H is semi-private (it does take federal funds, unlike that conservative college in Michigan).
FWIW I agree with you. And if it wants to do that with AA or athletics or legacy, fine.
“Are you implying that all presidential kids are academically competitive enough to get in on their own?”
Not at all what I wrote.
And Michelle’s college thesis wasn’t part of Malia’s application. Plus she got in 35+ years ago. A different era, far fewer apps, far less competition.
When people get so very bent out of shape over “preferences,” I do wish it weren’t based on assumptions. Or anecdote.
And just “agitat(ing) for disclosure of their academic stats” seriously proves folks don’t understand how holistic looks for more. You hate it, but don’t seem to understand it (in the admission context. Maybe you grasp it in real life. ) Nor what the applicant pool looks like. Many just assume. They assume (even declare) legacies are underqualified, as well as other groups.
So these arguments are circular.
Btw. The AI doesn’t mean every athlete hits the minimum. And if it were applied to the non recruit pool, same rules as now, notr would every admit be chosen based on meeting it. Would that surprise you? You thought is really was all about stats?
An article in the NYT today sheds a little more light.
"The plaintiffs’ lawyer asked whether the bigger the financial contribution from a donor, the more it would affect the development office’s rating of someone on the dean’s list related to that donor. “It would tend to go that way,” Mr. Fitzsimmons replied.
Court filings also explore Harvard’s little-known Z-list, a sort of back door to admissions.
Harvard is reticent about the Z-list, and much of the information pertaining to it in court papers has been redacted. The list consists of applicants who are borderline academically, the plaintiffs say, but whom Harvard wants to admit. They often have connections. They may be “Z-ed” (yes, a verb) off the wait-list, and are guaranteed admission on the condition that they defer for a year.
About 50 to 60 students a year were admitted through the Z-list for the Classes of 2014 to 2019. They were for the most part white, often legacies or students on the dean’s or director’s list, the plaintiffs say."
"But the court papers describe a continuing process called “a lop,” which the plaintiffs say is used to shape the demographic profile of the class.
As the admissions process winds down, the dean and the director of admissions review the pool of tentatively admitted students and decide how many need to be “lopped,” by having their status changed from “admit” to “waitlist” or “deny,” the court papers say.
The plaintiffs say that admissions officers then fine-tune the final class using a form that lists five pieces of information about the applicant; they give an example of a form that has spaces for the applicant’s name, LIN (lineage), ETH (ethnicity), ATH (athlete), and HFAI (financial aid)."
I thought Harvard was need blind? Why would they need to know about HFAI (financial aid)?
Note: the plaintiffs say….
As in, "The list consists of applicants who are borderline academically, the plaintiffs say… Or the plaintiffs say, lopping is about lineage, ethnicity, etc.
@suzyQ7 Many need blind schools do exactly as the plaintiffs state…once the initial admissions decisions are made the AOs analyze the makeup of the accepted group in total, across many dimensions, and part of that includes financial aid/need. They might be need blind, but they have an annual financial aid budget. There are often changes (between admitted/waitlisted/denied) made at this point, including horsetrading by AOs, and fine tuning characteristics such as admissions by school, majors, athletic teams, etc. Further, even the need blind schools are generally not need blind when going to the waitlist…full pay students have an advantage in getting off the waitlist, especially at schools that reach their financial aid allotted budget in the initial round of admissions. Although it’s dated, the book Gatekeepers has some good insights as to how this process works, ones that are still relevant today.
No need to take any particular party’s word for it. There is plenty of information right in the data presented in the expert reports filed in the litigation.
You need to know a little math at the level of high school stats - really no more - and employ a little common sense. If you can’t see how much weaker the legacies, development and URM admits are than the other admits, then you need to learn a little stats. No easy way to get the common sense part, unfortunately…
No, need blind is need blind.
“Expert reports,” eh? Hired by…? With no admissions experience?
Again, weaker in what respects?
All this brings up an interesting question on legacies and donations. It seems that Asians are the ones paying the price for URM admissions, (while Caucasians are essentially unaffected) and that legacies are often given a leg up and they for the most part white. I am sure Harvard tracks who is giving what after they graduate (including tracking by race), it would be interesting to know how Asians legacies stack up against Caucasian legacies in donations to Harvard after they graduate.
. That is not accurate. Asians are the ones reaping the benefits . Their admit rate is 4 times greater than their demogragphic percentage. It is the Caucasians whose admit rates are lower.
URMs are not weaker. They have not had the money to take the SAT 6 times or hire private tutors or college consultants or attorneys to game the system.
Question - do kids coming in off this Z-list (one year deferral) not get counted in the average SAT scores or something? In other words, what’s the advantage to the University to defer them for a year?
For me, the question of ‘why does it matter how many legacy kids they admit’ comes down to being more upfront about the odds for an ‘average excellent’ kid. How many kids out there who don’t come with hooks but do have great stats and have been working their butts off doing all the right things in high school think their odds of getting into Harvard are about 8% to 10% ? And to hear that the real number for a non legacy, non hooked kid is more like 1-2%… I’m sure that would make quite a few kids decide not to bother with a Harvard application. Think about how stressed out these kids are. I don’t mind that Harvard (or whoever) gives a legacy preference or a celebrity preference, I just wish they were all honest about the odds for the kids who aren’t.
Every new round of this litigation the data gets more interesting and the debate gets more heated—it has all the markings of heading to the Supreme Court. For those of us hoping for a resolution of this case I have some really bad news: Harvard College’s legacy admits this year include the daughter of Chief Justice John Roberts who is a College alumnus. I saw him on the Visitas day and expect to see him again next month on freshman move in day. (If not she may be Z-listed.)
If VMI (Virginia Military Institute) case where Clarence Thomas had to recuse himself because of his son’s attendance at VMI at the time is any guide, Roberts will likely have to recuse himself in the next four years from cases involving Harvard College. And you will have a 4-4 decision assuming Kavanaugh is confirmed and votes with the conservatives. Oh BTW, John Roberts has a son who is going to be a senior in two years. If Harvard admits him too SFFA and Blum can forget about a resolution from SCOTUS for the next seven years.
@jzducol The Fisher case was a public education case. Harvard is not a public school and should be free to use the criteria they deem appropriate.
^ Not really, Harvard takes billions in research and other government funding.
@collegedad13 did you read the lawsuit, that is the picture they are painting, and if you don’t think that URM’s get a leg up in Harvard admissions then I don’t know what you have been smoking.
MODERATOR’S NOTE: Way back in June, @skieurope stated that discussion of race in admissions is limited to one thread. That thread has been reopened. I am closing this thread.