New research shows Harvard admissions policies favor the wealthy and privileged. (Photo by Scott … [+]
Much of the news around college admissions lately has been on the illegal ways parents bribe or cheat to get their children admitted to elite colleges. While that is horrible, it misses the legal ways in which elite colleges favor the wealthy and privileged. The other reason admissions has been in the news is the use of affirmative action. Thanks to data from the lawsuit facing Harvard University challenging affirmative action, new research highlights just how inequitable college admissions can be.
Because of the affirmative action lawsuit, researchers gained access to data showing how Harvard makes admissions decisions broadly. With an admit rate below 5 percent, Harvard is one of the most competitive schools for students to apply for admission. Just as the admissions scandals of Varsity Blues raised questions of fairness, this research shows just how “fair” the admissions system can be—even when it is legal.
This new research examined admissions preferences beyond race, specifically for the applicant groups of recruited athletes, legacies, dean’s interest list (historical or prospective donors), and children of university employees—referred to as ALDCs. They found that applicants in these categories were much more likely to be admitted to Harvard and, were it not for falling into these categories, these students would be much less likely to be admitted.
This advantage exists for these students even compared to students who otherwise rate higher than them under Harvard’s admissions rating system. Harvard rates applicants on an overall rating that is based on the following components: academic, extracurricular, athletic, personal, and school support. Each of these ratings uses a 1 to 5 score with 1 being best for applicants and 5 being worst. The sections below highlight just some of the findings of this research.
Recruited Athletes
Recruited athletes receive a particular advantage when it comes to applying to Harvard. They benefit from an overall admit rate of 86 percent—more than 80 percentage points higher than the overall rate. With the obvious exception of the athletic rating, recruited athletes score weaker on every category than non-ALDC admits. When it comes to the academic ratings, a rating of 5 guarantees a general applicant will be rejected but half of recruited athletes with a 5 for academics were admitted. At all other scores, the admissions rate for recruited athletes was at least 79 percent.
Legacies, Dean’s Interest List, and Children Of Faculty And Staff
For legacies, students on the dean’s interest list, and children of faculty and staff (LDC), applicants have much higher admit rates thank non-ALDC applicants. At every academic rating, the authors found that LDC applicants were more likely to be admitted, even more likely than those with a better rating. LDC applicants who scored a 3 on academics were admitted at a rate 7.5 times higher than those with the same score and 1.8 times higher than non-ALDC applicants who received a 2.
Racial Inequity
There are some major racial inequity implications in the findings of the research. First, we see that ALDC applicants have higher admits rates than non-ALDC applicants. Specifically, legacy admits have an admit rate 5.7 times that of non-legacy applicants. But while 40 percent of non-ALDC applicants are White, nearly 70 percent of legacy applicants are White. The authors of this study estimate that removing legacy admissions would increase the number of African American, Hispanic, and Asian American admits. Across the entire ALDC admits, the authors estimate without all ALDC preferences only a quarter of White ALDC applicants would have been admitted.
Disadvantaged Applicants
Harvard’s “holistic” approach to admissions using the different categories is one used by many selective universities and is often believed to help disadvantage students. However, this research found this isn’t always true. In fact, this study shows that the only time this approach helps disadvantaged students is when the only characteristic defining disadvantage is race. When looking within racial groups, the authors found that the holistic approach actually benefited more advantaged populations.
Because of findings like these and the other scandals at elite institutions, people are demanding change. Senator Wyden (D-OR) introduced legislation to end tax breaks for donations to influence admissions decisions. Others have called for eliminating legacy admissions altogether. With rising inequality and major wealth gaps—especially for people of color—it is likely schools like Harvard will continue to face criticism and pressure to change because these elite institutions should be trying to eliminate inequalities, not perpetuate exacerbate them.
