Harvard University’s grading system is once again in the spotlight, facing critical examination. A recent, comprehensive 25-page report from the Office of Undergraduate Education has starkly concluded that the system is failing its primary objective: effectively distinguishing between different levels of student performance. This report, exclusively obtained by The Harvard Crimson, reveals a concerning statistic: over 60% of all undergraduate grades are now ‘As’. This is a dramatic increase from just two decades ago, when ‘A’ grades constituted closer to a quarter of all marks. The report unequivocally states that this shift poses a significant threat to ‘the academic culture of the College’.
The Dilution of Distinction: When ‘A’ Becomes the Norm
Dean Amanda Claybaugh, the author of this impactful report and Harvard’s Dean of Undergraduate Education, asserts that this proliferation of top grades has unfortunately obscured the true meaning of academic accomplishment. She passionately advocates for reforms designed to ‘restore the integrity of grading’ and re-establish an academic environment defined by genuine rigor and clear distinction. As reported by The Harvard Crimson, faculty members are currently considering several remedies. One idea is to allow instructors to award a limited number of A+ grades, providing a more granular way to recognize truly exceptional performance. Another suggestion involves displaying each course’s median grade on student transcripts, offering a clearer context for individual achievements.
These proposed changes aren’t entirely new concepts. Claybaugh previously raised similar points in a 2023 report, though at that time, she cautiously referred to the phenomenon as ‘grade compression’ rather than explicitly ‘inflation.’ However, this most recent document is far more unequivocal, stating directly that Harvard’s grading has become ‘too compressed and too inflated,’ leading to noticeable inconsistencies in grading practices across various departments and individual instructors.
The Roots of Leniency: Why Grades Are Rising
The report delves deeper, exploring the underlying factors contributing to this trend. Claybaugh notes that faculty members are experiencing increased pressure to assign higher grades. A significant part of this pressure stems from Harvard’s course evaluation system, where instructors fear that issuing lower marks could result in unfavorable student reviews, potentially jeopardizing future teaching opportunities. Simultaneously, students have grown more assertive in disputing grades, with some even adopting a ‘litigious’ approach, as described by Claybaugh. The Harvard Crimson‘s interviews with faculty members suggest that, to manage student workloads and circumvent conflict, instructors are now frequently reducing assignment scope or substituting longer works like novels with shorter stories. Furthermore, the College’s well-intentioned initiatives to support students with varying levels of academic preparation have inadvertently fostered this leniency. Over the last decade, faculty have been urged to acknowledge differences in academic backgrounds, and many, uncertain how to effectively address these gaps, have opted for more lenient grading.
Effort vs. Outcomes: A Disconnect?
Intriguingly, the report refrains from directly correlating inflated grades with a decline in student effort. Based on the University’s ‘Q reports,’ which track self-reported study hours, Claybaugh discovered that current students dedicate roughly the same amount of time to their coursework as previous generations—averaging about six hours per week outside of class. However, faculty perceptions paint a slightly different picture. As reported by The Harvard Crimson, instructors teaching subjects heavy in reading content have found it necessary to reduce course materials to maintain student engagement. Claybaugh suggests that this adjustment may be partly due to evolving media consumption habits and a general shortening of attention spans among today’s undergraduates.
Rebuilding Trust and Rigor in Academia
Among the key recommendations presented in the report is a strong call for reintroducing in-person examinations, a practice Claybaugh deems ‘prudent in this age of generative artificial intelligence.’ She contends that traditional seated exams foster deeper engagement with course material and inherently lead to a more diverse range of student outcomes. Additional proposals include establishing greater consistency in grading across different sections of the same course and providing students with much clearer guidelines on what truly constitutes A-level work. The faculty committee is also investigating a variance-based grading model for internal application, although the report provides limited specifics on its potential implementation.
Redefining the Value of an ‘A’
While the discussion around grade inflation at Harvard is far from new, its enduring presence brings a timeless question into sharper focus: What true significance does an ‘A’ hold when it is awarded to nearly everyone? The available data indicates that a well-meaning academic culture, driven by empathy and a pursuit of equity, might inadvertently be eroding the very meritocracy it aims to support. For Dean Claybaugh, this isn’t merely a statistical anomaly but a profound philosophical challenge. She argues that grading must revert to its ‘primary functions’: to clearly denote excellence, to genuinely stimulate learning, and to safeguard the inherent value of academic distinction. If the insights and recommendations from Harvard’s latest review are effectively implemented, the letter ‘A’ could once again stand as a testament to genuine achievement, rather than a mere default.