When everyone gets an A, does excellence still matter? Harvard moves to make grades mean something again

For decades, an “A” at Harvard carried an unspoken promise. It was meant to signal intellectual distinction, an outcome earned through exceptional work rather than quietly expected as a baseline. Somewhere along the way, that promise frayed. By last year, nearly two-thirds of all undergraduate letter grades at the world’s most famous university were A’s, a statistic that, while flattering on transcripts, raised uncomfortable questions about what excellence really meant inside Harvard’s classrooms. Now, the university may be preparing to push back.

A faculty committee has proposed a significant recalibration of undergraduate grading, one that would sharply limit the number of top grades awarded in each course. Under the plan, A’s would be capped at roughly 20 per cent of a class, with an additional allowance of four extra A’s per course, regardless of size. In a lecture of 100 students, no more than 24 would receive the highest grade. The proposal was first reported by The New York Times, which described it as an attempt to reverse decades of grade inflation and restore credibility to academic evaluation.

The shift would not technically impose a grading curve, A-minus grades and below would remain uncapped, as Harvard Magazine has noted—but its intent is unmistakable. The A, in the committee’s words, would once again represent “extraordinary distinction,” not quiet conformity to an inflated norm.

A culture where excellence became expected

Grade inflation at Harvard is not a recent phenomenon, nor is it unique. Across elite US universities, average GPAs have crept upward since the 1960s, driven by a mix of student expectations, faculty incentives, and institutional pressures. At Harvard, the trend has been particularly stark. What was once a rare marker of exceptional performance gradually became the modal outcome.

For employers and graduate admissions committees, this shift has hollowed out the signalling power of grades. When most students cluster at the top, transcripts struggle to differentiate between strong performance and truly outstanding work.

The concern is not merely reputational. Within the university, inflated grades have subtly reshaped classroom dynamics. When an A feels inevitable, intellectual risk-taking can decline, feedback loses its edge, and the incentive to push beyond competence toward excellence weakens.

More than grades: Rethinking merit itself

Perhaps the most consequential element of the proposal lies beyond letter grades. The committee has recommended that eligibility for internal honours and awards be determined not by GPA, but by a student’s percentile rank within a class. In other words, relative performance would matter more than absolute averages.

This change acknowledges a long-standing distortion: when grading scales drift upward, GPAs lose their ability to distinguish among students. Percentile ranking, while imperfect, restores a sense of context—who truly excelled within a given academic environment.

If approved, the reforms would take effect in the 2026–27 academic year, according to The Harvard Crimson, giving departments and instructors time to adjust their assessment practices.

Lessons from Princeton, and lingering fears

Harvard’s move does not come without precedent or warning. In the early 2000s, Princeton University imposed a strict cap on A grades, limiting them to 35 percent of coursework. The policy was eventually abandoned after sustained backlash from students and faculty, who argued it fuelled stress, undermined collaboration, and placed Princeton students at a disadvantage in competitive job and graduate school markets.

Those anxieties are already resurfacing in Cambridge. Critics fear that limiting A’s could intensify competition in an environment already known for high pressure. Others worry about unintended consequences: strategic course selection, grade anxiety, or a shift away from intellectually demanding classes perceived as “risky.”

Supporters counter that these fears underestimate students—and overestimate the fragility of Harvard’s academic ecosystem. They argue that a system in which excellence is clearly defined and credibly rewarded ultimately benefits students, even if it feels uncomfortable at first.

A test of institutional nerve

What makes this moment striking is not just the proposal itself, but Harvard’s willingness to confront a problem many universities quietly acknowledge and then avoid. Grade inflation has long been discussed in faculty lounges and policy papers but rarely addressed with such explicit limits.

If the faculty votes in favour this spring, Harvard will be making a statement that resonates far beyond its campus: that prestige alone cannot substitute for rigour, and that fairness sometimes requires saying no, even to an A.

Whether the reform succeeds will depend on execution, transparency, and the university’s ability to protect students from the worst excesses of hyper-competition. But the underlying question is unavoidable. In an era when credentials are plentiful and distinctions blur easily, can elite institutions afford grades that no longer mean what they once did?

Harvard seems poised to argue that they cannot.
Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!