Records, Notes and "Tips": How Harvard admissions select a student

The numbers are ruthless: out of more than 40,000 applications a year at Harvard University, 2,000 are not yet retained. Only one admitted for 19 refused. Each year, high school students with A rights, perfect test results and clever recommendations wonder why they did not succeed.

The Harvard decision-making process has now been lifted. At the Boston Federal Court, lawyers and witnesses discuss cases, first readers, second readers, committees, notations, lists of deans and the mysterious factors that influence borderline cases, called "councils".

The perpetual intensity of competition is the central and undisputed fact of the lawsuit alleging that Harvard discriminates against US applicants of Asian descent. Harvard denies this accusation in the trial that began last Monday.

Some universities have more applications than Harvard. Two years ago, the California State University in Los Angeles was the first to receive more than 100,000 applications. New York University, which is private, has attracted more than 75,000 people for the class that entered this fall.

With this type of volume, it is difficult to give each application a thorough reading. This is how Harvard does it, based on court records and the testimony of Dean of Admissions William R. Fitzsimmons.

First, the applications are divided into 20 groups called "folders". California has three files named A, C and Z. Texas gets the record D. The states of Virginia, Maryland, Delaware and the District of Columbia provide the record I.

A subcommittee of four or five admissions officers will read the records from a given file. A reader will review essays, transcripts, test results, recommendation letters and other information, including race or ethnicity, if disclosed. Next, the reader fills out a summary sheet with comments and ratings on a scale of 1 to 4 (1 being the highest, most and least optional) in four categories of profiles: academic, extracurricular, athletic and personal. The personal category is intended to evaluate traits such as leadership and character. The reader will also give a preliminary overall score, which is a judgment, not an average of the other notes.

Some files are delivered to a second reader within the subcommittee for a second round of evaluations. A teacher can also read a file if the candidate demonstrates depth in the performing arts field or special talents in a field such as mathematics. Alumni interviewers send their reports. Subcommittees then meet, review the files and vote on the recommendations.

From there, the files are sent back to the admission committee of 40 people. The cases are weighed. The lists of recommendations are reduced. The committee votes on the final decisions.

Profile evaluations are crucial. Analysis of 160,000 domestic applications over six admission cycles revealed that more than 55,000 had received neither 1 nor 2. Almost all were rejected. Each year, only about 100 candidates get an academic grade of 1, while thousands get perfect and near-perfect grades and scores.

In 2014, the basic rule for an academic 2 was to rank the highest marks and test scores in the medium to high 700-700 (out of 800) SAT reading and math sections or at least 33 out of 36 in ACTs. But the academic score is more important than the scores and grades. Readers take into account the rigor of the classes students choose – based on what is offered in their school – and what teachers and others say about them.

High marks are more common among academics than other dimensions: 42% of applications score 1 or 2, while less than 25% receive such a high score for extracurricular activities, sports, and personal suitability.

The university says that it values ​​"multidimensional excellence". This means, in numbers, that a candidate ranked 2 out of three of the four categories of profiles is offered admission about 40% of the time. But he also wants students with rare talents. Here are the admission rates for those who received a grade of 1 in only one of four areas: extracurricular (48%); personal (66%); academic (68%); and athletic (88 percent). This last figure reflects the admission of recruited athletes.

What about positive factors or "tips"? The Harvard Handbook for Former Interviewers states, "Tipping comes into play only at a high level of merit; the committee never gives enough tips to admit an average candidate at the expense of a first-rate candidate. "

Advice includes creative ability, athletic talent and "Harvard and Radcliffe affiliation". This is an advantage for the children of former Harvard undergraduate students (not graduate schools) or Radcliffe Women's College, which merged with Harvard. The data shows that the admission rate of "old" national candidates is 34%, compared with 6% for non-traditional candidates. Harvard faculty and staff also have higher entry rates.

Fitzsimmons also holds a "Dean's List" with candidates of particular interest. The director of admissions has a similar list. Hundreds of names appear on these lists each year. Some are children of donors. The admission rate for people on the lists – 42% – is well above average. Harvard says that many children of donors are not allowed.

There are other tips to help Harvard build a diverse economic and racial class. Children from low-income families have a boost. The same is true for African American and Hispanic candidates. Harvard says that race and ethnicity can be a benefit to American applicants of Asian descent. The university says that race is only one factor among others, according to the methods accepted by the Supreme Court.

The evidence appearing during the test shows various racial differences in the parameters associated with the applicants' assessment. Americans of Asian descent, for example, tend to receive higher academic grades and lower personal ratings than other groups.

The complainant, Students for Fair Admissions, argues that Americans of Asian descent are penalized by the rating process and in other ways. The plaintiff's lawyer, Adam K. Mortara, stated that Harvard had let "the racial bias wolf enter through the main door".

Harvard denies the charge.

"Are race or ethnicity always a disadvantage?" Asked Fitzsimmons, a Harvard lawyer.

"Never," said the dean.

Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the United States District plans to reach a verdict after the trial. It is almost certain that his decision will be appealed.