Diversifying Harvard

Harvard may no longer be the same institution that once transformed children of elite families into new generations of elite. But the socioeconomic makeup of today’s student body indicates that a Harvard education remains largely a privilege of the upper-middle class and wealthier. It’s precisely because of the University’s inexcusable under-representation of students from lower-income families that Byerly Hall deserves applause for its recent efforts to rectify this imbalance. And the news last week of a nearly 50 percent increase in early applicants who requested fee-waivers is certainly an encouraging sign. While much work remains, Harvard seems to be unquestioningly moving in the right direction.

The current state of socioeconomic diversity at Harvard is abysmal. Dean of Admissions William R. Fitzsimmons ’67 told The Crimson in a recent interview that in each class of approximately 1,650 students, there is an average of 250 students who come from families with a household income of less than $60,000. That means that less than 15 percent of Harvard students come from the lower three income quintiles (the poorest 60 percent) of households.

To be sure, those numbers are part of a larger, nationwide trend of inequality in higher education. The Harvard Gazette cited some saddening, but unsurprising statistics: “A student from the highest income quartile and the lowest aptitude quartile (as measured by the standardized test scores) was as likely to be enrolled in college as a student from the lowest income quartile and the highest aptitude quartile.”

We believe that this trend must be reversed, and Harvard has a responsibility to lead academia in its reversal.

We are encouraged that under University President Lawrence H. Summers, Harvard has stepped up its efforts to increase enrollment of low-income students. From a more generous financial aid policy, eliminating parental contribution for families with annual incomes of less than $40,000 and reducing it for families with annual incomes of less than $60,000, to increased recruiting efforts directed at schools in lower-income neighborhoods, Harvard has made important strides to encourage the best and brightest low-income students to apply. The increased number of early applicants who requested to waive application fees suggests that those efforts are beginning to pay off.

Nevertheless, as heartening as this year’s jump in fee waiver requests might be, these requests still only represent about 5 percent of all early applicants. And even if these numbers translate into a corresponding 50 percent increase in low-income freshmen, the University would still have a long way to go before its student body came close to reflecting the nation (and world) at large.

Bridging the income-education gap is one of the most important tasks Harvard faces, and Summers has publicly recognized the urgency of this issue—saying that he believes academia is not doing enough to promote more equitable access to education. Yet if the University is to overcome the prevailing conceptions of Harvard as a bastion of the wealthy, this administration is going to have to put its money where its mouth is—at least considerably far more money than it has previously. Raising awareness about admissions policies and financial aid programs is not easy, and to complicate matters the Office of Admissions must contend with persistent Hollywood attempts to exploit the Harvard image for hilarity and profits. But the true image of Harvard—an evolving institution accessible to all talent, regardless of family background—must reach promising students nationwide.

If the Summers administration can achieve meaningful socioeconomic diversity, it will be one of the greatest accomplishments of the University in its 368 years of existence. Harvard is at no risk of spending more money on this endeavor than it merits.