Harvard Grading Policy Proposal and Students’ Responses

Last Friday, on Jan. 6, Dean of Undergraduate Education Amanda Claybaugh shared an email with Harvard College students and faculty titled “Grading Policy Proposal.” In the email, she suggested a new grading policy that will be implemented with the College faculty’s approval.  The plan suggests a 20% cap on A-grades given, with the instructor’s discretion to add up to four additional students to receive As. Furthermore, the policy encourages shifting to the average percentile rank over GPA as an internal metric to compare students’ performance. 

According to the proposal, these recommendations hope to “address the external and internal challenges of grade compression.” In spite of their goal, a Harvard Undergraduate Association survey of over 800 students at the College found that nearly 85% of students opposed the new policy.

“In a community that already takes the top 2% of its applicants, excellence should be demonstrated through work, not by some predetermined number,” Camren Ware ’28 said.

The proposal came as a response to a memo Claybaugh released in October 2025, where she pointed out that As accounted for 60.2% of grades awarded in 2025, up from 40.3% in 2015 and 24% in 2005. In addition, the 2025 GPA cutoff for summa cum laude was 3.989, and 251 students finished their first year with a 4.0.

The memo addressed concerns over a lack of genuine motivation stipulated by the limited information conveyed by grades, and a difficulty in distinguishing between students. The proposition argued that these issues undermined the principal functions of grades. The memo further explained that academic culture is damaged by the pressure to achieve. Given the prevalence of As, Claybaugh’s proposal expresses that this discourages students from taking harder, more interesting courses. 

She continued, explaining that the current grading policy increases stress by pushing students to distinguish themselves through non-academic outlets, and diminishes the accomplishment of receiving an A. “We owe our students a functioning grading system. Specifically, we owe them grades that send clear signals, that give them a good sense of their strengths and weaknesses, and that communicate their areas of distinction to employers and admissions committees,” the report concluded.

Through the new proposal, the Subcommittee on Grading of the Undergraduate Educational Policy Committee made five recommendations:

1. A shift towards APR instead of GPA to compare student performance internally. 
2. The submission of course scores or rankings consistent with letter grades to calculate APR.
3. A 20% + 4 student limit on As assigned with this policy made known on transcripts.
4. The option for courses to opt out of this cap through a petition to the Office of Undergraduate Education before registration period. These courses will be graded on a SAT/UNSAT scale and will not be considered in internal or external metrics of student performance.
5. Two-course instructors may transfer their A-grade cap from one course to another if they receive approval from their department chairs before the opt-out deadline.

As the administration’s evaluation seems to rely on imperial assessment, some students believe that mental health should be an important consideration in revising the grading policy. 

According to Allison McGourty ’29, the 20% cap will increase competition among students, thereby worsening relationships and leading to greater social isolation. For example, many students look to Ivy League colleges Cornell and Princeton, whose students face mental health crises due to their intensive and competitive environment, McGourty explained. “By putting more restraints and pushing the finish line so much further, it’s going to impact mental health in horrible ways,” she continued.

Like Harvard, Princeton sought to change its grading policy to combat grade inflation. From 2004 to 2014, the University’s undergraduate faculty adopted a new set of guidelines in a two-thirds majority vote. They recommended, though did not strictly enforce, that A-range grades (A+, A, A-) be awarded to 35% of students in each class, down from 47% averaged across all departments between 2001 and 2004. 

In a 2011 article for Princeton Alumni Weekly, former President of Princeton University Shirley M. Tilghman explained that faculty specifically wanted to address the grade inflation that had affected departments unequally, with the percentage range of A-grades given by department spanning from 35% to 67%. By 2011, the average number of A-range grades dropped to 40%. In addition, GPA had not substantially changed, with the average GPA for the classes of 2008 and 2009 dropping from a 3.42 compared to a 3.45 for the classes of 2003 and 2004, she wrote. “The impact has not been to radically lower grades or GPAs; rather, grades are now fairly awarded throughout the University, and we know that at least some companies and professional schools appreciate the fact that an ‘A’ at Princeton is really an ‘A’.”

However, in 2014, President of Princeton University Christopher L. Eisgruber appointed a committee to investigate whether the policy met Princeton’s stated goals while minimizing adverse effects. In their report, the group identified the goal of standardizing grades across departments to be “not appropriate” since standards should be “course- and discipline-specific.” 

This same anxiety that manifested at Princeton is now at the forefront of many students’ minds. Similar to the Princeton investigation’s findings, Laura Cleves ’28 felt that the cap defeated the proposal’s purpose of decreasing academic pressure. “When I was thinking about what the policy outline and what the proposal were really saying, the first thing I felt was really confusion,” Cleves said. 

As a Social Studies concentrator, Cleves considered the specific impact the proposal would have on humanities students. “For a lot of the classes that my friends are in—a lot of classes that I’m in—grading-wise, it’s very open-ended, where 50% of your grade comes from participation, 50% comes from the final essays that [are] written at the end of the term. It really doesn’t make sense to me how those classes will be impacted by this new proposal.”

This class structure is common within the humanities and social sciences. Classes like Gov 1090 “Biotech Ethics,” taught by Professor Sergio Imparato, place emphasis on the leisure of learning rather than busy work, McGourty explained. This mindset allows students to fully engage with ethical arguments through exploration, testing out viewpoints instead of chasing the correct answer, she said. “It’s going to take away from some of the components that make that class such a distinct cult classic of Harvard.”

Princeton’s internal review of its grading policy also discovered that, according to students, the 35% cap increased their stress by promoting the notion of grades as “a zero-sum game.” Students noted how the cap created a potential “fatalism,” since their grades did not match the effort of their work. Finally, Princeton’s yield was likely decreased, though the numbers in their matriculation into top jobs and access to prestigious scholarships likely stayed consistent. In response, Princeton eventually revoked its policy changes.

Students fear that these same issues will arise with Harvard’s proposal. “It creates a curve, which is kind of what we wanted to avoid in the first place,” Cleves continued. “I think that the proposal, although well-intentioned, is more likely than not to fail in achieving its purported mission.”

By the nature of Harvard’s rigorous admissions process, the College admits students who have strong work ethics; a characteristic they are likely to carry into college, McGourty pointed out. 

“What did they expect? They admitted some of the hardest-working, intelligent students to this institution that prioritizes hard work, ethics, and intelligence, and then they’re surprised when we continue to bring that strong work ethic and intelligence to our classes, which [results] in many of us getting As,” she said.

Ware, a wide receiver on the Harvard men’s football team, questioned whether the proposal allowed for merit to be measured fairly. “As a student athlete, I am taught to compete against the standard, not the field. I think academics should treat [things] the same way,” Ware said.

Cleves reflected on conversations with friends about the grading policy proposal, noting their existing commitment to their classes in spite of the college administration’s concerns. “We’re here at Harvard. to learn. Our education should mean something.”

Claybaugh offered to host two town halls for faculty and students to express opinions on the proposed changes. The first meeting is Feb. 12, from 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. in Cambridge Queen’s Head.  The second meeting is Feb. 24 from 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. in the Thompson Room of the Barker Center.

Courtney Hines ’28 (courtneyhines@college.harvard.edu) and Julia Bouchut’29 (julia_bouchut@college.harvard.edu) are News Editors for the Independent.