Students rely on grades to tell them about the quality of their work. Yet Harvard’s deteriorating standards have rendered grades misleading and meaningless, giving students little motivation to improve.

Grade inflation must be fought at its roots with a two-pronged approach—defining clear standards in each course and establishing oversight to ensure those standards are maintained.

The current grading scheme has clouded the meaning of each individual letter grade. Accordingly, the most effective way to eliminate this problem is to detail what each grade means. As professors prepare to teach their courses, dutifully designing the syllabus, coursepack readings and problem sets, they should also design a concise rubric delineating the performance expected from students. Professors must explain these expectations at the beginning of each course, so that students will no longer have to guess what their grades signify; they will no longer feel that their work was judged so subjectively—often seemingly arbitrarily—by TFs who have widely divergent conceptions of the course’s standards.

These rubrics should be as specific as possible for each individual course. They should include, for example, an explanation of what level of mastery is required to earn each grade. Additionally, on each major assignment, professors should give a clear outline of the expectations and, when possible, examples of student work corresponding to certain grades. While it is far from perfect, the Expository Writing Program provides a constructive model that utilizes rubrics similar to those we describe. Students are given detailed explanations of the course’s aims and preceptors give students individual attention and feedback.

It is reasonable to expect TFs and professors to share a unified vision for student performance. In order for TFs to recognize and consistently differentiate varying qualities of work, increased TF training is an absolutely critical priority; it must be increased from its inadequate level. All Harvard teaching fellows should be required to pass a course on how to lead a Harvard undergraduate section—such as those currently offered on a volunteer basis at the Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning—before being allowed to instruct students. If this were enforced, TFs would actually have classroom teaching experience under their belts, rather than being recruited the day before class starts.

Professors should have clear expectations not only for the students, but also for the teaching staff. Head TFs should serve more than an administrative function; as the most experienced and qualified member of the teaching corps, the head TF should work closely with the professor to develop a solid understanding of the course’s grading standards and must then, in turn, monitor the grades awarded by each TF. This doesn’t mean that all TFs must give the same grades, but it does mean that if one TF is giving higher (or lower) grades than all the rest, their students’ work should be scrutinized to make sure those grades are justified according to the rubric.

But this must not absolve the professor of accountability. Indeed, professors must make certain that their TFs’ grades are accurate and fair. If a TF gives higher grades than expected, the professor should personally evaluate students’ papers to ensure that the TF held students to the same high standards as other TFs. This professorial oversight creates the disincentive for TFs to cave in to student demands for higher grades or for TFs to give higher grades in implicit exchange for better CUE ratings. If TFs know their grades will be closely scrutinized, then they will adhere to the prescribed standards.

Some professors have expressed their lack of interest in fighting grade inflation. While the professor usually knows best what students in their courses ought to know to deserve an A, each course’s standards must be consistent with others in the department and the College. Therefore, departments must continually evaluate their courses to ensure that standards are uniformly enforced. The departments must ensure that each course it offers is considered rigorous and engaging by other professors in the field. To this end, each department should establish a committee to periodically review the rubrics, syllabi and grading practices of each of its courses.

On the College-wide level, the Education Policy Committee (EPC)—a group comprised of Faculty from the social sciences, natural sciences and humanities—should be strengthened so it can continuously monitor departments to ensure that College-wide standards are enforced clearly and uniformly. This interdepartmental body should make recommendations about grading policies to the departments. Its recommendations, as well as department-wide and course-specific grading information, should be made public. This will force departments and professors to adhere to high standards and to justify their grades. To accomplish this goal, of course, the EPC must be allocated appropriate resources and staff.

Again, this oversight should not necessarily preclude any department from giving higher grades than others. Many students self-select into departments that are perceived as more rigorous, such as honors-only social studies.

When the Faculty debates the steps it will take to fight grade inflation, it must have the foresight to realize that only through increased engagement in undergraduate courses—by giving thoughtful consideration to the knowledge it aims to impart and the quality it seeks to instill—will the academic climate improve for both student and professor, leading not only to better defined grades, but to a more engaged and dynamic learning experience. Curves or other quick fixes may seem most expedient, but the Faculty cannot fundamentally forget their purpose on this campus—to teach students.