Harvard University faculty have approved a policy to limit the number of full A grades awarded in undergraduate courses, aiming to address concerns about grade inflation and its impact on academic standards. The new guideline, announced Wednesday, establishes a "20 plus four" quota, where no more than about 20 percent of students in any course may receive full A’s, with an allowance of four additional A’s in small or advanced seminars to accommodate their collaborative nature.

The decision reflects long-standing debates within academia about the consequences of grade inflation, which faculty members argue diminishes incentives for genuine learning and makes it difficult to distinguish outstanding students from those who perform adequately. The issue is seen as detrimental both to individual students’ educational experiences and to the reputation of institutions, including Harvard, where grade point averages have risen to the point that very few students now graduate with the highest honors.

Two Harvard economics professors, Jason Furman and David Laibson, who teach the university’s large introductory economics course, shared that over seven years, nearly half of their students received full A’s. This percentage is notably lower than the average awarding of full A’s in their course, which stands at around 60 percent for the 2024-25 academic year. Furman and Laibson emphasized that although all top-performing students had mastered course material, not all met the level of “extraordinary distinction” traditionally required for a full A.

The faculty’s reluctance to impose stricter grading has often been attributed to collective-action challenges, where individual instructors, particularly junior faculty, fear that grading more rigorously could lead to poorer course evaluations, reduced enrollment, and limited career advancement prospects. This dynamic, they argue, has contributed to a persistent upward trend in grades despite widespread recognition of the problem.

Previous efforts to curb grade inflation at Harvard and other institutions have met limited success. Deans have urged faculty to reduce the number of top grades, but substantive change came only when the faculty collectively agreed on a binding limit. The "20 plus four" approach was selected for its clarity and feasibility, though it is acknowledged that it may penalize courses with a concentration of high-achieving students.

Similar initiatives at other universities have faced challenges in maintaining anti-inflation policies. For example, Princeton University’s cap on A grades lasted a decade, while Wellesley College’s grade deflation policy was in place for 15 years before being rescinded amid student and faculty opposition.

Furman and Laibson argue that sustainable improvement requires more than grade caps; it necessitates enhancing the quality and rigor of course offerings to justify higher academic standards. They also stress that tackling grade inflation should extend beyond Harvard, as many institutions compete by inflating grades, which collectively undermines the value of academic credentials.

The professors call on employers and admissions committees to support efforts toward meaningful grading standards by incentivizing schools that maintain rigorous policies. They suggest the creation of a nationwide system to monitor and compare grading practices, enhancing transparency and fairness. Absent this, they recommend demanding greater disclosure of grading statistics at the institutional level.

The faculty members warn that unchecked grade inflation reduces the informativeness of transcripts, causing external evaluators to rely on less substantive factors such as networking and extracurricular credentials. They conclude that while addressing grade inflation is challenging, failure to do so compromises both the educational mission and the reliability of academic assessments.