Earlier this week, Harvard’s undergrad faculty voted to cap the distribution of “A” grades to 20%, and shift their internal metric for honors to a percentile rank instead of a GPA.

And last week, Princeton’s undergrad faculty voted to repeal a 133-year-old “honor code” policy that banned proctoring during exams, because a student simply saying “I pledge not to cheat, bro” is no longer an effective cheating deterrent. 

One of these initiatives was widely supported by the student body, and one was widely opposed.

But they both prove the same damn point.

And it’s a point that everyone should care about — not just the campus elites.

👉 Every competitive system eventually becomes an argument over which comparisons count.

👉 The moment incentives change, people magically discover new “principles”.

And now — the story behind why this advice matters. 👇

Quick — which of these recent Ivy League decisions do you think was supported by students?:

A. The cap on “A” grades

B. Letting professors back in the exam room

If you guessed “B”, you’d “B” correct.

In fact, the initiative to introduce the faculty vote which overturned Princeton’s 133-year-old policy banning professors from the room while students sat exams was pushed forward, in part, by the students themselves.

Why?

Because non-cheating students were sick of watching their classmates cheat — and get away with it. It’s unfair, right? So they’re welcoming this new rule, largely with no objections.

Now, let’s turn our attention to Harvard’s new cap on “A” grades, and their transition from using the GPA system to percentile rankings for honors. In this case, the students are pissed.

Their main argument?

If someone masters the material, they deserve an “A”. They deserve to graduate with honors. It doesn’t matter how many (or how few) others also master the material. They want to be rewarded based on their own merit — not by how that merit stacks up next to the merit of their classmates.

Or as one student publicly cried, “You are punishing students for their peers’ performance.”

All of the reporting on these stories focuses on the modern-day causes, and responses, to these problems:

But underneath these modern problems lies a debate which has existed since the philosopher Protagoras stood on an Athenian soapbox, proudly proclaiming “Man is the measure of all things”— 

And Plato calmly replied, “F*ck that.”

I only took half a philosophy class in college, (I ran out of money and dropped out of school before the end of the semester), so I’m most certainly not a scholar on this topic.

But also — who gives a hoot? The most cunning philosophical inquiries are seeded from living, not libraries.

From where I sit, the principle at the center of what's happening on these esteemed Ivy campuses is absolutism versus relativism. To over-simplify:

Harvard undergrads are arguing that absolutism is the only fair way to grade. They don’t want to compete with their classmates for a limited number of A’s.

Princeton undergrads probably believe they’re also making an argument for absolutism. Cheating is one of those ethical questions where absolutism claims “Hey there slick, it’s never ok, no matter the context.”

But whether they realize it or not, by taking a stand against cheating, Princeton undergrads have made a pretty solid argument for relativism. While they’re not competing with their cheating classmates for a limited number of A’s, they are competing for post-grad opportunities — and those cheating classmates are gaining an unfair advantage.

If they truly believed achievement should be judged independently, then someone else cheating shouldn’t diminish their own accomplishment, right?

Back in the early 2000s, Princeton was facing the same grade inflation problem as Harvard. And they rolled out a similar solution — a cap on A’s to roughly 35%. 

It worked. Grades deflated.

But it also didn’t work, because Princeton students were competing for jobs, grad schools, and internships against students from peer schools — whose grades remained inflated. By forcing them to compete for high marks at school, Princeton made their students less competitive in the market. 

After a decade, Princeton repealed their new grading system.

We instinctively cover our asses, and can usually find some sort of ethical principle that supports our own best interest. 

👉 People invoke absolutism when they want protection from competition — like the Harvard students protesting the new grade cap.

👉 People invoke relativism when they want protection from unfair advantage — like the Princeton students supporting the removal of a century-old honor policy.

👉 And no two systems ever truly play by the same set of rules — as Princeton learned when it increased the value of an “A” on campus, but decreased its students’ competitive advantage off campus.

Humans use principles tactically, and businesses are no different. And since principles are downstream from incentives, the minute incentives change, principles magically update to support those new incentives.

Companies invoke “merit” when they’re winning, “fairness” when competitors start gaining advantage, and “innovation” when regulation blocks them.

So here’s a fun (or wildly uncomfortable) little exercise for you:

Pick one strong business ethics principle you hold right now. Then reverse your position in the market.

If you’re the…

Then ask yourself: “Would I still believe in this principle if the incentives were flipped?”

Hit reply and tell me what you’ve discovered. Be honest, friends.

Cheers! 🍻

-Kristin :-)

P.S. — I don’t just write Drunk Business Advice — I bring it to life on stage. And I’d love to speak at your next event. Hit reply or click here to learn more.