Harvard's Admissions Dean has a Blue Collar Background and wants more Such Admits

Parents Forum
1

<p>From the Harvard Independent:
"Harvard has come a long way since spring 1964, when nuns at a Catholic high school told the graduating senior William Fitzsimmons to avoid Harvard, a school of "communists, atheists, and rich snobs" where he would "lose [his] soul." </p>

<p>Those descriptions were probably true, quipped Fitzsimmons '67, Harvard College's Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid, as he spoke last Tuesday ...</p>

<p>Reflecting upon his experiences as an undergraduate coming from a blue-collar Massachusetts background, and later as a member of the admissions staff since 1972, Fitzsimmons marveled at how far Harvard has come in four decades. </p>

<p>When I started, the ratio of males to females was four to one," Fitzsimmons said. Although no records of ethnic minority status were kept at the time, he cited a classmate's figure of eight total "students of color" within his class. </p>

<p>"We had a terrific faculty, but the student body wasn't up to it," he noted. </p>

<p>Even as an admissions officer in 1974, Fitzsimmons recalled a clear lack of diversity within the Harvard institution. </p>

<p>"There were the Harvard admissions committee and the Radcliffe admissions committee," he said. "We couldn't pick them out of a police lineup." </p>

<p>Today's admissions staff faces a slightly different challenge - convincing minorities and students from all socioeconomic backgrounds to choose Harvard in a wildly competitive college admissions world. </p>

<p>"'If you build it, they will come' - that's rubbish," Fitzsimmons said, explaining that serious work must be done in light of the fact that 90 percent of students choose a school within 500 miles of home. </p>

<p>Nationally, only ten percent of students at the most competitive American universities come from the bottom half - that's under $60,000 annual income - of the wealth spectrum. Harvard does a bit better at sixteen percent, but Fitzsimmons dismissed its consideration as a success figure. </p>

<p>"The dumbest rich students go to college at exactly the same rate as the poorest bright students," he said. "Sixteen percent, that's not so bloody hot." </p>

<p>A conscious effort in combating socioeconomic stratification at Harvard is especially significant as such separation is actually getting worse nationally. </p>

<p>"We are resegregating into have and have-nots," Fitzsimmons said. "It's sure as hell harder if you're at the bottom...."
<a href="http://www.harvardindependent.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleID=9455%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.harvardindependent.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleID=9455&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

2

<p>Thanks for your comments on this article over on the Harvard Forum, and thanks for bringing the link over here for the parents to see.</p>

3

<p>
[quote]
"If [there is a list-identified] student in rural Montana," Fitzsimmons said, "we're going to hunt this student down."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Harvard is interested in non-URM (as well as URM) low SES students, as per this quote from the article.</p>

4

<p>Good point, Marite. I think the colleges, or at least Harvard, really are being honest these days about aiming "affirmative action" more by socioeconomic status than by ethnicity as such. Admission offices want both kinds of diversity on campus.</p>

5

<p>If he had an ounce of sincerity he would start by eliminating legacy and development preferences. I think the Harvard endowment could withstand the impact.</p>

6

<p>They're dreaming. What blue collar family can afford a top boarding school, private music lessons, athletic summer camps, a year off to hand dig wells in Cambodia, private SAT tutors and/or college counselors, fees for multiple SATs and AP exams, and, oh yeah, their EFC? </p>

<p>(Not to mention the new "blue collar worker" is a greeter at Wal-Mart, not a production worker at GM.)</p>

7

<p>^^Coming right after Newman's donation of $10million to his alma mater, this statement is ludicrous. Legacies and big donors are important to colleges. Why single out Harvard?
The Harvard endowment has grown because the market has been favorable. A few bad economic cycles, or some bad investment decisions, and that endowment will not only not grow but may shrink. As well, the endowment is needed for lots of things besides financial aid. </p>

<p>One of my S's close friends, is the son of a mechanic. He is well aware where his full ride comes from.
Weenie: S's friend did not attend private school, did not have private tutors, did not have any of the things you list. And he is still at Harvard on full scholarship. "They"--whoever they are-- are not dreaming. He is not "dreaming". But he is achieving his dream.</p>

8

<p>Marite,</p>

<p>It's $25 billion dollars. Nearly twice as large as the next largest and five times as large as most highly selective private universities. I cannot think of anything more hypocritical than complaining about the lack of socio-economic diversity and admitting students based on where daddy went to school or how much money daddy has. Defend these preferences if you want but give me a break!!!!</p>

9

<p>Where is the inconsistency in wanting more blue-collar admits and also wanting to give some preference to legacy and developmental admits? Colleges have many targeted categories of students.</p>

<p>My H was a blue collar admit not long after Fitzsimmons was there; son of a washing machine repairman and a postal worker, living in subsidized housing. He had, of course, a full ride which included work-study. He did not attend a top boarding school, any type of shmancy summer camp or music program blah blah blah.</p>

<p>If Harvard wants to focus a little more these days on that type of applicant, I say it's good, great and fine. Maybe it will take a little of the shine off the types of perceived gateways to entry that weenie is disparaging (expensive test prep programs, paid for international ECs etc.). Maybe those are not really gateways to entry that often, anyway.</p>

10

<p>Curious14:</p>

<p>So Harvard tries harder to seek out low income students and gets bashed for it. Let's keep it for the sons and daughters of millionnaires and billionnaires, shall we?</p>

<p>Jmmom:
We have a good friend who was also a blue collar admit from the 1980s. This is a long-standing policy, apparently, expanded through the new HFAI that was made possible by generous donations from big donors and alumni. My S''s friend, the son of a mechanic, was admitted the year that HFAI went into effect.</p>

11

<p>The hypocrisy is obvious and a waste of time to explain it if you don't see it. </p>

<p>Apart from the hyporcisy, I think it harms the intended recipients.</p>

<p>If he wants to take his money and provide 100% grant aid to meet 100% of need then he has my applause. But, I come from a blue collar background too, and my personal feeling is you do folks from such backgrounds a huge disservice is you start giving them affirmative action treatment. I have never been reluctant to mention that backgound in work or interview situations through out my life. People know that what I have accomlished I have accomplished without special advantages. Establish AA for low income and blue collar status and everyone like that who goes to Harvard or where ever else they do it will wonder if folks are thinking: "yeah he has a Harvard degree but he just got in because he was poor and he has probably been faking it ever since trading on having a Harvard degree." Don't do us any favors, thank you!! Just get the unjust barriers out of the way!</p>

12

<p>That's because you choose to define AA as not qualified. Somehow I think that Harvard could find plenty of vry qualified blue collar family students, if it affirmatively goes out there and looks for them. Don't you?</p>

13

<p>
[quote]
They're dreaming. What blue collar family can afford a top boarding school, private music lessons, athletic summer camps, a year off to hand dig wells in Cambodia, private SAT tutors and/or college counselors, fees for multiple SATs and AP exams, and, oh yeah, their EFC?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Weenie, kids from our mostly blue collar town are attending Harvard, Stanford, and Princeton next year. I guarantee that none of the above describes how they grew up.</p>

<p>For that matter, my S, at any almost-as-tough-to-get-into school, also did none of those things, and we do find a way to pay our EFC.</p>

<p>You are not doing the non-rich students of the country any favor by implying that all those things you list are necessary to get into Harvard. It just ain't so.</p>

14

<p>Who says preferential treatment here? Fitzsimmons is talking about trying to identify students who would be good candidates.
What unjust barriers are you talking about? If they're not of Harvard's making, then I don't see the need for Harvard-bashing.</p>

<p>Nice to be accusing Fitzsimmons, a blue collar admit who has spent 40 years trying to admit with financial aid more people with backgrounds similar to his own into a school where 4 years cost upward of $180k. And nice to be accusing students of low SES background ( we talked of blue collar here, but what Fitzsimmons is talking about is low SES) of ""faking it" whatever that means. The low SES people who've gone through Harvard whom I have met have done splendidly, from my H's colleague to my S's friend. </p>

<p>Now a little explanation as to why relying on the endowment alone is not a good idea. First, it is risky. I know from first-hand experience that stocks that once were worth $80 are now worth about $1.50.
2. That endowment is not available to the College alone. Of the nearly $30B, about $12B are for the Faculty of Arts and Sciences which covers both the College and the Graduate School, must pay for buildings and faculty and staff salaries and benefits.
3. Many components of the endowments cannot be used for finaid. For example, some donors have endowed coach chairs. The income from these endowments must support the coaches' salaries. Not finaid, not faculty salaries. Other donors have endowed programs that benefit undergraduates but have strings attached, eg. scholarships for students wanting to spend the summer in China. Again, a great idea, but it won't benefit the student from rural Montana who needs a full ride.</p>

15

<p>Garland,</p>

<p>You think qualified blue-collar candidates haven't heard of Harvard? You think they live under a rock? Let's dispense with the euphemisms. No one objects to Harvard "affirmatively looking" for anybody they want to "look" for. But qualified blue-collar candidates don't need to be found. They need to have the unqualified candidates get out of their way!</p>

16

<p>I'll repeat again my story about the Harvard student I met many years ago. He came from a mining town in Appalachia where nobody had heard of Harvard. He heard about it entirely by chance (that was before the internet).<br>
By now, I think that lots of students have heard of Harvard. The task is to persuade poor students that they have a chance of being admitted, and that they will get the financial aid they need to attend. It is a good message to spread, and dismissive posts such as yours undermine its effectiveness and their their belief that they have a good shot. As I've said to other students, if you don't apply, you won't get admitted.</p>

<p>A $10 milllion donation would yield an annual income of $500,000 per year at 5%. It would amount to at least ten full rides. Most donors are alums, so their children are legacies. A few may indeed be less qualified, but the large majority of legacy admits have the same qualifications as non-legacies. So, for every unqualified donor/legacy admit, Harvard is able to give a full ride to 10 poor students. To me, it does not sound like a bad trade-off.</p>

17

<p>If they're making a effort to admit more 'blue-collar' students I would assume the admissions staff is already allowing for the fact that fewer students from this group will be able to take advantage of the expensive ECs mentioned previously. I don't see why they'd give anyone extra 'points' for hand-digging wells in Cambodia over someone who performs local charitable work anyway - especially given the context of family income. </p>

<p>I don't see why admitting more BC students would be considered AA in the sense of lowering standards - it's more a matter of just reasonably considering their accomplishments in light of their opportunities - i.e. it wouldn't be reasonable to expect a family on food stamps to be able to send their kid to foreign countries every year to do charitable work. </p>

<p>Family wealth doesn't make a student any more intelligent.</p>

18

<p>curiouser--yes. They've heard of it. The point of AA, understood rightly, is to choose a particularly desired type of student from the pool of qualified students. Thus, a blue collar, qualifed student might get extra points over a non-bc qualified student.</p>

<p>Harvard just isn't stacking its ranks with unqualified students. There aren't any "in the way." Most legacies are turned down. The ones accepted average at least as good stats as other students. If you think otherwise, why would you think it was a place any one qualified would want to go?</p>

19

<p>"I would assume the admissions staff is already allowing for the fact that fewer students from this group will be able to take advantage of the expensive ECs mentioned previously. I don't see why they'd give anyone extra 'points' for hand-digging wells in Cambodia over someone who performs local charitable work anyway - especially given the context of family income. "</p>

<p>You are very right. The expensive ECs that many ambitious affluent parents put their kids in are not as impressive to Harvard as are ECs done in the students' own community -- ECs the student organizes and creates instead of paying for someone else to do that.</p>

<p>ECs that can be even more impressive are ordinary jobs that students work during the school year and summer to raise money for college or to help their families. A student's working as a waitress, hotel domestic or fast food server would be more impressive than a student who flew to an underdeveloped country to do some kind of project paid for by Daddy and organized by other people.</p>

20

<p>"If he had an ounce of sincerity he would start by eliminating legacy and development preferences. I think the Harvard endowment could withstand the impact."</p>

<p>Why would he do that? No one -- legacy or development case -- gets in if they can't do the work. The same is true of URMs, athletes and low income students. </p>

<p>Most legacies are turned down. The ones I've seen accepted are just as qualified as are the nonlegacies who're accepted.</p>