This great institution is in the news for the wrong reasons, as the admission process has been challenged in the US court by a group of Asian-American students for being racially biased
Harvard symbolizes a place of higher education of the highest quality. It is an Ivy League research university in the United States, one of the greatest in the world with about 6700 undergraduate and 15,250 post graduate students. It was established in 1636 in the name of its benefactor, a clergyman. This university in the United States is a dream university to be admitted to for youngsters from all over the world. This great university is in the news today for an unthinkable reason. Its admission process has been challenged in the US court by a group of Asian-American students for being racially biased.
Hearings in the court are taking place and a large number of documents and e-mails related to the admission process have been produced before the court as testimony. Things which always remained unknown are now emerging. Even the judge presiding the Court has remarked that the admission process of Harvard is as mysterious as the secret recipe of Coca Cola. The revelations made so far about the process are intriguing and to some extent surprising. The process of admission is a cocktail of objective assessment of applications, racial reasons, affirmative action’s favoring the economically deprived, bias in favor of rural applicants and above all the preference for wealthy donors or potential donors. The documents are still in the process of being filed and the revelations are limited so far. The admission process deals with roughly 40,000 applicants every year for an average 2000 spots for admission.
The admission process is admittedly secretive. For the last 46 years dean Fitzsimmons (Harvard Class of 1967) has been the head of the admission process. He has testified before the court that ‘race’ is one of the input ingredients considered for admission but there are many other important ingredients too. The contention of Harvard before the court is that the issue of ‘race’ in admissions only helps the students and does not hurt them. Statistics based on the last five years indicates that African-Americans have 95% chances, Latino-Americans 85% chances, White Americans have 35% chances and Asian-Americans have 20% chances of applications being considered and found in the admission zone. The justification given by Harvard before the court is that students learn most from their classmates and hence the more diverse the class is racially, the learning is more from each other. What Harvard could not explain was the advantage of some racial groups over other racial groups like Asian-Americans. The same approach was followed while considering applications from outside the United States. The deliberations that take place inside 86, Brattle St, a red brick building where Harvard University stands, have very much stayed inside and students from the world over never dared to look beyond the great halo of Harvard.
Students seeking admission to Harvard do not know anything beyond the advertised admission requirements and it is here that the gate is closed and the unknown process of admission starts. The released legal documents now show that Harvard applications rate each applicant on a score of 1 to 6 on the
Following categories:
1. Academic
2. Extra-curricular
3.Athletic
4. Personal
5. Recommendation letters (2 teachers, counsellor)
6. Alumni (interview) personal and overall rating.
The highest score is 1 and the lowest is 6. Each score can also have “+” or “-” like A+ or A- grades. The first four factors are really the most heavily considered while the recommendation letters and alumni ratings are used as supplementary factors. All these ratings are combined by the application reader in an overall rating from 1 to 6. This overall rating is critical for admission. The overall rating is not based on any formula and does not involve adding up of other ratings and taking average. It is a holistic grade. Harvard instructs readers to assign the score by ‘stepping back and taking all the factors into account and then assign the overall ratings’. Each application is given to two readers to give ratings. Finally a third, usually a more experienced reader, adjusts the rating given by the two readers and awards a final rating. It was discovered based on documents revealed that the third reader has an application ‘2+’ rating when the said application had got a rating of ‘1’ from the first reader. On an average, it was found that applicants getting a score of 2+ / 2- had 65% chance for getting admitted while applicants with 3+ score had 9% chances.
The scrutiny of filed documents indicated use of some jargon like ‘tips’ which meant giving ‘bumps’ to the applicants. Then there was another jargon named, ‘dean’s interest list’ which meant applicants with clout which deserved special consideration. Then there was also a sordid ‘Z list’ for back door entry for admission where applicants were bordering academically. E-mails have been found as a part of the testimony which specifically mentions a special consideration for the off-spring of big donors. The advertised admission process is nowhere revealed these special considerations or any other bias. Some positive things have also been revealed like Harvard shows a vision of affirmative action towards economically backward while admitting students. The net result of the admission process as revealed was that at one end there were rich and powerful applicants and at the other end there were rural, racially backward and poor applicants. There were students coming with money bags and donations and also poor students to whom financial aid was provided by the university.
"The revelations made so far about the process are intriguing and to some extent surprising. The process of admission is a cocktail of objective assessment of applications, racial reasons, affirmative action’s favoring the economically deprived, bias in favor of rural applicants and above all the preference for wealthy donors or potential donors"
What can be viewed from this admission process of Harvard? Without any doubt, one can say the process is not transparent. The process is based on suggestive considerations while awarding scores to the applicants. Academics is in the consideration zone but there is also a ‘personal’ consideration. The word ‘personal’ is very vague and it can have any interpretation to make an applicant fit or unfit. So far, nothing has emerged about personal merits or demerits except for preference for affirmative action to help deserving applicants from the weaker or rural backgrounds and racial considerations. There are lists of back door admissions and bumps to be given in certain cases of admission. Examples of applicants of clout and also from where donations have come have emerged which may fall in the category of assessment on the grounds of persona of the applicants. This category of assessment for admission in the university which is considered an epitome of all virtues is really unthinkable.
The place of higher learning should be all about education and learning and admission to such a place should have been mainly based on academic considerations. The consideration of extra-curricular activities and athletics to some extent is justifiable but the same should be to a lesser extent. Again interview by alumni and considering letters of recommendation to a large extent give subjective inputs. Social justice by considering economically backward students is good but again it is opaque as nobody knows how the admission team has reached such a conclusion. Harvard is a private university and it can say that there is nothing wrong in taking donations in view of giving admissions but it is also an admitted fact that the university receives big funds from the federal treasury of the U.S. government and in such a situation taking donation for granting admission can never be appreciated. The biggest sin of the admission process is that it hides its process. Let the applicants know in advance that a certain percentage of seats is on racial considerations and that also donors are preferred with a fixed number of reserved seats for them.
There is always darkness beneath a glowing lamp. This saying squarely fits the scenario of Harvard. Harvard is one of the greatest universities in the world which helps students to go up in their lives but while selecting students for admissions, it does not follow a transparent process which to some extent does not appear to be ethical. Harvard may have a valid or even defendable reason for doing so but the same does not go well with a place of learning where the object is to teach students to be wise and more knowledgeable and then to be ideal world citizens. Taking and giving donations can never be faulted, but taking money in the name of donation for admission is not an ethical act. For an educational institution all students are equal and hence identifying applicants with clout and giving back-channel admission to such students does not behave well with a great educational institution or university as a whole.
It is said that means justifies the end and so following unfair practices in selecting students for admission will mean doing wrong doings while promoting the noble object of education.
by S K Jha
