<p>Harvard’s senior faculty and administrators are big boys and big girls who understand how to get along together in a large organization with a large bureaucracy and many varied, competing interests. </p>
<p>The school deals with applicants each year who fall somewhat outside the normal admissions process. Not everyone who gets into Harvard does so strictly on his/her own individual merits. The folks - including the dean of the college and the admissions folks - know the routine, and already understand just how much weight this special attention merits in any particular case. The fact is that Harvard does make room in its admissions process for factors outside the achievements and capabilities of the individual applicant. The school makes room for legacies, for development cases (students from families of large donors), and for the children of certain sorts of folks (political leaders, both national and international, etc.). These factors, which are not intrinsic to the actual accomplishments of the applicant, can have some influence on the decision to admit or not.</p>
<p>As a university, Harvard doesn’t evince the belief that this sort of thing represents “interference” in the admissions process. My guess is that it is part of their process. </p>
<p>Just how much of an influence exists in this case is anyone’s guess. Looking from the outside in, we can gather that legacy status gives a modest advantage in the process. Donor status at a certain level enhances one chances. Apparently, the original poster’s father’s previous relationship with the university also merits some extra attention. But, I’m betting that the level of influence this relationship has on the admission decision is already worked out within the university, in fact, is relatively-standardized in how it’s applied, and all parties within the university have signed on as to the relative weight assigned to it. For the Harvard folks, this is just another day at the office.</p>
<p>There is such a thing as staff quota at every university.</p>
<p>Let us look at a hypothetical scenario.</p>
<p>OP’s dad is an esteemed professor in his field whom Harvard would love to have come back to them. </p>
<p>OP’s dad asks the dean of the college how his son might get admitted. Dean thinks about it and goes come on by and we will talk about it.</p>
<p>You can make up the rest of this story…</p>
<p>Just like a coach provides a wish list for likelies, the dean of the college can request some names to be included as part of institutional requirements. To think this does not happen at every college and admissions office operates so indenpendently that they accept no inputs from anyone else who might in fact be considered higher than them in the institutional pecking order, is wishful thinking.</p>
<p>@Hanna But still, while the dean of the college outranks Fitzsimmons, who you referred to as an “administrator”, Dean Fitzsimmons holds the key to the admissions committee. I consider an interview with him FAR more valuable in terms of boosting admissions chances. He makes the ultimate decision, not the dean of the college.</p>
<p>“Admissions might resent the interference of College in his or her business.”</p>
<p>Yeah, everybody resents their boss looking over their shoulder. But you ignore your boss’s instructions at your peril. Does the executive chef run the White House kitchen, or is the President really in charge?</p>
<p>“He makes the ultimate decision, not the dean of the college.”</p>
<p>He makes the ultimate decision if that’s what the hierarchy allows him to do. People don’t hold a job for 30+ years without accommodating the wishes and priorities of higher-ups. The Dean of the College, President Faust, etc. may choose to defer to the judgment of their administrator, or they may not. I don’t know what you mean by putting quotes around “administrator.” If you aren’t faculty, you’re staff. You can be elite and highly paid staff, like the people who manage Harvard’s endowment, but you’re still staff, and you have bosses.</p>
<p>I’ve been a university administrator. There is no administrative dean decision that isn’t subject to the judgment of a faculty dean. That’s true for admissions, facilities, student life, you name it. How could you run an institution otherwise? What if your administrator decides to admit all the students named “Sarah”? Everybody is accountable to superiors except for tenured faculty acting within the bounds of their appointment.</p>
<p>Was just reading an article about Stanford admissions and saw the following post in the comment section:</p>
<p>"I spent a year as an admission officer for Brown in 1981. We also claimed to be uninfluenced by the wealth of applicants. However, we received lists from the University’s development office ranking their interest in certain candidates from 1 to 6. Candidates at the high end were given special consideration, and if academically unsuited for immediate admission, could still be admitted mid-year after a semester of additional college prep work. No one pays attention to mid-year admissions, so they tend to be more politically palatable to high schools from which stellar students have been rejected. "</p>
<p>That comment was about development candidates so not really completely on topic but I thought it was interesting nonetheless.</p>
<p>I believe Hanna is correct about the influence of the dean of the college over admissions (at least that is how I’ve seen things work at my top Ivy alma mater) However, that being said the dean of the college REALLY tries to keep out of the admissions process as much as possible and I believe the admissions office still has the right to reject anyone being “recommended” to them but that rarely ever happens.</p>
<p>Yes, it would make a difference. Also, I’m sure they would appreciate you keeping the details about these meetings as discreet as possible instead of posting it on the internet. But that’s just my opinion.</p>