Harvard Faculty Cut A Grades by Nearly 7 Percentage Points in Fall

Harvard faculty awarded significantly fewer A grades in the fall, cutting the share of top marks by nearly seven percentage points after the College urged instructors to combat grade inflation, according to a Monday afternoon email obtained by The Crimson.

The email, which was addressed to Faculty of Arts and Sciences instructors and sent by Dean of Undergraduate Education Amanda Claybaugh, reported that the share of flat As fell from 60.2 percent in the 2024-2025 academic year to 53.4 percent in the fall.

The decline follows a 25-page report Claybaugh released in October 2025 arguing that grade inflation had rendered the College’s grading system unable to “perform the key functions of grading” and encouraging stricter academic measures, including standardized grading across sections and in-person final exams.

In her Monday message, Claybaugh explicitly sought to reassure faculty concerned that harsher grading could hurt their teaching evaluations, called Q reports, and course enrollments — offering the clearest signal yet that the College is prepared to back instructors who tighten grading standards.

“I know this change wasn’t easy,” she wrote to faculty on Monday. “Some of you report that your Q scores went down, and you worry about the effect this might have on reviews or enrollments.”

“With respect to reviews, I can reassure you that we look at Q scores alongside difficulty scores and median grades—and that we recognize and appreciate your efforts to restore rigor,” Claybaugh added.

FAS spokesperson James M. Chisholm wrote in a statement that the College had not “expressely instructed” faculty to lower grades.

“Faculty have autonomy over grading for their respective courses,” he wrote.

Claybaugh wrote on Monday that a faculty committee charged with reviewing the College’s existing grading policies would release new proposals early in the spring semester. The FAS will then vote on whether to implement the proposals by the end of the semester, according to the email.

In the October report, Claybaugh wrote that the committee was already considering several measures to distinguish students’ performance in the classroom, such as awarding a limited number of A+ grades, including course median grades on transcripts, or creating a “variance-based grading system for internal use.”

Few details have emerged from the committee’s discussions since then, and it remains unclear which proposals will be put before the faculty.

Claybaugh also solicited students’ opinions on possible changes to grading policies in a separate email sent simultaneously Monday afternoon. She wrote that she would hold town halls to discuss the faculty committee’s proposal once it has been finalized.

“While the decision will ultimately be made by faculty, students have a crucial role to play,” she wrote. “In the fall, many of you met with me and offered thoughtful suggestions and useful warnings. I passed your thoughts along to the faculty committee, and they shaped the committee’s work.”

Though the October report documented a steady rise in grades over several decades, many undergraduates have expressed concern that efforts to rein in grade inflation could disadvantage them in graduate schools admissions and the job market.

—Staff writer Abigail S. Gerstein can be reached at abigail.gerstein@thecrimson.com and on Signal at abbysg.97. Follow her on X @abbysgerstein.

—Staff writer Amann S. Mahajan can be reached at amann.mahajan@thecrimson.com and on Signal at amannsm.38. Follow her on X @amannmahajan.