Admissions Staff Faces 6500 Choices

Eleven years ago, when the Admission Committee had processed 3320 applications to the Class of 1953, Wilbur J. Bender '27, then dean of Admissions and Financial Aids, desperately noted in his annual report:

"It is our strong and unanimous belief that even if we can survive present pressures we cannot possibly handle by present methods the greatly increased number of candidates which we will have in the near future and that drastic changes in admission procedure are necessary....It will be simply impossible to examine properly five to ten thousand applications between February and early May..."

On Monday the Admission and Scholarship Committee began meetings to choose the Class of 1969 from among 6500 applicants. And Fred L. Glimp '56, who is directing the office for his fifth year, leaned back in his chair last Friday, surveyed a clean desk, and declared "We should go into the meetings this year in the best of shape."

Glimp's confidence is somewhat surprising in the face of recent statistics. Partially because of the extraordinary national increase in college applications. Harvard received about 15 per cent more applications this year then ever before. When a member of the admissions staff piles 6500 letters into his Volkswagen bus shortly before midnight on April 16 to take them to the South Postal Annex in Boston, only about 1400 for 23 per cent) will be acceptances. An unprecedented 5100 people will be rejected.

The truth is that Harvard admissions officers have gone through a series of crises during the past decade and have emerged with a new confidence in basically the same system. This system, which one staff member has called "the most complex selection process in the country," begins when an application follower is complete with College Board , teachers' reports, school reports, applicant's essays, and interview . Then it goes to an "area man" the first of three readings.

(The Permanent admissions staff and some of its outside reinforcements such adopts several geographical areas the country, visit from time to time in order to recruit or to talk with local Harvard Club officials. The average area assignment includes metropolitan and some rural , some "high-yield" and some "low-yield" parts of the country, entirely geographically . One staff-member, for example, New York City, southern California, the states of Minnesota and Washington, and northeastern Pennsylvania.)

The area man codes the various objective information in the folder-- the teachers' recommendation-- a one-to-nine scale for both admission and scholarship purposes and summarizes the results on a separate sheet. He then comments upon the folder as a whole, and, unless the applicant is clearly inadmissable, sends it to the next scheduled reader. When the folder has gone through three readings (only two if the applicant is particularly strong in every way), and has been assigned a PRL (Predicted Rank List), it is stored in a "coffin" to await being listed on a geographical docket and considered by the whole Admissions Committee.

The Faculty Committee on Admission includes about 22 members, well distributed among the departments and administrative offices. There are a few "specialists" who have been on the Committee for several successive years and always a few new ones. At these meetings, each area man from the staff introduces the docket from each of his regions and is the primary consultant on difficult or controversial decisions. Cases have often been very hotly debated before the committee was able to reach a decision. This sometimes occurs when an area man has been particularly impressed by a candidate from somewhere in "the boondocks." While all the decisions on a particular region are made at once, there are apparently no area or state quotas. Recent figures for Idaho, for example, show two admissions one year, five the next, twelve the next, and two in the following year.

The Committee would have an easy task if it admitted the 1200 applicants with the highest test scores and best academic records. But this is hardly the case, and for the past few years a declining percentage of the applicants with verbal SAT scores over 700 has been admitted In fact, the Committee has continued to find a single one-to-six rating of personal and academic factors a more reliable prediction of performance at Harvard. The only major reexamination of admissions policy, by a Faculty committee which reported in February 1960, showed a certain restlessness with some aspects, like preference to alumni sons, but it was basically noncommital and uncritical.

No one is quite able to describe what subjective factors the Admissions Committee looks for in an applicant. According to one source, they include a startling variety:

strength of character and personality, maturity and stability, creative ability in some field, capacity for leadership, rural or small town background, Harvard parentage, geographical distribution, athletic ability, enthusiasm and energy, strength of motivation, interest in a particular field of study, breadth and strength of intellectual curiosity, a sense of responsibility, and concern for the public good.

Since all but about 500 of the applicants could do Harvard work, the Committee's job is a complex and troubling one.

Reading folders is the only way to handle the serious problem of how to weight subjective information, according to David K. Smith '58, assistant director of Admissions and Freshman Scholarships. He calls folder reading a "luxury" in Harvard admissions that has become the only way to give so many candidates personal attention.

One of the subjective areas, not surprisingly, is the interview, which has become less reliable despite the care taken with it. The standard interview report, which asks the interview report, which asks the interviewer for a one-to-six rating of the candidates in each of five categories, urges in its instructions that "the interview is often our only chance to get a third dimension on a candidate, to see him as something more than a paper record of grades, test scores, and activities.... We weigh [judgments about promise and intangible personal qualities] with humility and care." Smith points out that interviewers have learned not to ask certain questions like "Why do you want to come to Harvard?" because "you only get garbage for answers."

Although it expected a definite increase in applicants, the Admissions Office was uncertain throughout the fall at what point the onslaught would stop. The first accomodation to this year's increase--one staff member called it a "way to buy time for ourselves"--was a cutback in the old A-B-C rating system, which gave early notification of standing to seniors in over 100 schools with par-4FRED L. GLIMP Machines Are Not the Solution

(The Permanent admissions staff and some of its outside reinforcements such adopts several geographical areas the country, visit from time to time in order to recruit or to talk with local Harvard Club officials. The average area assignment includes metropolitan and some rural , some "high-yield" and some "low-yield" parts of the country, entirely geographically . One staff-member, for example, New York City, southern California, the states of Minnesota and Washington, and northeastern Pennsylvania.)

The area man codes the various objective information in the folder-- the teachers' recommendation-- a one-to-nine scale for both admission and scholarship purposes and summarizes the results on a separate sheet. He then comments upon the folder as a whole, and, unless the applicant is clearly inadmissable, sends it to the next scheduled reader. When the folder has gone through three readings (only two if the applicant is particularly strong in every way), and has been assigned a PRL (Predicted Rank List), it is stored in a "coffin" to await being listed on a geographical docket and considered by the whole Admissions Committee.

The Faculty Committee on Admission includes about 22 members, well distributed among the departments and administrative offices. There are a few "specialists" who have been on the Committee for several successive years and always a few new ones. At these meetings, each area man from the staff introduces the docket from each of his regions and is the primary consultant on difficult or controversial decisions. Cases have often been very hotly debated before the committee was able to reach a decision. This sometimes occurs when an area man has been particularly impressed by a candidate from somewhere in "the boondocks." While all the decisions on a particular region are made at once, there are apparently no area or state quotas. Recent figures for Idaho, for example, show two admissions one year, five the next, twelve the next, and two in the following year.

The Committee would have an easy task if it admitted the 1200 applicants with the highest test scores and best academic records. But this is hardly the case, and for the past few years a declining percentage of the applicants with verbal SAT scores over 700 has been admitted In fact, the Committee has continued to find a single one-to-six rating of personal and academic factors a more reliable prediction of performance at Harvard. The only major reexamination of admissions policy, by a Faculty committee which reported in February 1960, showed a certain restlessness with some aspects, like preference to alumni sons, but it was basically noncommital and uncritical.

No one is quite able to describe what subjective factors the Admissions Committee looks for in an applicant. According to one source, they include a startling variety:

strength of character and personality, maturity and stability, creative ability in some field, capacity for leadership, rural or small town background, Harvard parentage, geographical distribution, athletic ability, enthusiasm and energy, strength of motivation, interest in a particular field of study, breadth and strength of intellectual curiosity, a sense of responsibility, and concern for the public good.

Since all but about 500 of the applicants could do Harvard work, the Committee's job is a complex and troubling one.

Reading folders is the only way to handle the serious problem of how to weight subjective information, according to David K. Smith '58, assistant director of Admissions and Freshman Scholarships. He calls folder reading a "luxury" in Harvard admissions that has become the only way to give so many candidates personal attention.

One of the subjective areas, not surprisingly, is the interview, which has become less reliable despite the care taken with it. The standard interview report, which asks the interview report, which asks the interviewer for a one-to-six rating of the candidates in each of five categories, urges in its instructions that "the interview is often our only chance to get a third dimension on a candidate, to see him as something more than a paper record of grades, test scores, and activities.... We weigh [judgments about promise and intangible personal qualities] with humility and care." Smith points out that interviewers have learned not to ask certain questions like "Why do you want to come to Harvard?" because "you only get garbage for answers."

Although it expected a definite increase in applicants, the Admissions Office was uncertain throughout the fall at what point the onslaught would stop. The first accomodation to this year's increase--one staff member called it a "way to buy time for ourselves"--was a cutback in the old A-B-C rating system, which gave early notification of standing to seniors in over 100 schools with par-4FRED L. GLIMP Machines Are Not the Solution

The area man codes the various objective information in the folder-- the teachers' recommendation-- a one-to-nine scale for both admission and scholarship purposes and summarizes the results on a separate sheet. He then comments upon the folder as a whole, and, unless the applicant is clearly inadmissable, sends it to the next scheduled reader. When the folder has gone through three readings (only two if the applicant is particularly strong in every way), and has been assigned a PRL (Predicted Rank List), it is stored in a "coffin" to await being listed on a geographical docket and considered by the whole Admissions Committee.

The Faculty Committee on Admission includes about 22 members, well distributed among the departments and administrative offices. There are a few "specialists" who have been on the Committee for several successive years and always a few new ones. At these meetings, each area man from the staff introduces the docket from each of his regions and is the primary consultant on difficult or controversial decisions. Cases have often been very hotly debated before the committee was able to reach a decision. This sometimes occurs when an area man has been particularly impressed by a candidate from somewhere in "the boondocks." While all the decisions on a particular region are made at once, there are apparently no area or state quotas. Recent figures for Idaho, for example, show two admissions one year, five the next, twelve the next, and two in the following year.

The Committee would have an easy task if it admitted the 1200 applicants with the highest test scores and best academic records. But this is hardly the case, and for the past few years a declining percentage of the applicants with verbal SAT scores over 700 has been admitted In fact, the Committee has continued to find a single one-to-six rating of personal and academic factors a more reliable prediction of performance at Harvard. The only major reexamination of admissions policy, by a Faculty committee which reported in February 1960, showed a certain restlessness with some aspects, like preference to alumni sons, but it was basically noncommital and uncritical.

No one is quite able to describe what subjective factors the Admissions Committee looks for in an applicant. According to one source, they include a startling variety:

strength of character and personality, maturity and stability, creative ability in some field, capacity for leadership, rural or small town background, Harvard parentage, geographical distribution, athletic ability, enthusiasm and energy, strength of motivation, interest in a particular field of study, breadth and strength of intellectual curiosity, a sense of responsibility, and concern for the public good.

Since all but about 500 of the applicants could do Harvard work, the Committee's job is a complex and troubling one.

Reading folders is the only way to handle the serious problem of how to weight subjective information, according to David K. Smith '58, assistant director of Admissions and Freshman Scholarships. He calls folder reading a "luxury" in Harvard admissions that has become the only way to give so many candidates personal attention.

One of the subjective areas, not surprisingly, is the interview, which has become less reliable despite the care taken with it. The standard interview report, which asks the interview report, which asks the interviewer for a one-to-six rating of the candidates in each of five categories, urges in its instructions that "the interview is often our only chance to get a third dimension on a candidate, to see him as something more than a paper record of grades, test scores, and activities.... We weigh [judgments about promise and intangible personal qualities] with humility and care." Smith points out that interviewers have learned not to ask certain questions like "Why do you want to come to Harvard?" because "you only get garbage for answers."

Although it expected a definite increase in applicants, the Admissions Office was uncertain throughout the fall at what point the onslaught would stop. The first accomodation to this year's increase--one staff member called it a "way to buy time for ourselves"--was a cutback in the old A-B-C rating system, which gave early notification of standing to seniors in over 100 schools with par-4FRED L. GLIMP Machines Are Not the Solution

The Faculty Committee on Admission includes about 22 members, well distributed among the departments and administrative offices. There are a few "specialists" who have been on the Committee for several successive years and always a few new ones. At these meetings, each area man from the staff introduces the docket from each of his regions and is the primary consultant on difficult or controversial decisions. Cases have often been very hotly debated before the committee was able to reach a decision. This sometimes occurs when an area man has been particularly impressed by a candidate from somewhere in "the boondocks." While all the decisions on a particular region are made at once, there are apparently no area or state quotas. Recent figures for Idaho, for example, show two admissions one year, five the next, twelve the next, and two in the following year.

The Committee would have an easy task if it admitted the 1200 applicants with the highest test scores and best academic records. But this is hardly the case, and for the past few years a declining percentage of the applicants with verbal SAT scores over 700 has been admitted In fact, the Committee has continued to find a single one-to-six rating of personal and academic factors a more reliable prediction of performance at Harvard. The only major reexamination of admissions policy, by a Faculty committee which reported in February 1960, showed a certain restlessness with some aspects, like preference to alumni sons, but it was basically noncommital and uncritical.

No one is quite able to describe what subjective factors the Admissions Committee looks for in an applicant. According to one source, they include a startling variety:

strength of character and personality, maturity and stability, creative ability in some field, capacity for leadership, rural or small town background, Harvard parentage, geographical distribution, athletic ability, enthusiasm and energy, strength of motivation, interest in a particular field of study, breadth and strength of intellectual curiosity, a sense of responsibility, and concern for the public good.

Since all but about 500 of the applicants could do Harvard work, the Committee's job is a complex and troubling one.

Reading folders is the only way to handle the serious problem of how to weight subjective information, according to David K. Smith '58, assistant director of Admissions and Freshman Scholarships. He calls folder reading a "luxury" in Harvard admissions that has become the only way to give so many candidates personal attention.

One of the subjective areas, not surprisingly, is the interview, which has become less reliable despite the care taken with it. The standard interview report, which asks the interview report, which asks the interviewer for a one-to-six rating of the candidates in each of five categories, urges in its instructions that "the interview is often our only chance to get a third dimension on a candidate, to see him as something more than a paper record of grades, test scores, and activities.... We weigh [judgments about promise and intangible personal qualities] with humility and care." Smith points out that interviewers have learned not to ask certain questions like "Why do you want to come to Harvard?" because "you only get garbage for answers."

Although it expected a definite increase in applicants, the Admissions Office was uncertain throughout the fall at what point the onslaught would stop. The first accomodation to this year's increase--one staff member called it a "way to buy time for ourselves"--was a cutback in the old A-B-C rating system, which gave early notification of standing to seniors in over 100 schools with par-4FRED L. GLIMP Machines Are Not the Solution