July 06, 2004
Re: Open Letter to President Summers
To: Richard Melvoin (Harvard Board of Overseers)
Cc: Lawrence Summers, William Fitzsimmons (Dean of Admissions)
Subject: Re: Open Letter to President Summers
Dear Dr. Melvoin:
Thank you for thoughtful response to our open letter to President Summers about Harvard's admissions policy of giving applications from children of alumni an "additional look."
I fully agree that Harvard should maintain its differentiated admissions policy, bringing in people "with a range of backgrounds and experiences." "Meritocracy," as stated in the open letter, is by no means focused solely on academics. I applaud the admissions committee for striking a delicate balance in determining the composition of every entering class.
No matter how differentiated the admissions process, however, it has a binary outcome. One either will attend or will not. For some students, therefore, having parents who attended Harvard may, in fact, be a decisive criteria in being admitted to Harvard College.
Virtually all achievements or characteristics presented in the application package are particular to the student. Some, of course, are inextricably linked to his or her upbringing. Children of alumni will most certainly be strong candidates for admission, and their rate of acceptance will understandably be higher than the overall rate. Why ask for an applicant's parents' college affiliation, if the characteristics that make them a strong candidate for admissions are already reflected in other parts of the application?
The answer President Summers and others have used is that it is instrumental to the kind of "community" Harvard is. This poses the question of which kind of community we would like Harvard to be. I agree that Harvard is Harvard -- and Cambridge, Cambridge -- in part because of some of the aura created by families with impressive genealogies and longstanding ties to Harvard. This, however, is a reflection of a bygone era.
As far as I understand it, the community Harvard tries to create now is indeed one of meritocracy -- whether it is excellence in academics, public service, the arts, or in a number of other areas. It is this commitment to excellence that has propelled Harvard to be one of the premier institutions of higher learning in this country and in the world. Such a position brings with it an enormous amount of power as well as responsibility. President Summers talked at length about how this power can and should be used to combat inequality in the United States. He ended his Commencement Address by calling upon all of us "to ensure that our University affirms its promise to advance the vital quest for equal opportunity in America." Removing the "ever so slight tip" for children of alumni, would further both goals -- creating a community based on merit and excellence, and reaffirming our commitment to equal opportunity.
As you allude to in your letter, the other reason why Harvard should maintain its policy of giving children of alumni an "additional look" is money. (This, of course, again poses the question of which kind of community Harvard would like to be. Would we like to suggest that the "ever so slight tip" in the admissions process might be "bought" in any way?) Harvard does indeed have a remarkable financial aid program. My wife and I will be the first ones to admit this. Without Harvard's generous support, my wife would not have been able to attend. Without its need blind admissions system for international students (to my knowledge, unparalleled in the United States, at the time of my college application), I would not have been able to go to college in this country. We are forever thankful for this.
Removing the "slight tip" for children of alumni may indeed decrease the amount of money available in Harvard's financial aid funds. So does the policy of no longer requiring families with incomes of less than $40,000 to contribute to the cost of attending Harvard for their children. Both are initiatives aimed at addressing inequality in the United States, and they (may) come at a price. Both initiatives, however, may also encourage some alumni to donate to Harvard: for example, the signatories of this open letter.
Sincerely,
Gernot Wagner
Cc: President Summers, Dean Fitzsimmons
Posted by Gernot Wagner on Tuesday, July 06, 2004. 
Comments
Dear Mr. Wagner,
Hi, I'm a student from Hong Kong who is going to apply to Harvard for entry in 2006. I stumbled upon your blog while searching for "Harvard admissions" on google. After reading your blog, I'd like to share with you my views on the issue.
I completely agree with your views on Harvard's admissions policy on giving the children of alumni an advantage. It is entirely unfair to those of us (such as International students) who are already disadvantaged by the fact that we were never given any (or very little) training in the SAT.
I'm currently studying in an international school that is based on the UK's education system. Because of the arduous workload of the A-levels, extra-curricular activities and the expense of tutoring (not to mention... university applications), I'm going to enter my SAT2s in november with very limited preparation. I can only imagine what other international students (i.e. those that are less affulent) go through. How would they show promise as academics if the US doesn't even view their their local qualifications as legitimate? Instead, the US asks these students to take a totally foreign SAT exam that they have very little chance of succeeding in (more on this later). I'm using SAT as the example of an US entrance test because according to my knowledge, most, if not all, US universities require it)
One may argue that the SAT is an extremely good indication of how well a student will do at the university level. I completely agree with this. However, some students in the US are just given so much more resources (e.g. classes, tutoring, past papers, etc) that their successes in the SAT are almost guaranteed. Who is to say that a student who gets a 2300/2400 with ample training in his or her SAT is better than a student who gets a 1600/2400 without any help at all?
The fact that "special consideration" is given to "legacies" of alumni only adds to the unfairness of the admissions system. One should not be judged by his or her heritage, but instead, by the contents of his or her character. The US is a country known for its freedom and equality regardless of one's ethnicity, gender and social class. Isn't this why Martin Luther King's speech is so revered- because it depicts an equal society where everyone is given the platform to succeed? The irony is that the policy of its "top" university (and as the leading university, other universities follow) is to biased ("LEGACIES?") that it is denying those around the world from studying there.
I certainly hope that you check your blog, Mr. Wagner. Well, even if you don't, I would like to thank you for standing up for equality. I enjoyed reading your blog. Much appreciated.
Yours sincerely,
Wilson Cheng
wilzon@gmail.com
