{shortcode-75bb7a1f007ae75a559aaec8d1b8841b05271b45}

Imagine opening Canvas to lengthy and detailed feedback that begins, “An egregious misreading of the dialectical synthesis underpinning Hegelian phenomenology.” Then, a week later, an A-minus follows. Absurd? Maybe — but it could be our best hope for ensuring students learn from assignments as grades continue to rise.

Much has been written about the problem of grade inflation and how to solve it. Somehow, though, a related issue — the quality of the feedback students receive on assignments — has fallen under the radar. Especially if grade inflation is here to stay, a renewed focus on feedback could help revive academic rigor.

Grade inflation can have downstream effects on feedback in two main ways.

First, from a student’s perspective, when feedback is paired with a grade — particularly when the grade is good — focus naturally shifts to the grade itself. The feedback becomes secondary, something to skim or ignore altogether.

Second, from a grader’s perspective, feedback must justify or be consistent with the grade given. Thus, we might imagine that as grades inflate, feedback becomes less critical, becoming more about affirmation than real evaluation.

While it’s certainly possible that the average Harvard student has grown stronger over the years, it’s safe to assume that grades have climbed more quickly than the quality of work submitted — after all, almost all of us have had the experience of turning in substandard work with confidence it would nevertheless return a high grade. As a friend once put it, treating Harvard like an academic assembly line, he consistently submits “D-level work” knowing he’ll receive “A-level grades” in return.

We can expect the same with feedback. Assuming quality of work has held approximately steady, it stands to reason that the critical content of feedback is blunted, tracking grade inflation. The unfortunate result? Feedback serves to rationalize the high grade at the top of the page, and students are denied the opportunity to really learn or improve.

With grade inflation unlikely to go anywhere any time soon, it’s time we take steps to moderate its impact on our education. I propose that we institute two new practices — one technical and one mental — to decouple grading from feedback.

On a technical level, we should begin by doing just that: a grade uncoupling. Professors should strive to provide their candid feedback on assignments with zero regard for its eventual grade. This does not mean being overly critical but rather to aim for an unvarnished exposition of the strengths and weaknesses of a work, emphasizing opportunities for improvement.

As I mentioned earlier, when receiving a grade alongside feedback, the feedback automatically takes a backseat. To preclude this, professors should release the feedback a minimum of 48 hours before releasing grades. While the feedback may have no bearing on your actual grade, I’m betting on the Harvard student’s inability to resist clicking on any new information that pertains to submitted work. Two days should offer ample time for reflection.

On a mental level, students would also do well to reframe their view of grades. Yes, feedback could be ignored, but it shouldn’t be. For any system involving feedback to succeed, students need to engage in earnest, seeing comments from their instructor as an essential step toward growth rather than so many blurbs to be skimmed on the way to locating the final grade.

This approach is not entirely novel. Professor emeritus Harvey C. Mansfield ’53 was a vociferous opponent of grade inflation in his decades teaching. To remedy it, Mansfield gave his students two grades: an “official” one that met Harvard’s high-grade norms and a separate, uninflated grade that reflected his true evaluation. In 1993, the IOP hosted a panel on grade inflation, with Mansfield as a panelist. For those interested, it’s worth a watch.

While I do not believe we must go as far as assigning two separate grades, Mansfield’s approach reveals an essential truth: For true learning to occur, students must receive thoughtful and critical feedback, unencumbered by the realities of the current system.

By instituting a feedback-first system, we would mandate that students focus on learning without fixating on the grade itself. Such a shift could liberate academic growth from the shackles of grade inflation, allowing feedback to serve as a genuine tool for improvement rather than a mere justification for high grades.

In recent decades, grade inflation at Harvard has shown no sign of abating. Still, by focusing on critical and thoughtful feedback, we can ensure even straight-A slackers learn from their assignments.

Isaac R. Mansell ’26, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a Statistics concentrator in Kirkland House.