Harvard capping high marks; should we?

[poetryandwine]

Harvard University academics have voted to cap the percentage of ‘A’ grades awarded in undergraduate course modules to 20% of enrolled students, plus or minus four students. There is no cap on other grades, including the grade A- ( ‘A minus’). This will be from Autumn 2027. The change will be assessed after three years.

About 70% voted in favour of the cap.

The grade of A at Harvard is supposed to be reserved for work of exceptional merit. The last time the percentage of A grades was as low as 20% was 2005. In 2024-25, about 60% of awarded module grades were A’s.

Students are not happy. There is a fundamental difference between what students want from assessment and what academics and employers want from assessment.

UK First Class degree awards have undergone a similar but less dramatic change over the last few decades, especially since tuition fees increased. We know employers don’t find undergraduate marks and degree classifications as useful as they used to, and why they now set such high bars.

Do MumsNetters think that capping the percentage of First Class Marks in each undergraduate course module, which can easily be achieved by rescaling marks similarly to what we already do, would be a good idea, or not?

I am in a Maths intensive STEM field. We are the tier just below COWI.

A little while back I arranged a transfer for an Oxbridge student in complex circs who had barely failed Y1 and wanted a fresh start. After discussions with their (very supportive) personal tutor and an analysis of their Y1 exam papers, we agreed on direct entry to Y2. They ended up doing very well.

The exam papers were a revelation to me. The material examined in Y1 was formally only a bit more than what we cover; the style of the papers was much more sophisticated. I think only our strongest students would have performed acceptably. Many would not have known how to tackle the problems.

This is the only COWI institution I can speak directly for.

@poetryandwine, if you are not already aware, it is worth looking the Institute of Student Employers website. Most research can only be accessed by members (your university may be one) but some articles are published on the public pages, including the one below that tracks employer attitudes towards broad themes such as candidate quality and work readiness and narrower aspects such as perfectionism and burnout - all of which tie into the issues you raise on this thread.

ise.org.uk/knowledge/insights/565/5_top_trends_from_ises_development_survey_2026/

@poetryandwine
In order for top universities to cap the number of firsts, employers need to say that they value degrees from top universities more and get rid of university blind recruitment. Otherwise, as @Owlbookend said some highly qualified applicants will just go to slightly less selective universities to get a 1st and have an easier time.

Thanks very much. This looks interesting.

@fairyring25 I dont think most students will or do choose less selective universities than they are qualified for in order to get a perceived 'easy' first. As i outlined above raw degree classification plays a very minor role in recruitment even in institution blind recruitment. Multiple factors impact student choice that include course offerings, location and cost implications.

Agree.

There are pockets of excellent training at many less well known universities. I believe these are known to the relevant employers. I hope that would carry the day.

Beyond this, every university has some wonderful students. There is already social inequality built into university selections, and I would hate to make it worse, which is a risk.

Perhaps ranking students or giving their centile rankings would be helpful. At the top this could be done finely (top whatever %) or whilst at the bottom more tactful designations would suffice. Actually, we already have the latter.

What we’ve lost is a meaningful designation for top students who have shown sustained intellectual commitment and growth. I am all for recognising the diligent workers. They have much to offer the world. In my mind that’s what a 2.1 now means, or reasonably should.

Yet in my field we are seeing a big gap between the quality of a student on 70-75% and a student on 85-90% ( which used to be very rare). We have no way of acknowledging this.

I agree with a point @Araminta1003 implicitly made earlier that it starts with teaching and learning methods in schools.

Although (as is often the case 🙂) maybe i am wrong about the value of degree classifications in the job market.

https://luminate.prospects.ac.uk/impact-of-degree-classification-on-early-career-outcomes
I still dont think it is a big driver for student choosing less selective unis. I could always be wrong about that too though.
What I do think firsts (in any uni context) correlate with is drive & hard work. I imagine employers value that.

Some postgraduate courses do ask for full transcripts and ask for referees to give a cohort ranking (e. g. top 5%, top 10% etc ).

Yes, this is typical.

Thanks also for your previous link!

Going out now, but last thing i'll highlight is that module feedback is a thing and institutions take note of it. Although some valid factors influence it (clarity of materials, engagement of staff etc.) research shows a number of very depressing factors correlate with it they include perceived and actual module difficulty as well as instructor characteristics (sex, accent etc.). Id search it out, but instead am going to enjoy the sun.

I strongly recommend both of the links posted by @PerpetualOptimist and @Owlbookend

I think they speak to many of the same concerns that academics and parents have.

PS Although @Owlbookend ’s link is validating the monetary value of a First, perhaps a surprise.

In terms of what I’ve been writing, this may fail to differentiate between good, solid very diligent students and unusually able ones. In the large, over the many types of universities in the UK, it may be validating attributes that were associated with a 2.1 in pre-inflationary times.

The issue is that GCSEs and A levels have, to an extent in England, accommodated grade inflation with 8/9 and Astars mapping to the A grades of, say, forty years ago. The same recalibration has not occured at degree level; perhaps time for 'Double Firsts' (not the Cambridge definition) or percentile in cohort measures.

I think the other aspect would be to upgrade the qualification standing and recognition of students who exit at the end the first or second years of a course. This would help reduce the incentive to weaken academic and assessment standards in later years simply to maximise seemingly successful 'full course' completions.

@poetryandwineSo why not make a first 80% and not 70%? Everyone knows many students getting firsts aren’t that good at many universities. I think blind recruitment often leads to the better grads from the better unis getting the jobs anyway. It’s clear this happens in law.

@poetryandwine "What we’ve lost is a meaningful designation for top students who have shown sustained intellectual commitment and growth. I am all for recognising the diligent workers. They have much to offer the world. In my mind that’s what a 2.1 now means, or reasonably should. Yet in my field we are seeing a big gap between the quality of a student on 70-75% and a student on 85-90% ( which used to be very rare). We have no way of acknowledging this."

One of our children was a 90% student, ie right at the top of his year group. He had no trouble at all getting into very highly sought after Masters courses (he did two, one related to his undergraduate degree and one in another quantitative field) - his grades were on his transcript. Surely the transcript is what matters these days?

Don't all properly selective postgraduate courses ask for transcripts? I've never seen a PG application (and I've seen many) that hasn't. Even summer schools at eg LSE or Cambridge ask for full transcripts.