Make the Admissions Game Fair

The college admissions process confounds even the brightest students. The year long process of marketing oneself, claiming that each target school is the “favorite,” and then finally settling on the “right” choice can easily lead to disillusionment and frustration. Getting rid of early action will ease these daunting barriers, but the process cannot be truly meritocratic as long as preferences are given to alumni and athletes.

The complex admissions process supposedly distinguishes the qualified from the unqualified, the very best from the merely very, very good. The current process, however, is hopelessly burdensome, inaccurate, and biased. Standardized tests, for example, separate the good test takers from bad test takers, rather than the best students from the next best. But Harvard College’s recent move to abolish early action is a step in the right direction.

As Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William R. Fitzsimmons ’67 says, abolishing early action is “certainly a win for students in the bottom quarter and bottom half of the income distribution.” He, and many others, feel that wealthy students have an advantage in applying early. With thousands of dollars to spend on consultants, essay editors, and test preparation, wealthy students can prepare to play the admissions game sooner, faster, and better than less privileged students.

Despite the fact that extra time will not give disadvantaged students more resources and better counseling, it will be very valuable. Wealthy students at elite private schools often begin planning for college in their sophomore or junior year, whereas high schools which send few students to college often do not encourage working on the application until the senior year. The extra month and a half that regular decision provides (including a winter break period) will allow students who had not considered college an option before more time to think about their future and plan accordingly.

Early admissions undoubtedly “advantaged the advantaged.” With two separate pools and two separate acceptance rates—21 percent early and nine percent regular—there was a much higher chance of succeeding in Harvard’s early action pool. High school counselors who knew this would advise their students to join the “easier” pool while other students had no idea what they were missing. With a unified acceptance plan, all students will be judged against each other in one round which will by its very nature create a fairer, more just set of decisions.

But if the admissions process is to be truly reformed and actually made meritocratic—as Fitzsimmons and Interim President Derek C. Bok seem to hope—then Harvard must do more than simply eliminate early action. Right now, even greater barriers to equity in the admissions process include alumni favor, athletic recruiting, and the extra resources of the rich.

Alumni status is one of the touchiest subjects in the admissions process, but if we are to review the entire process, no subject can remain taboo. Alumni status benefits many students who would otherwise be undeserving of admittance even though there is no reason to believe that a child of an alumnus is better than another student. Whatever fundraising advantages alumni admissions gives the College, these benefits do not justify corrupting the admissions process, especially not when our endowment continues to soar upwards of $29 billion. Just as financial aid is separated from admissions, alumni giving must be separated from the process as well.

Another example of inequality which must be examined is the recruiting process. With Facebook groups such as “Thats [sic] Right I Got Recruited... Bitch” which support those who “steal the valedectorians [sic] lunch money in high school,” perhaps we should ask what value those who are at Harvard only for athletics bring. Of course, athletics can be an important part of the admissions equation, mirroring such extracurricular activities as music or student publications, but it should not have a special, exalted status. Giving athletes special advantages for throwing a ball hard or running quickly undermines the meritocracy that the College should strive for in its admissions process.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Harvard and other institutions need to find a way to peel back the glossy covers of wealthy students’ applications. This can be done somewhat in an interview, but there really is no clear solution given the current applications and standards for admission. The SAT is clearly flawed, counselor recommendations and grades are too variable to rely on, and essays can be altered far beyond a student’s capabilities. Although I do not have a magic solution to this problem, the College must recognize and account for it rather than quietly ignoring it, because it won’t go away. Too many students seek only the paper the degree is printed on and the prestigious name attached. Colleges must do more to distinguish passionate and academically talented students from those with merely pretty applications.

The removal of early admissions options, at Harvard and now at Princeton, is only the first step towards reforming the college admissions process. Getting rid of early action will make decisions more fair, but there is still a long way to go before college admissions are truly meritocratic.



Shai D. Bronshtein ’09, a Crimson editorial editor, is a social studies concentrator in Lowell House.