teaches undergrads well, and not just a research university,” she added.
Others argued that short-term pain could yield long-term benefits. Christo P. Velikin ’29 said the changes could help counter public perceptions that Harvard lacks academic rigor.
“Maybe this is a good thing where Harvard has less of a reputation of being the school where everyone gets a 4.0 and so people realize that there’s more to this school than just grades,” he said.
Read more on The Harvard Crimson
