A Community at Risk

In March 2007, then-Dean of the College Benedict H. Gross ’71 stated that—although the number of admitted transfer students was to be halved—“We always want to have space for some exceptional transfer students.”

Believing that promise, 1,308 students competed for the 40 estimated transfer spots for the 2008-2009 school year, down from 75 two years prior. A month after the application deadline, bad news was sprung upon the applicants: Harvard will not be accepting any transfer students for the next two academic years, citing the extensive evaluation of the rampant housing crunch as the cause. Although the space crunch is a real and important issue, this decision is unwise, untimely, and inappropriately executed.

We do not question the idea that transferring is a privilege, not a right. Princeton does not have a transfer program, and Yale admits no more than 24 applicants annually. At Harvard, the number of admitted transfers has been notoriously temperamental: after a five-year downward trend, no transfers were admitted in the spring of 2003. Since then, the number has been rising steadily, averaging between 50 and 75.

Although the 2007 announcement to halve the number of transfers ignited petitions of angry students, Harvard administrators have, both historically and in recent memory, reaffirmed the importance of the transfer program and the important role transfer students play in the Harvard community.

As early as 1957, when housing concerns threatened the number of transfer students admitted, then-Director of Financial Aid John U. Monro ’34 urged that “Harvard ought to liberalize the transfer operation greatly.” Transfer students, then and now, are a significant demographic of highly motivated students and leaders that the College would be remiss to exclude.

Space constraints have always been one of the most limiting factors in admissions, for both freshmen and transfer applicants, and we realize that the current issues are of pressing concern. However, if a mere 40 transfer applicants were accepted and spread out across all 12 houses, the additional space constraints per house would be minimal. Furthermore, alternate solutions like using temporary or grad dorm housing, cutting the size of the incoming freshmen class, or reopening housing in places such as Massachusetts Hall, could have been employed in place of eliminating transfer admissions. By accepting a smaller freshman class this year, the Office of Admissions should be able to reinstate the transfer program in a year, instead of the current (at least) two-year hiatus.

Most troubling about this decision is its timing and its lack of transparency. The decision was announced well after the application deadline, rendering applicants’ time, energy, and money moot. Almost all of the 1,308 rejected applicants were full-time college students balancing full academic and extra-curricular lives while going through the college application process a second time. Although the Admissions Office’s letter to the applicants recognizes this concern (and they plan to refund the application fee) it was in poor form to announce this decision after the application deadline. The reason for eliminating transfer admissions—a housing crunch—certainly did not appear out of thin air.

The act of eliminating transfer admissions undermines the Harvard admissions philosophy. Had Harvard read the current applications and decided that none were qualified enough to warrant further housing strain, the decision not to admit transfers would have seemed warranted. Instead, the admissions officers set an a priori cap rather than reading each application and evaluating each individual on his or her own merits. This decision is a default rejection of some students who may have proven to be among Harvard’s best, both for this year and many years to come, undermining the many recent admissions initiatives with the explicit purpose of attracting the strongest, most diverse, and most interesting students as possible.

This move also undoes much of the progress to make Harvard’s undergraduate experience available to all. While we have made strides in improving the socio-economic, racial, and geographic diversity of Harvard’s undergraduates, the decision to end the transfer program is a fatal blow to students who, for any variety of reasons, have made different educational decisions, such as attending community college or enrolling in a two-year program like Deep Springs College.

Given the circumstances in which this decision was made, it may deter many students from applying to transfer to Harvard when the transfer program is reinstated. The lack of consideration and fair treatment of transfer applicants will echo for years to come. Also, eliminating transfer classes for two years will hurt future accepted transfer students. Currently, new transfers are oriented by the “Transfer Link” program, which is run by other transfers. By eliminating all transfers for two years, this community’s existence is at risk, and new transfers will likely enter Harvard unguided by their peers.

Dean Gross’s empty promise echoes in the ears of many. We hope that the Admissions Office is more prudent in the future, and that they will carefully consider freshman admissions and resume the transfer program as soon as possible.