'Shaky Record, So-So Scores'

IT WAS just as we suspected.

Over the past year, The Crimson has repeatedly protested the University's policy of granting preferential treatment in admissions to children of Harvard and Radcliffe alumni ("legacies") and recruited athletes. We have pointed to disparate admission rates that suggest that the fabled "tips" given to these groups are, in fact, hard shoves. We have argued that doling out special privileges to legacies because of the accident of their births is unjust and anachronistic. We have contended that admitting marginally qualified students who happen to be able to play hockey or football is an unconscionable compromise of Harvard's touted academic standards.

And in every case, we have received angry letters from students who claim that our accusations are baseless and false--that athletes and legacies are generally just as qualified as everyone else.

As long as Harvard was unwilling to release specific data, such objections retained some small measure of credibility. They can be laid to rest now.

IT'S HARD to argue with the facts: According to documents obtained from the U.S. Department of Education under the Freedom of Information Act, Harvard admitted 35.7 percent of legacy applicants and 48.7 percent of recruited athletes in the classes of 1985 to 1992, compared to 16.9 percent for the applicant pool as a whole.

These figures cast considerable doubt on Harvard's claims that legacy status is only considered at a tie-breaking factor and that athletic prowess is considered in the same way as any other extracurricular activity. Still, admission rates alone do not conclusively disprove those claims.

These statistics from the Department of Education report do: "With the exception of the athletic rating, non-legacy/non-athletes scored better than legacies and recruited athletes in all areas of comparison [SAT math, SAT verbal, academic rating, extracurricular rating, personal rating, teacher rating, counselor rating, alumni rating and class rank]. In addition, the differences...were found, in each category, to be statistically significant."

The report continues, "The comparison shows that on average, the admitted non-athlete/non-legacy applicants scored more than 130 points higher on the combined math and verbal SATs than the admitted recruited athletes, and 35 points higher than the legacies."

And remember, for every sparkling example of a true student-athlete, there must be at least one less-qualified student pulling down the average.

Perhaps more startling than the statistical disparities are some of the comments written by admissions officers on application folders:

Dad's...connections signify lineage of more than usual weight.

A shaky record and so-so scores don't bode well for [the applicant's] chances...Nice personal qualities, and he'd make a fine addition to the team if the coaches go all out for him, but that's what it would take.

Without lineage, there would be little case With it, we'll keep looking.

In all of these cases, the students were admitted.

IRONICALLY, Harvard released this information only because it needed to convince the Department of Education that the College's admissions did not illegally discriminate against Asian-Americans. Although it once insistently down-played the preference given to legacies and athletes, Harvard changed its tune when these preferences were useful as an excuse for its suspiciously low rates of Asian-American admissions. But now that the Department of Education has exonerated the College, Harvard officials are again attempting to discount the significance of legacy and athletic preferences.

With the release of these data, a debate once cluttered by factual uncertainty is now presented in its starkest terms: Harvard admits a large number of substantially less qualified students on the basis of their skill on the playing field or, to quote J.S. Mill, "merely for having taken the trouble to be born."

The University should be humiliated that its deceptive handling of the admission process has been uncovered. We again call on the University to abandon both practices.