As @tamenund pointed out the reader may send the paper to one of 20 faculty members on the committee for a review and comment. The faculty member like the AOs would write a half page evaluation (from what I have seen in an admitted file). Though the academic and EC ratings are unchanged the file would have an additional faculty rating which could be the deciding factor if the committee were on the fence about admitting the applicant.
The same dockets that review the RD round review the REA round.
Forty is an approximate number for the size of the full committee, which is simply all the admissions staff. One can expect the number to fluctuate year to year, it could very well be the case that there are more this year to handle the additional volume applications indicated by the totals form last year. No one outside knows.
Itâs not like a jury with a set number of jurors and rigid rules. If a vote is inconclusive, theyâll talk more until a conclusive vote takes place.
No one knows this number and no knows whether it fluctuates year to year except for the admissions office itself. The dockets (aka subcommittees) are instructed to advance only those candidates they determine should be admitted, so by the end of the process in March, some number greater than the total of admitted and waitlisted candidates have had full committee up or down votes. A guess of 4000 to 5000 would be reasonable, but it is still a guess. Full committee review is time consuming and nearly all of the candidates reviewed at that final stage have already passed the bar of admissibility
Not to sound repetitive, but no one outside of admissions would have any idea how many applicants deferred in last yearâs REA were deferred after a full committee vote. I rather doubt the full committee looked seriously at 8000 cases before December 16th and decided to keep all of them around for another go. What the split was between those deferred straight from the docket vs. those deferred at a full committee vote is impossible to determine for outsiders, but common sense would favor most of those deferrals being set right at the docket (and most of the outright rejections also.)
This is not entirely my understanding. I do not think there are any faculty members of the admissions committee. There are faculty who make themselves available (volunteers or volunteered 
) to do on-demand evaluations, and there are also faculty with particular expertise a reader might proactively contact on a case by case basis and ask to review an applicantâs academic product (eg, papers and published works) or pedigree (eg, reputation of laboratory or journal.)
Input from faculty cannot change a candidateâs Academic Index (which traditionally is a calculated value based on GPA normed on Harvardâs own standardized set of tables, class rank if any, SAT and equated ACT scores, and SAT subject test scores), but such input can definitely change an Academic rating. In fact, faculty input, with a few exceptions, is the main factor in determining whether a candidate is an Academic 1 or more usually confirming a solid 2 or 2+.
The number of faculty involved being 20 is a precise number that would about half of the entire nominal size of the full committee (if they were on the committee, which I donât think they are as I note above)âŠcurious where you saw this information?
There used to be a sticky on this forum where the college admissions dean Fitzsimmons gave a five parts interview in NYTimes outlining Hâs admissions process. It had been in NYTâs and Harvard magazine archives. Curiously, they had been removed. But here is part of the long interview that described the process:
"âŠHarvard admissions officers, who serve as area representatives, read every application from their assigned areas. They record all data, contact the applicant and school for missing materials, and comment on the applicationâs strengths and weaknesses. Some applications receive as many as four readings and each reader checks factual data recorded and, more importantly, offers additional interpretations of the folder.
The standing committee on admissions and financial aid of the faculty, which includes about 30 members of the faculty of arts and sciences, formulates and implements policies on admissions and financial aid. Members of the standing committee also review applications that are representative of the entire pool â and those which present unusually strong scholarly credentials, demonstrate exceptional creativity in the arts, or raise questions of admissions policy.
Working under the guidelines established by the standing committee, the admissions committee makes decisions on individual applicants. The admission committee is comprised of the standing committee of the faculty augmented by about 35 staff members from the office of admissions and financial aid.
The admissions committee is divided into 20 subcommittees grouped by geographic region and representing approximately an equal number of applications. Each subcommittee normally includes four to five members, a senior admissions officer, and faculty readers.
Once all applications have been read and the subcommittee process begins, the area representative acts as an advocate, and summarizes to the subcommittee the strengths of each candidate. Subcommittee members discuss the application, and then vote to recommend an action to the full Committee. Majorities rule, but the degree of support expressed for applicants is always noted to allow for comparisons with other subcommittees.
Subcommittees then present and defend their recommendations to the full committee. While reading or hearing the summary of any case, any committee member may raise questions about the proposed decision and request a full review of the case.
Many candidates are re-presented in full committee. Discussions in subcommittee or in full committee on a single applicant can last up to an hour. The full Committee compares all candidates across all subcommittees, and
therefore across geographic lines.
This rigorous comparative process strives to be deliberate, meticulous, and fair. It is labor intensive, but it permits extraordinary flexibility and the possibility of changing decisions virtually until the day the admissions committee mails them.
Personal qualities and character provide the foundation upon which each admission rests. Harvard alumni/ae often report that the education they received from fellow classmates was a critically important component of their college experience. The education that takes place between roommates, in dining halls, classrooms, research groups, extracurricular activities, and in Harvardâs residential houses depends on selecting students who will reach out to others.
The admissions committee, therefore, takes great care to attempt to identify students who will be outstanding âeducators,â students who will inspire fellow classmates and professors.
While there are students at Harvard who might present unusual excellence in a single academic or extracurricular area, most admitted students are unusually strong across the board and are by any definition well- rounded. The energy, commitment, and dedication it takes to achieve various kinds and degrees of excellence serve students well during their college years and throughout their livesâŠ"
Wow this is a intensive process. So the subcommittee members are separate from the full committee members. That means there could be over 80 AOâs working on this process which includes the regional reps, subcommittee readers and the full committee!
Ah, now that makes complete sense.
The approximately 30 faculty described by WRF are not, in fact, members of the admissions committee, as I mentioned earlier. The faculty WRF is describing is the Admissions and Financial Aid at Harvard College, a Non-Curricular Undergraduate Committee of the Faculty of Arts & Sciences. It is a committee for setting major policy or resolving profound policy issues, and it sounds like (when they are not on leave, which a quick look at the current rosters shows that many are 
) they are resource for faculty review of applications. But, readers are not limited to calling up these faculty alone for reviewing cases because a topical area might suggest someone else.
The âfull admissions committee,â the one we discuss in this thread that reviews, discusses, and votes on cases, is all staff. No faculty on it and no faculty member takes part in the voting.
More of a general comment on university life: some professors love committees but most hate being on a committee. Itâs annoying work much of the time and big time sink. Many faculty who get strong-armed by their chair or dean to serve on a committee might often not even show up to most meetings.
In this case, it wouldnât surprise me if Fitzsimmons (who chairs this undergraduate committee) has a hard time even forming a reliable quorum for a meeting unless a topic is particularly juicy. It has to be thankless task to be an AO and then find yourself having to send the work of a high school student to a Harvard professor with relevant expertise hoping for them to pen a substantive response.
I donât think there are 80 AOs, but with the surge of applications, who knows!
The regional reps, the subcommittee members, and the full committee are all the same people. The admissions staff are assigned to regional dockets where some might do regional recruiting, at least, traditionally. Each AO conducts their initial reads for their dockets and as a docket selects candidates to advance. The dockets then convene as one group as the âfull admissions committeeâ to review, discuss, vote, and lop cases.
1 Like
Earlier, it was mentioned faculty reviews. Letâs say there is room for about 200 comp sci students. And there are 2000 candidates, of which 1000 are similar, in terms of grades, course load. Do they go to the faculty to assess from their ECs in tech who would be the better student? Like in music or art, they submit their portfolio, which is assessed.
If the full commitee spends about 5 minutes for every application, it takes 14 hours/day for 15 days to study 2500 apllicationsâŠ
I think @tamenund description of the process is probably correct in that faculty would only review EC or academic upon request by regional AOs who are not sure about the quality of the applicants work. In our DDâs case, which seems to be very similar to yours, she was asked to send in original programming codes for review right before Thanksgiving, prior to full committee meetings. Later we learned that a prominent faculty went thru the code and submitted a half page report for the committee. We were very impressed with his spot on analysis of DDâs work and his spending time and effort in the half page report.
Hopefully, your daughterâs work is more convincing and didnât need a faculty review. Good luck to your daughter!
I am surprised they would ask for the code, unless it was independent? Many would just create apps for competition or something. But no, my kid is not focused on comp sci, though she has placed in app competitions and the stuff. Her focus is a very narrow field that Harvard has top expertise in, though unless you were interested in the field, you would not know. Comp sci is useful as a tool. 5 days and counting. One of the kids at her school found out about Johns Hopkins and she is done. The other kids are talking about RD apps now, focusing on those as back ups, to help with the anxiety.
These numbers are âknown.â In the SFFA lawsuit vs. Harvard, there were 4,644 legacy candidates (at least one parent from the College) over six years, or an average of 774 per year. 33.3% of these were admitted, or about 260 per year. Not clear how this has changed in the past five years, but historically Tamenundâs estimate is correct, and it is very unlikely to have spiked higher.
Changing parental topics again, if not Harvard, where?
Just to break the tension, my favorite fight song: Harvard Football Songs - YouTube
Will respond after decisions come out 
I bought a CD for my husband that had the IVY football songs on it a couple of decades ago.
REA decisions will be posted through the applicantâs portal this Thursday 12/16 at 7:00pm eastern. Harvard has announced on their Admissions web page. Good luck to your kids.
3 Likes
We are so nervous! Donât know how my daughter is going to get through the next 4 days
1 Like