The Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard has approved a major change to undergraduate grading intended to reverse years of grade inflation. In a decisive faculty ballot, professors endorsed a policy that will cap straight A grades at 20 percent of enrollment in each course, with an added allowance of up to four A’s in smaller classes. The package also includes a companion rule to determine internal awards using average percentile rank rather than grade-point average, and the measures are set to take effect in fall 2027. These reforms aim to make an A once again a clear signal of exceptional achievement.
The vote outcomes revealed both faculty resolve and student unease. The A cap passed by a 458-to-201 margin (about 69.5% in favor), while the percentile-ranking change won 498 to 157. An amendment that would have allowed some courses to use a three-tier satisfactory system with a satisfactory-plus distinction in order to opt out of the cap was rejected (292 to 364). Polling and town-hall feedback showed widespread student opposition, with roughly 85 percent of respondents in a student survey disapproving of the proposal, underscoring the tension between collective academic governance and student concerns about fairness, competition, and faculty autonomy.
How the cap works and exceptions
The central mechanism is a 20 percent cap on straight A’s per undergraduate course. To prevent distortion in small classes, the rule includes a “20 percent plus four” buffer, meaning a seminar with 20 students could award up to eight A’s. The cap applies to A (solid A) grades but does not limit A-minus marks. Instructors retain responsibility for assessing student work, but their ability to give straight A’s will be constrained by the course-level ceiling. Courses that choose to be entirely opt-out will be graded as satisfactory or unsatisfactory and will not factor into the average percentile calculations used for internal honors.
Proponents framed the rule as a collective answer to a coordination problem: when most instructors independently give top marks, the credential loses meaning. Administrators cited that more than 60 percent of undergraduate grades in the 2026–25 academic year were A’s, which made it difficult to distinguish exceptional work from strong but routine performance. A prior voluntary effort reduced A shares by nearly seven percentage points in a subsequent semester, but faculty judged that voluntary steps were insufficient and favored a mandatory, uniform approach.
Votes, arguments, and campus reaction
Faculty debates were intense and protracted across department meetings and public forums. Supporters argued the cap would restore trust in Harvard grades and prevent students from shopping for easier courses to protect their GPAs. Opponents warned the policy could increase competition, discourage collaboration, and limit intellectual risk-taking. Some faculty also raised concerns about the administrative burden and potential effects on adjuncts and teaching staff. Dean of Undergraduate Education Amanda Claybaugh and the subcommittee authors argued that the reforms serve students by making honors and transcripts more meaningful to employers and graduate programs.
The decision also included a move away from GPA for internal awards: faculty approved using students’ average percentile rank to determine College honors and prizes, a safeguard intended to undercut incentives to avoid rigorous courses. The defeated opt-out proposal would have permitted a three-tier satisfactory grading option with a satisfactory-plus label; faculty rejected it, leaving the dual path of capped letter grades or straight satisfactory/unsatisfactory for opt-out courses. The voting totals—458–201 for the cap, 498–157 for percentile rankings, and 292–364 against the opt-out—show faculty were selective about which reforms they would embrace.
Context and broader implications
Grade inflation is a national issue, not confined to a single campus: long-term data show rising averages across secondary and higher education while standardized test performance has not risen at the same pace. At Harvard, faculty noted that the share of solid A’s rose dramatically over two decades—from about 24 percent in 2005 to roughly 60 percent by 2026 in some reports—illustrating the scale of compression at the top of the grading distribution. By restoring a scarcity to top marks, the faculty hope employers and graduate programs will once again read Harvard transcripts as clearer indicators of exceptional scholarship.
What comes next
The new rules take effect in fall 2027, and the Office of Undergraduate Education will review the policies after a trial period to report back to the faculty. Any future adjustments would require formal faculty legislative processes. Observers will be watching whether other selective colleges follow suit and how hiring committees and admissions offices respond. For students and instructors, the change promises a shift in incentives and classroom dynamics as Harvard seeks to recalibrate the meaning of an A in its undergraduate record.
