After you sign our petition, please also support our Harvard students' petition against the proposed grading quota（at the end of our petition). Thank you.

 

–—-——————————————-

Below is the parents’ petition against the proposed cap on A grades:

To the Members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and the Undergraduate Educational Policy Committee,

We write with deep respect for Harvard’s academic mission and with grave concern regarding the recent proposal by the Subcommittee of the Undergraduate Educational Policy Committee to impose a 20 percent cap on A grades.

At its core, the proposal rests on an assumption that should trouble any institution confident in its own standards. The belief that the students Harvard has deliberately selected could not, insignificant numbers, earn the highest marks suggests an institutional doubt about the coherence and credibility of its own admissions judgment.

This University’s assertion that it admits extraordinary talent through extraordinary selectivity, and its subsequent assertion that the academic excellence of the same extraordinary talent is solely the result of grading inflation, invite skepticism rather than respect. One, the University’s admission standards must be flawed; it has admitted students who are incapable of earning As on their own merits, despite its previous and current assertions that it admits students who are “undeniably extraordinary.”1  Second, the University is questioning the intellectual caliber of these “undeniably extraordinary” students: they cannot all be receiving As because they are allintelligent; the instructors must have let them off the hook. Third, the University appears to be challenging academics’ professionalism; professors are awarding A's not because, after deliberation, they are given to qualified individuals, but because the professors practice grade inflation for unknown motives. Any of these three would render Harvard University the laughingstock of the world.

More concerning still is that this proposal would align Harvard with a grading regime that has already been tested, documented, and abandoned by a direct peer. 23.  On a comparable basis, Princeton University voted in 2004 to restrict A grades to 35 percent for undergraduate coursework. Nancy Weiss Malkiel, a former Princeton Dean, also argued that the high proportion of As at elite institutions had diluted their meaning.4 The outcome was catastrophic. Princeton University discontinued the “grading deflation” policy after ten years of implementation, acknowledging that it “added a significant amount of stress to the lives of students, causing them to feel as though they are competing for a limited resource of A grades.”5 In addition to the acknowledged “psychological factors and campus atmosphere,” Princeton also acknowledged that it had a detrimental impact on prospective applicants, stating that “there was a misperception among potential applicants to Princeton that students may not be properly rewarded for their work under the existing policy.”

I. Harvard Would Be Repeating a Policy Princeton Adopted in 2004 and Rejected in 2014

Princeton University implemented a formal grading policy in 2004 that advised restricting the percentage of A-range grades in undergraduate courses. A decade later, the Princeton Faculty voted to rescind the policy. Although Princeton University categorically denies that its grading deflation has any impact on the students, maintaining that its decision does not reflect “any measurable negative impact on Princeton students’ competitiveness for graduate school, professional schools, postgraduate fellowships or employment,” evidence included in the report compiled by the Ad Hoc Committee, which played a role in Princeton’s repealing its grading policy, suggests otherwise.6  An anonymous student narrates on page 12 of the Ad Hoc Committee Report, “I had to drop being Pre-Med here because the grades I was getting in the sciences were too low. I was getting low grades…because the curve was getting messed up by kids who were very advanced in chemistry and taking Intro to Chem and getting 100’s on the exams.”7 According to another individual, “My sister went to [a peer institution] and was pre- med there, and even though I have been consistently better than her grade wise growing up, she was able to receive A’s in all the science courses and attend [a top medical school].” And another by a student who was denied an internship opportunity, “many internships have 3.5 or 3.6 GPA cutoffs. They don’t care what school you go to or that Princeton has grade deflation. Your application isn’t considered if you don’t make the cutoff.”8  It is unsurprising that many concluded that Princeton repealed its formal grading policy not because of the expressed reasons of “psychological factors and campus atmosphere,” but because of a far more sinister reason— Princeton knew that its “grade deflation” policy has placed Princeton students at a dire disadvantage for graduate school admissions, fellowships, and employment, without clearevidence of improved learning outcomes.

We are confronted with an unequivocal empirical experiment with grave ramifications; it was neither theoretical nor ideological. Nevertheless, Harvard is currently considering the institutionalization of a more stringent version of a policy that a peer institution has determined to be actively detrimental to the mental well-being while compromising the prospects of students, not to mention the University’s public image (including its admission standards, the academic caliber of its students, and the professionalism of its professors), which could result in a diminished size of its future endowment and applicant pool.

II. Grade Deflation Penalizes Students in External Competition

Robert Schwager, along with numerous other economists, recognizes a direct correlation between grades and employability, citing evidence that employers utilize grades to infer abilities.9 The 2018 NACE Job Outlook Report, a formal employer survey published by the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE), indicates that employers screen candidates based on their GPA and have a median threshold of 3.0: “Almost 70 percent of respondents report that they will screen candidates by GPA. The average GPA cutoff used almost entirely by respondents stands at 3.0, and the median GPA across industries is 3.0.”10 One student is mechanically more likely to miss a 3.0 screen if they attend a stricter-grading school, even though two students are equally competent. In the same vein, hypothetically, the Harvard student would lose if a non-grade-deflated Yale student and a grade-deflated Harvard student compete for the same high-net-worth, lucrative position. Therefore, Harvard students are at a significant disadvantage unless all comparative institutions embrace and implement the grade deflation policy. Princeton itself acknowledges that prospective applicants were put off by the possibility of losing their competitive edge,11 prompting one to wonder whether Harvard is tentatively conducting a desirability test to determine whether its applicant pool will remain the same sizefollowing the implementation of the grade-deflating policy.

Evidence that Graduate Programs Screen by GPA Thresholds Rather Than Institutional Prestige Alone

Many graduate schools publish minimum standards, such as 3.0 on a 4.0 scale (as calculated by the degree-granting institution), regardless of the institution’s prestige. Once again, as with employability, cross-school grading differences translate directly into differential eligibility at the margin.

In 2023, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) published national admissions grid data showing acceptance rates by GPA and MCAT bands. From AAMC’s official admissions table, it is apparent that applicants with a GPA of 3.80–4.00 and an MCAT score of 514–517 have an acceptance rate above 80%. In contrast, applicants with a GPA of 3.40–3.59 and the same MCAT range have dramatically lower acceptance rates. Similarly, applicants with a GPA below 3.40 experience steep declines in acceptance rates, even with strong MCAT scores.12 The grid shows how much the acceptance likelihood changes across numerical GPA bands, not across institutional reputations.

Students who aspire to attend law school will also be disadvantaged by the “grade-deflation” policy, as will medical school aspirants. The current median GPA for the top law schools is 3.65, according to statistics.13 In addition, the median GPA of the nation’s top law institutions, including Harvard, Yale, and Stanford, ranges from 3.82 to 3.92, depending on the year.14 Therefore, what does this mean for Harvard College undergraduates? Ironically, they might be rejected by their desired law schools not because of the lack of their intelligence or diligence, but because of the Subcommittee’s misguided belief that their grades were inflated and that they could not have earned an A.

The Subcommittee cites “more than 60 percent of grades awarded to Harvard undergraduates are A’s” as the reason that the current grading system is lacking integrity,15 forgetting that the students Harvard admits are the crème de la crème of their schools, who have consistently received straight As in the most challenging classes of their schools. The Subcommittee raises  concerns regarding the 0.19 increase in GPA, asserting “[s]ince 2015, the proportion of students receiving A grades has risen by 20 percentage points. Where the Class of 2015 had a median grade point average of 3.64 at graduation, the Class of 2025 clocked in at 3.83.”16 The admission rate for Harvard College in 2015 was 6.2%, as reported by Harvard Crimson.17 Harvard College’s admission rate has declined to 4.2% in 2025, a significant decrease from the previous decade.18 The Subcommittee inexplicably opts to believe that the exceptional pool of youth could only be the result of grade inflation, rather than reaching the logical conclusion that the even more selective admitted students would have achieved higher grades, and congratulating itself on such an extraordinary pool of youth. A 0.19 increase in GPA over a decade is not substantial. Our respectful recommendation is to apply Occam’s Razor when uncertain, rather than selecting the most peculiar, circuitous explanation.

By their merits, our children have been admitted to Harvard, only to be now told they could notpossibly receive an A and must fight tooth and nail against their peers and classmates for A's. Additionally, failure will result in the loss of future admission to graduate institutions of their choice, including law schools and medical schools. When the cap-on-A grading system was implemented, Princeton was considered one of the most toxic institutions. This was a well- known fact. The Subcommittee states that “Harvard’s current grading system is ‘damaging the academic culture of the College.’” In our humble opinion, supported by indisputable precedents from Princeton, the College’s academic culture would truly be adversely affected if the excessive competitiveness that “grade deflation” fosters led to undesirable antagonism between classmates and friends.

We are compelled to question the validity of the Subcommittee’s other statements, such as “Nearly all Faculty expressed serious concern…They perceive there to be a misalignment  between the grades awarded and the quality of student work.” Are the Faculty members not the ones responsible for issuing the grades? Why would they issue the grades and then be concerned about the discrepancy between the standard of the work and the grades awarded?

We respectfully request that the University abandon a grading system that would result in Harvard students competing under a policy-imposed handicap, and that the University be the second known for its toxicity. If, as the Subcommittee has asserted, the “compressed” nature of the grading system (which we interpreted as indicating that there are an excessive number of A's) is the case, we respectfully request that the Faculty consider the creation of an additional category, “A+,” to achieve the “meaningful distinction” the Subcommittee is seeking.

III. Grade Deflation Disproportionately Harms Women, First-Generation, and Minority Students

Persistence is influenced by adverse grading climates, particularly for students who have been historically excluded from prominent academic environments, such as women, first-generation, and minority students, as decades of research have shown. Harvard’s advocacy for marginalized populations and first-generation college students would be at odds with grade deflation.

Research published in major educational outlets demonstrates that early course grades are a significant predictor of whether students continue in STEM majors and that first-generation students’ persistence gaps correlate with their grades. For example, “First-year STEM grades alone account for a substantial portion of the differences in the likelihoods of studying STEM… among students with similar preparation…first-generation students’ comparatively lower early STEM grades are a significant driver of persistence differences.” 19 In the same vein, Seymour and  Hewitt’s seminal study, Talking About Leaving, demonstrates that attrition from demanding disciplines is significantly predicted by early low grades, particularly  among women and underrepresented minority students.20 In addition, the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) has synthesized research suggesting that severe grading environments diminish the persistence of first-generation and low-income students, contradicting the University’s purported efforts to promote inclusivity and diversity.

In essence, grade deflation does not establish equal standards; rather, it merely increases the likelihood of exit for already marginalized groups. 21

IV. Grade Deflation Suppresses Academic Risk-Taking and Intellectual Exploration

Research suggests that students respond strategically to grading signals. Course and significant decisions are influenced by grades, which function as indicators of performance. This strategic behavior can diminish persistence in challenging subjects when lower grades are anticipated. In “The Impact of Relative Performance Information on Student Course Selection,” Carrell argues that students under a rigorous grading system engage in evasive behavior.22 Specifically, they opt for courses most likely to yield the highest possible grade, rather than those that challenge their intelligence, sharpen their intellect, or satisfy their intellectual curiosity.

Similarly, another authoritative finding published in the Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization supports Carrell’s discovery by noting that its regression-discontinuity design “find[s] that students just above a letter-grade cutoff in an introductory course are 3.6 percent more likely to major in the same field as that course.”23 This finding is consistent with the  anticipated outcome of enrolling in courses that did not pique his interest, provided they earned an A.

The University’s prestige derives from the idealized perception that it fosters intellectual growth. Nevertheless, grade deflation has the opposite effect. It will only serve to restrict education, as students will naturally resort to risk avoidance.

V. Grade Deflation Increases Stress Without Learning Gains

The psychological toll of grade deflation is extensively documented. Gao’s Frontiers in Psychology article, which summarizes “academic burnout,” is the most authoritative research to date: “Academic stress significantly positively predicted academic burnout.”24 “Emotional exhaustion and disengagement from academic tasks” are the defining characteristics of academic burnout.25 The National Library of Medicine has established a correlation between severe evaluative environments and “increased anxiety, burnout, and academic disengagement,”26 particularly in high-achieving populations, thereby encapsulating the University’s situation if the grade deflation policy were implemented.

The Subcommittee’s misguided belief that the grade deflation policy would “return the academic culture of the College to what it was in the recent past” is entirely at odds with the reality (as per Princeton precedent) and the majority of psychologists’ conviction that “academic stress significantly affects students’ well-being and academic performance,” and reports that stress is associated with anxiety and negative emotional outcomes.27 Is it worth compromising students’  mental well-being, even if the Subcommittee’s aspiration to restore the University to its recent past could be realized (assuming it was not merely wishful thinking about a rosy retrospective)?

Addressing the Case for Grade Deflation

Proponents contend that grade inflation undermines differentiation, effort, and signaling. These concerns are worth considering; however, they do not justify creating artificial scarcity.

There is no evidence that institutional caps improve learning outcomes. The quality of feedback, the design of the curriculum, and the integrity of the assessment all play a tremendous role in motivating students to achieve true academic excellence. Even a simpleton is familiar with the concept of positive reinforcement, yet the Subcommittee hopes that negative reinforcement, as exemplified by assigning a disheartening grade, will somehow produce the miraculous effect of enthusiastic learners that its counterpart does.

Intellectual expansion and a genuine desire for the pursuit of distinction cannot be achieved by suppressing excellence.

Most importantly, even opponents of grade inflation fail to demonstrate that deflation enhances long-term success. In reality, there is no evidence that grade deflation or grade rationing has any positive consequences.

What Elite Institutions Quietly Acknowledge

Princeton’s reversal remains the most definitive institutional verdict. The Faculty found that grading limits exacerbated the school’s toxicity and harmed students’ psychological well-being and external opportunities after ten years of experience. The policy was terminated due to the undeniable negative impact on the student body, the school’s reputation, and its capacity to attract exceptional applicants. Most importantly, they voted to terminate the policy because they could not identify any positive aspects that would offset the numerous negatives. Their decision was not a concession to ease, but rather an acknowledgment of evidence.

Harvard should not repeat an experiment that a peer institution has already run to a conclusion.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

We，undersigned，Close Friends and Family of the past and present members of Harvard college students

 

————————————-

Please support our own Harvard First Year student’s petition against the proposed grading policy below. 

https://c.org/Vtr9KB85G4

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

     1 Smith, Michael D., Rakesh Khurana, and William Fitzsimmons. Report of the Committee to Study Race-neutral Alternatives, Harvard University, April 2018. https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/diverse-education/files/report_of_the_committee_to_study_race-neutral_alternatives_final.pdf

     2 “Princeton Faculty Approves Changes to Grading Policy.” Princeton University, The Trustees of Princeton University, October 6, 2014, www.princeton.edu/news/2014/10/06/princeton-Faculty-approves-changes-grading-policy

     3 The Ad Hoc Committee’s Report recommending the reconsideration of the grading policy, The Ad HocCommittee. “Report from the Ad Hoc Committee to Review Policies.” Princeton University, August 5,2014. https://www.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/documents/2017/05/PU_Grading_Policy_Report_2014_Aug.pdf

    4 Marks, Stephen M. “Princeton Adopts Grading Limits.” News | The Harvard Crimson, April 28, 2004. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2004/4/28/princeton-adopts-grading-limits-by-a

    5 “Princeton Faculty Approves Changes to Grading Policy.” Princeton University, The Trustees of Princeton University, October 6, 2014, www.princeton.edu/news/2014/10/06/princeton-Faculty-approves-changes-grading-policy

    6 Ibid.

    7 The Ad Hoc Committee,“Report from the Ad Hoc Committee to Review Policies.” Princeton University, August  5,2014 https://www.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/documents/2017/05/PU_Grading_Policy_Report_2014_Aug.pdf

   8 Ibid.4

   9 Robert Schwager, “Grade Inflation, Social Background, and Labour Market Matching.” The University of Göttingen, November 7, 2011. https://www.unigoettingen.de/de/document/download/7f668592e5a369619a4f336cc0a6c53e.pdf/Schwager_grade_inflation_rev.pdf

  10 “Job Outlook for Class of 2023 – Career Hub | Duke University.” NACE, October 22, 2022. https://careerhub.students.duke.edu/blog/2022/10/26/job-outlook-for-class-of-2023/

  11 “Princeton Faculty Approves Changes to Grading Policy.” Princeton University, The Trustees of Princeton University, October 6, 2014, www.princeton.edu/news/2014/10/06/princeton-Faculty-approves-changes-grading-policy

   12 “Association of American Medical Colleges Parents’ Guide: Helping Your Student.” Association of American Medical Colleges, October 25, 2023. https://studentsresidents.aamc.org/media/6091/download

   13 Spivey Consulting Group, “Law School Data Analysis: 2025 ABA 509 Disclosures,” Spivey Consulting Group Blog, December 23, 2025, https://www.spiveyconsulting.com/blog-post/2025-aba-509-disclosures

   14 “Top 50 Law School Rankings & Comparisons by Velocity.” Top 50 Law School Rankings & Comparisons by Velocity. Accessed February 13, 2026. https://www.velocitylsat.com/resources/top-law-schools

   15 Samuel A. Church, “Harvard College’s Grading System Is ‘Failing,’ Report on Grade Inflation Says: News: The Harvard Crimson.” News | The Harvard Crimson, October 27, 2025  https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/10/27/grading-workload-report/

   16 Ibid.

   17 Justin C. Worland, “Harvard Accepts Record Low 6.2 Percent of Applicants to the Class of 2015: News: The Harvard Crimson.” News | The Harvard Crimson, March 31,2011. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/3/31/percent-class-students-year

   18 “Fact Book: College Admissions.” Office of Institutional Research & Analytics. Accessed February 12, 2026. https://oira.harvard.edu/factbook/fact-book-admissions

   19 Monique H. Harrison, “Offering Safe Passage: Grading Systems and Gendered Enrollment Patterns in Undergraduate Mathematics,” Social Forces (advance online publication, July 20, 2025), https://doi:10.1093/sf/soaf103

    20 Elaine Seymour and Nancy M. Hewitt, Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997).

    21 Loury Oseguera and Victor R. Denson,“The Influence of Institutional Retention Climates on Student Persistence,” Research in Higher Education 50, no. 6 (December 2009): 546–569, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-009-9134-y

   22 Scott E. Carrell, Mark Hoekstra, and James E. West, “The Impact of Relative Performance Information on Student Course Selection,” Journal of Human Resources 44, no. 4 (2009): 900, https://www.jstor.org/stable/40057397

    23 Hongyan Li, “Grades as Signals of Comparative Advantage: How Letter Grades Influence Course and Major Choice,” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization (2024), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167268124003317

     24 Xiang Gao et al., “Academic Stress and Academic Burnout in Adolescents,” Frontiers in Psychology 14 (2023): article 1133706, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1133706/full

     25 Ibid.

     26 Georgia Barbayannis, Mahindra Bandari, Xiang Zheng, Humberto Baquerizo, Keith W Pecor, and Xue Ming, “Academic Stress and Mental Well-Being in College Students: Correlations, Affected Groups, and Covid-19.”Frontiers in Psychology, May 23, 2022. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9169886

     27 Chongjin, Wang, Iftikhar Ahmed Charan, and Shazia Soomro, “Examining the Effects of Academic Stress, Self-Efficacy, Cognitive-Behavioral Outcomes, Psychological Distress, and Prosocial Behavior: A Moderated-Mediation Model.” Brain and Behavior, October 2025.  https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12551670