<p>Here's the link, though the article is not in its entirety:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/critics/content/articles/051010crat_atlarge%5B/url%5D">http://www.newyorker.com/critics/content/articles/051010crat_atlarge</a></p>
<p>Here's the relevant excerpt:</p>
<p>I once had a conversation with someone who worked for an advertising agency that represented one of the big luxury automobile brands. He said that he was worried that his clients new lower-priced line was being bought disproportionately by black women. He insisted that he did not mean this in a racist way. It was just a fact, he said. Black women would destroy the brands cachet. It was his job to protect his client from the attentions of the socially undesirable.</p>
<p>This is, in no small part, what Ivy League admissions directors do. They are in the luxury-brand-management business, and The Chosen, in the end, is a testament to just how well the brand managers in Cambridge, New Haven, and Princeton have done their job in the past seventy-five years. In the nineteentwenties, when Harvard tried to figure out how many Jews they had on campus, the admissions office scoured student records and assigned each suspected Jew the designation j1 (for someone who was conclusively Jewish), j2 (where the preponderance of evidence pointed to Jewishness), or j3 (where Jewishness was a possibility). In the branding world, this is called customer segmentation. In the Second World War, as Yale faced plummeting enrollment and revenues, it continued to turn down qualified Jewish applicants. As Karabel writes, In the language of sociology, Yale judged its symbolic capital to be even more precious than its economic capital. No good brand manager would sacrifice reputation for short-term gain. The admissions directors at Harvard have always, similarly, been diligent about rewarding the children of graduates, or, as they are quaintly called, legacies. In the 1985-92 period, for instance, Harvard admitted children of alumni at a rate more than twice that of non-athlete, non-legacy applicants, despite the fact that, on virtually every one of the schools magical ratings scales, legacies significantly lagged behind their peers. Karabel calls the practice unmeritocratic at best and profoundly corrupt at worst, but rewarding customer loyalty is what luxury brands do. Harvard wants good graduates, and part of their definition of a good graduate is someone who is a generous and loyal alumnus. And if you want generous and loyal alumni you have to reward them. Arent the tremendous resources provided to Harvard by its alumni part of the reason so many people want to go to Harvard in the first place? The endless battle over admissions in the United States proceeds on the assumption that some great moral principle is at stake in the matter of whom schools like Harvard choose to let inthat those who are denied admission by the whims of the admissions office have somehow been harmed. If you are sick and a hospital shuts its doors to you, you are harmed. But a selective school is not a hospital, and those it turns away are not sick. Élite schools, like any luxury brand, are an aesthetic experiencean exquisitely constructed fantasy of what it means to belong to an élite and they have always been mindful of what must be done to maintain that experience.</p>
<p>In the nineteen-eighties, when Harvard was accused of enforcing a secret quota on Asian admissions, its defense was that once you adjusted for the preferences given to the children of alumni and for the preferences given to athletes, Asians really werent being discriminated against. But you could sense Harvards exasperation that the issue was being raised at all. If Harvard had too many Asians, it wouldnt be Harvard, just as Harvard wouldnt be Harvard with too many Jews or pansies or parlor pinks or shy types or short people with big ears.</p>