I totally endorse posts #617 and #618. Too bad there is not a multiple-like option for each of us!
I will try to paraphrase your position as accurately as possible, lookingfoward. How about: Many of the posters on CC only think Harvard admissions are unfairly biased toward legacies and recruited athletes, because we haven’t read the actual applications, to see the differences in self-presentation.
Of course, we cannot see the applications.
@CateCAParent - Harry Potter and the Good Place references- love it!
How many times on CC does a kid start a chance me thread that looks like the T20 USNWR list? IMO @lookingforward is correct that a kid needs to do more digging to find the right fit. Read a school’s mission and vision statements, look at their 4 year plan of studies, read their online daily paper. Not to mention size, greek community, location/setting, strength for major, career readiness, grad school placements, etc…
Totally get that not everyone can make a campus visit, sit in on classes, do an overnight, but there is so much information to be gotten from a school’s own website, their social media presence, and videos available on line.
The primary objective of all successful universities, Harvard included, is to ensure their long-term success as they have defined it. So, while CC posters try in vain to define what is “fair”, these colleges select their classes based on what they feel will advance their goals. They all use various forms of preferences - some that CC posters absolutely love and others that are despised, but long as they are operating within the law and achieving their goals, I’m happy for them to select their classes as they see fit.
I, for one, am OK with the lack of transparency as they treat their selection process similar to a trade secret. After all, calls for “transparency” are really calls for “transparency so we can argue with your preferences and weightings”, right? College admissions are not meritocratic and many can say they are not “fair”, but so long as these schools have a successful recipe, I don’t see any motivation for them to change – and they should not.
The mere fact that a thread generically labeled “These aren’t just elite institutions, they’re elitist institutions” has focused almost entirely on one school is testament to just how important a school can become.
The calls for transparency are not necessarily calls for the opportunity to argue–what good would that do? It is just that I for one would like to know the features of the selection process, in more resolution than: the applicant “gets it,” or not.
When it comes to having a “successful recipe,” I think there is a valid question about what actually constitutes success. Who judges the success? And on what grounds? Success for Harvard is not necessarily success for the US as a whole.
Harvard does exert an out-sized influence on the American educational landscape.
Well they’ve been number one in usnwr since 1680. Lol. They were in the original top 2, when there were two.
It’s been a brand, nearly alone, for periods of time longer than most schools have existed.
They have a 40 billion endowment.
So for most people it’s the simple proxy to discuss.
The impact on the real world for nearly all of humankind in terms of actual attendees and student admission outcomes is statistically minute.
It’s actually a much wider field of accepted excellence across universities than ever before imho. Flagship public unis and top 50 schools are considered broadly as elite by employers, other academics and the public more now than ever.
“Success”, like “fairness” has many different definitions, so IMO, Harvard gets to judge what constitutes success for them and how they are tracking to their goals (as does any school).
I do agree that “Success for Harvard”, or any school, “is not necessarily success for the US as a whole”
Ucb, why should I give specifics, when I continually advocate applicants look deeper, on their own? Having the sort of independent look at what’s there, being that sort of energized thinkers. And bear in mind that, over multiple threads, none of the folks criticizing the elites have ever pm’d for more details. When kids do, I don’t tell some recipe. I generally encourage them to look deeper, first. Some do, then we chat. Their apps vastly improve. Not because I’m, as ucb has continually pointed out, I’m an “insider.” But because these kids round out their understanding. They do it, not me.)
And I’m not criticizing, I’m pressing a point or two. No, you do not need to see apps (I only see them for one college. I know about others from my own digging into what they say and show, other than superficials.) But it’s not as elusive as some think. I do wonder who’s tried. I can tell you that HYS isn’t picking based on natl/intl awards and Wharton doesn’t pick based on your side venture that earned you $XXXX. How? Not from someone explaining it to me.) That point is: you’d learn more, if you did see apps. You’d see that, even top performers are not the special snowflakes we wish.
Want an example? Need it? This is tough because, for folks who distrust holistic, there’s been a tendency to shoot the messenger. And I am heavily editing.
Here it is, ime/imo. Most kids flub their apps. I love the age group, it’s full of promise and energies. But they heed advice to, eg, write the essay only they can write. That can be picked up off the floor and recognized as you. (Huh? The TTs are looking for traits and insights, related to your hs and soon-to-be-college “you,” not some random tale.) It doesn’t need to be unique, it needs to be relevant to an admit review. And posters tell them not to make hs decisions based on what colleges look for, when these kids are trying to get into those colleges that do have expectations. Posters say, it’s about “passions.” Not. It’s more about follow through and stretch, the vision to know there’s more and go for it. It shows in the recordor not. I point out that, for TTs, especially for stem, you need math/sci ECs. Only to get blowback anecdotes that it didn’t matter 20+ years ago, when some poster applied. Or they know a kid who didn’t, and got into xxx.
Plus all this emphasis on stats. (“With those stats, you’ll get into at least one Ivy.”) They’re vital, but not all. Or the idea you can look at the CDS and see the hierarchy of wants-- no, it all matters. No, just showing grade improvement is no “it,” when thousands of other applicants had no rough spot.
Having a legacy parent, having lots of books at home, sports camp, etc, are not what reflects the individual’s own thinking and awareness, what they actually did and accomplished in hs. Some legacy parents can advise, yes. (Many of “us” who aren’t legacy could guide our kids.) But not enough to sweep a hand out and declare some absolute advantage. If a kid shorted something, sorry, there are plenty of others in line who didn’t.
Yes, some preps groom kids. But they aren’t pointing all kids at TTs, only the select few they feel are the right match. Others get energetically pointed at other tiers. Yes, some even facilitate internships. Etc. Some have essay writing or AP test prep classes. But in the end, it comes down to this kid’s app, what he or she has actually done and chooses to present. And how they do.
Transparency? Formula? Even if you had it, you face very rough odds. If you ask for formula, can’t figure out much on your own, are you the sort they look for?
This isn’t even about donations, for the vast majority of legacy families.
If you could see apps, you’d get an idea of the thin line between kids, how much comes across as ok, not great. If you could see notes, you’d learn more about the reaction to this app, than a rating reflects.
So, shoot me? These are great kids, but not all will get one of the limited spots.
And fair? How can it ultimately be fair, when the problem starts with 40+K apps being boiled down to 2k? It’s a tough game. A rotten tough one. Posting before I edit most of this out.
I do like these kids. But it’s an app process, not a given.
Rational decision-making, the kind that isn’t arbitrary and capricious, rests upon delineated factors and agreed to standards which are consistently applied. Transparency is necessary to see if those standards are indeed agreed to-I honestly dont care if Harvard gives 7x preference to its legacy applicants, and Yale 4x, but the students, faculty and alumni of those schools may care, and can not have an intelligent discussion about it absent data.
I’m thinking more politics and the judiciary.
Aside from the availability of the data, while Harvard is far from the worst at economic diversity, it is the university which has most extensively worked on branding it self as the Smartest Place On Earth. Development acceptances are not only based on income, but also on fame and influence.
This behavior doesn’t stop in the undergraduate admissions, though. It is a large part of their hiring practices, of how they run their graduate programs, etc. They leverage money into power and influence, and leverage that power and influence to obtain more money. All the “elite” universities do it, but none is as effective at it as Harvard.
“I don’t see any motivation for them to change – and they should not.”
They’re not going to change on their own, it has to come from outside, just like it did when they started admitting blacks, women, Jews. All those groups had to push to get in. Your line sounds like Harvard in the good ole days when they used that reasoning, “we have to preserve our tradition”, to exclude those groups.
“But not enough to sweep a hand out and declare some absolute advantage. If a kid shorted something, sorry, there are plenty of others in line who didn’t.”
This has all be contradicted by the reader comments the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) obtained when it was evaluating whether Harvard discriminated against Asians, and which Inside Higher Ed got the via the freedom of information act. Data10 already posted these quotes, so I’ll take a couple that refute the absolute advantage:
“Well not much to say here. [Applicant] is a good student, w/average ECs [extracurriculars], standard athletics, middle-of-the-road scores, good support and 2 legacy legs to stand on… Let’s see what alum thinks and how far the H/R [Harvard/Radcliffe] tip will go.”
“Not a great profile but just strong enough #s and grades to get the tip from lineage.”
Both of these applicants would have been rejected outright had they not been legacy. Let’s see what alum thinks means they’ll contact the parents, which shockingly is not going to happen with non-legacies.
From Inside Higher Ed - “specifically, OCR found that Harvard’s preferences for alumni children and athletes explained the difference in the admit rates between white and Asian American applicants. And the investigation concluded that Harvard had the right to favor those groups, even if doing so resulted in significant advantage to white applicants with those criteria.”
The athletes quotes are even worse, let me summarize - no chance of getting in, but given athletic capability, admit.
“Most kids flub their apps.”
Does look like a whole lot of legacies and athletes flub their apps, you’re right there.
Lookingforward, no, most kids don’t flub their applications. For most colleges in the US, a straightforward list of “here are the classes I took, the grades i got, the scores I got on standardized tests, and the things I do when I’m not at school or asleep” is generally enough for the adcom’s to make an admissions decisions. So most kids do not flub- they answer the prompts, and get accepted to at least one college on the list and they are done.
There are two handfuls of colleges where that is not enough. And I don’t ascribe evil motivations to them for making it harder and making the hurdles higher-- simply put, too much demand, too few seats. So the sorting mechanism becomes more complicated.
And your argument that we all want it to be straightforward, by the numbers, rack and stack- none of the posters here are claiming that, and most of us think that’s a suboptimal way for these colleges to pick a class.
But you refuse to concede there’s a middle ground between “rack and stack” and “it’s so mysterious that you’d have to see the application to make a decision”. There is in fact a middle ground.
MIT does a better job of it than Harvard IMHO. The GIR, for example, makes it clear that if you’re a math brainiac who never wants to read another book once you have graduated from HS, MIT is not for you. Because you’re going to take a writing seminar, and you need to pass it. And you are going to take tough humanities courses, and you need to pass them. You can’t load up on math classes because you also have to take biology and the rest of the required courses.
Chicago also does a better job of it- at least until a few years ago. I thought the bizarre essay prompts were a terrific and “out there” sorting vehicle. You can’t be bothered to come up with fresh and brand new topic besides “Why I love Chicago”, this isn’t the right place for you.
West Point does a better job of it- being a patriot who wants a free engineering degree is not enough.
I think most of the posters here are just looking for middle ground between “it’s opaque, if you’re not an insider you’ll never get it”. And I’ve known LOTS of Harvard kids in my life- ranging from absolutely epic and unbelievably talented and an asset to any college on the planet, to perfectly fine but pedestrian. And even Harvard admits- very occasionally- that their super mysterious application process yields a fumble or two or twenty. And I’m not talking the Unabomber.
If you look at table 5 of @Data10 ’s link (and thank you Data10 for that very useful quantnerd info!) you’ll see that the biggest advantage legacies/LDC applicants have over non-legacies is that they’re more likely to have high athletic scores. That leads me to believe that legacy applicants are more likely to be recruited athletes than otherwise non-hooked applicants. The difference is particularly noticeable among Asian American applicants.
My line is that as long as they are operating within the law they can change as they feel they must in order to achieve their goals. Not mine, not yours, and not CCs collective wisdom. They have evolved, yes, so have we all.
“Both of these applicants would have been rejected outright had they not been legacy.” Really? Outright? Not based on those notes. And you know this how?
“Let’s see what alum thinks means they’ll contact the parents, which shockingly is not going to happen with non-legacies.” Huh? Contact parents? Not.
Blossom, elites. Not the top down schools you throw into the mix.
" “it’s so mysterious that you’d have to see the application to make a decision”. Again, not what I said. Lol. Keep repeating it. It fuels others.
“Rational decision-making…rests upon delineated factors and agreed to standards which are consistently applied. Transparency is necessary to see if those standards are indeed agreed to…”
I guess it doesnt matter how many times we explain this is holistic. Readers do not rate based on definitions of, eg, stretch. No two readers might see something the same. Multiple readers are involved. But you want to judge their standards? As if? Let you see if they’re precise and honest? An inquiry, to judge them?
Note in the derivation of table 5, they state the following. They are comparing non-ALDC to non-ALDC + LDC = non-A. Recruited athletes are excluded in both groups.
“. P621 includes only non-ALDC applicants, while P623 includes non-ALDC
and LDC applicants. Thus, taking the differences between the raw counts across trial exhibits tells us the number of LDC admits, rejects, and applicants within each rating bin.”
I do agree that legacies are more likely to be recruited athletes, but the table only indicates that LDCs are more likely to get a 2 athletic than non-LDCs. Getting a 2 athletic appears to be associated with a similar degree of admissions advantage to getting a 2 academic or 2 EC – significant, but far less than a recruited athlete.
Class of 2023 Reader Guidelines: 2 Athletic
“Strong and long-standing (3-4 years) of secondary school and/or travel team
contribution in one or more sports; leadership role(s) such as captain or co-captain; possible individual recognition at the state or regional level; possible walk-on to a varsity team; has an IRF of a 4 from a Harvard coach”
Lol, @lookingforward, of course holistic review can be delineated as factors (and not a gut feeling, spark, or magic bolt). It is in the Harvard community’s interest to know what factors are being used and how, and it is useful as a matter of educational policy for the rest of us to know, too. These are academic institutions, they are supposed to value evidence and rationality over magic sparks.
Back in the day, large corporations got to make hiring decisions based on a gut feel about “fit”. There have been numerous, large dataset studies showing that “gut” and “fit” are frequently code words for “looks like me” or “if he were a member of my country club I’d like to play golf with him.” So when CEO’s wanted to know why the company was not anywhere near its diversity goals in terms of hiring- all this fit stuff came under the microscope.
Guess what? You don’t need to use your gut making hiring decisions. There are actual descriptors which delineate leadership, emotional intelligence, ability to problem-solve on the fly, ability to change ones mind in the face of better facts, elasticity of one’s capability to learn new skills, etc. There are better ways to figure out if someone has leadership potential than just “feeling” that this is someone you’d like to work out with or have a beer with at the end of the day.
And guess what? Companies which have adopted these fact based methods of hiring do better than ones who use the “old style” in hiring women and minorities who end up being successful, moving up, staying, having an impact on the business.
Turns out gut isn’t so great, unless you want your “bros” evaluating newer, younger “bros” in which case, it works it fine.
Or how many times we point out that Harvard itself says being a legacy is a plus factor?
https://oir.harvard.edu/files/huoir/files/harvard_cds_2018-19.pdf
Table C7.