<p>I don’t think that Harvard has retreated from the view expressed in the admissions office report linked by bovertine in December 2011. They will surely have repudiated the extremely classist view expressed in the report, but the philosophy in terms of crafting a class very likely still stands. So, if you take the “happy bottom quarter,” for instance, I think there is no question that Harvard is passing over somewhat better students, who would not be happy in the bottom quarter, for those who would be. The discussion in the report also addresses “bridge students,” who connect the “happy bottom quarter” to the identified academic superstars, but who are not themselves academic superstars. While there is no question in my mind that all of the admitted students are strong, I think that the classifications of “happy bottom quarter” and “bridge students” would not exist in any form if Harvard simply admitted the students they considered the most qualified, in the way that they define “qualified.” So I disagree with calmom to that extent. </p>
<p>As I observed above, I can’t really fault H or Y in terms of the local admissions outcomes known to me.</p>
<p>I seem to have used 3 hands in writing about S, though. 
It will be interesting to watch how M evolves over time.</p>