In a significant move, Harvard faculty voted to implement a cap on the number of full A’s awarded in courses. The decision reflects years of discussion, now taking shape with the ’20 plus four’ formula. This rule allows only 20 percent of students in a course to receive A’s, with an additional allowance of four extra A’s for smaller, advanced seminars.
The major challenge now is ensuring that this change improves educational outcomes. Easy A’s are problematic as they reduce learning incentives and blur the lines between exceptional and merely successful students. While high grades may seem to lessen pressure, they can exacerbate it. For instance, two A-minuses disqualified students from summa cum laude honors recently due to GPA inflation.
Over the past seven years, teaching the introductory economics class, EC 10, we’ve awarded full A’s to more than 4,000 students, which is around 49 percent of enrollees. This is below the university average of 60 percent for the 2024-2025 academic year. Yet, not all high-performing students achieved the ‘extraordinary distinction’ a full A signifies.
The urge to grade rigorously conflicted with concerns about disadvantaging students or deterring them from subjects. This mirrors a collective-action problem we discuss in EC 10, where individual interests conflict with societal benefits. Similar patterns are seen in examples like overfished waters and polluted rivers.
Junior faculty particularly feel pressured, fearing that honest grading might lead to poor evaluations, reduced enrollments, and fewer tenure prospects. This fear has bred grade inflation. Despite appeals from various deans to curb the widespread A’s, substantial change only occurred when faculty collectively committed to community standards. Aligning individual incentives with the common good offers a sustainable solution, a principle emphasized in EC 10 lectures.