It’s unlikely. Much of the details about what composes the Dean and Director’s special interest list has been redacted from the lawsuit. In one of the few relevant sections that was not redacted, Harvard’s expert writes, “there is no particular criteria for inclusion on those lists but that they might include, for example, applicants that the Dean or Director have encountered at recruiting events, as well as applicants related to donors to Harvard or lineage applicants.”
What we can see is that this from the numbers in the lawsuit is the Dean/Director’s list is mostly composed of well of White kids. The group has extremely similar racial percentage to legacies and likely has a good overlap with legacies. There is also a notable overlap with the Z-list, with most students on the Z-list also appearing in the Dean or Director’s list — a higher percentage of Z-list students than any other hook group. This is not the pattern I’d expect with the “brightest minds” group. Instead of the Dean/Director’s special interest list, the academic 1 rating definitions sounds extremely similar to the “brightest minds” descriptions.
I’ve never understood where this myth came from that Harvard is a place full of the brightest minds. It was never true and it still isn’t. Most of the kids there are well above average, most of the grad students and profs are very bright too, but even there, there have always been duds. In any event most of the federal dollars universities receive go to stuff like medical research. I don’t think cutting Harvard off makes any sense at all.
Couldn’t agree more, @mathmom. No more than 15-20% or so of HYP is what one would normally consider even “gifted.”
Nevertheless, the top minds at these schools are truly impressive, and no one should be under any illusion to the contrary. Based on my reading of the Harvard documents, and personal experiences, I’d estimate about 5% of HYP is truly extraordinary on intellectual measures, many in a different universe from the remainder of the student body.
HYP is selecting for many attributes other than intelligence, so these numbers should come as no surprise. In effect, the top students are like “halo cars” for the rest of the brand. Personally, I believe weaker legacies and development students benefit most from the glow - and probably need it least considering their starting positions in life.
I always go back to Pareto. Maybe 10% are extraordinarily capable on academic measures (including those 4-5% or so who are Academic 1s on Harvard’s admissions rating system) and another 10% on other measures involving special talents, connections and leadership capability. The remaining 80% are just along for the ride, and could be comfortably swapped out with the middle 50% from any other T20 school without anyone being the wiser.
Agree in principle SatchelSF, but I don’t think it’s just HYP, I think the top 5% (maybe 1%) at 20 colleges are extraordinary on intellectual measures.
I totally agree, @theloniusmonk. I didn’t mean to imply that only HYP have extraordinary kids in terms of intellect. Percentages are no doubt even higher than 5% at MIT and CalTech, for instance, but all T50 schools reliably have their shares. Especially state flagships, because financial considerations really limit the ability of privates to attract all the best and brightest (say, the >+3sd kids - maybe 4,000-6,000 kids total in the entire domestic applicant pool?). Anyway, no school would want to get too lopsided with “top brains” for obvious reasons.
Sorry, SatchelSF, I do not know the obvious reasons that “no school would want to get too lopsided with ‘top brains.’” I think the Caltech student body consists quite heavily of “top brains.” It’s just with a comparatively small total number of students, which might avoid whatever obvious problems you see.
One could say CalTech and MIT are niche schools although it feels like MIT tries to shed that image. I don’t think of H or Y or P positioning themselves as niche even if the population of parents and students try to think of them in that manner.
@QuantMech – I think SatchelSF might have simply meant that brains alone aren’t enough. Social skills & emotional intelligence are far more important qualities in terms of life success, as well as overall ability to function well and thrive in a college environment. That doesn’t mean that brainy people can’t have those skills as well – but it is the holistic admissions factors that give a window into those qualities. It’s why colleges do place value on qualities that demonstrate leadership or concern for others (like volunteer work).