“The Harvard Student
While Harvard has long been a leader among universities, it is equally committed to developing leaders among people. Thus, its enrollment is not comprised of 6,700 “geniuses.” Instead, the University prides itself on attracting the best all-around young individuals—those with the energy, innovation and creativity to enliven a classroom.
Some students show unusual academic promise through experiences or achievements in study or research. Others are more “well-rounded” and have contributed in many different ways to the lives of their schools or communities. Still others could be called “well-lopsided,” with demonstrated excellence in one particular endeavor. And many students bring perspectives formed by unusual personal circumstances or experiences.
The end result is an undergraduate population drawn from every state and many foreign countries, one that brings together a grand diversity of social, ethnic and economic backgrounds.”
This is a perfect example of how the PC description of the holistic process makes only vague references to superlatives that most students believe could apply to them yet avoids specific mention of certain key but non-PC things that the college apparently values.
If you can read that and guess that 12%/200 admissions slots are set aside for recruited athletes, then you truly are a genius and probably should be at a top selective college. But maybe not Harvard, unless you are one of said athletes, are a URM or are already connected through legacy, development prospects or family that’s staff, because that’s the majority of who is admitted. Heck, looking back at the statement of what Harvard is looking for, athletics aren’t even mentioned or implied which is interesting given how important they appear to be in the admissions process.
Again, it’s a private institution and most of those criteria aren’t illegal, so it’s well within the rights of the college to use this criteria. But if this is how it truly is, own it and don’t misdirect. It’s just wrong to act as if the students who are rejected simply didn’t do the right type of research to understand the secret handshake or weren’t excellent enough or didn’t present themselves correctly. The reality is that Harvard (and almost every top selective college) is purposefully coy about who it wants and how it selects them on purpose. If it weren’t mysterious about the process, applications would drop as many of the prospective students start to make accurate assessments of their chance at admission. Those who are merely geniuses but understand since they lack skill at a sport, or the correct skin color or a connection to the school are likely to begin to understand that they are competing for less than 100 slots for their particular gender and that those 100 will need to be spread across the US, making their individual chance even smaller… and are likely to start considering alternative options.
Would Harvard close or even be materially impacted if this happens? No. It has enough of a reputation and is widely desired enough to be just fine, even if it only admitted athletes and legacies from now on. But it would likely have a bit less choice among the mere geniuses and also have to deal with public fallout from the reaction of the unwashed masses realizing their type isn’t welcome. It also might put an end to the current social signaling that a Harvard degree represents. If the public recognized that although the Harvard admits aren’t dumb by any means that the primary drivers of their admission was athletic talent or family connections, the assumption that Harvard grad = genius would be diminished.
I think their position is pretty consistent even where the language varies, and it’s that academic stats aren’t the only things they’re looking for in a class of admits. Throughout this thread I see comments that a system for recruiting athletes is somehow contrary to their mission. It clearly isn’t, and they tell us that in many places.