The story from academia that has dominated the news throughout the summer is the lawsuit being brought against Harvard University admissions, a proceeding that has exposed some less-than-savory truths about the way the admissions process works at ultra-selective schools. While the lawsuit focuses on admissions practices that are unfair to Asian Americans, it has also become clear through depositions how influential financial standing and connection to donors can be in admissions. Faith has not generally been high in the college admissions process to begin with, but this lawsuit should prompt other schools, including and perhaps especially schools like DU, to evaluate their practices and goals in building incoming classes.
Most universities take race into account when deciding on admissions, hoping to create a diverse incoming class. Harvard uses such a process, though the current lawsuit holds that Harvard has consistently discriminated against Asian Americans, based on acceptance rates and ratings on personality categories of applications. Since the lawsuit was filed, other Ivy League and top schools have defended Harvard, arguing that Harvard’s system helps create more campus diversity.
Potential longstanding discrimination against Asian American applicants is central and concerning, but so are the ways that admissions connects to wealth and personal network, factors that court proceedings have revealed to be heavily influential. To some degree, there has always been an understanding of how much these things matter in college acceptances, but it is difficult to see this defended in the same breath as admissions staff claiming efforts for diversity.
A New York Times report of the proceedings thus far details the ways that Harvard accounts for financial standing and connections, methods that have only recently been made public. This includes assessing a student’s ability to pay, whether their parents went to Harvard or whether a student is “of interest” to donors or those who have Harvard connections (these students are placed on the misleadingly-titled “dean’s interest list”). There is also the secretive “Z-list” where students who aren’t as strong academically but who have connections are placed. The system is even far more intricate than described here.
There is a general icky-ness about even the names of these strategies. It is hard to understand how Harvard admissions can defend its system as a way of creating a diverse and strong student body when it is heavily favoring those with connections or money. Admitting students with academic records not strong enough for Harvard’s standards but who are in on the alumni or donor network is not giving an incoming class additional excellence—it is probably doing the opposite.
This is an interesting and motivating chance for DU admissions to evaluate practices. DU has a wealthy alumni network and many students able to pay high amounts, and keeping those students incoming is no doubt a consideration in admissions. But DU is a notably less selective school than Harvard, so we have a higher level of accessibility to students of all backgrounds and abilities to pay tuition. Schools like ours—those without the perceived impenetrability of schools like Harvard—should especially support admissions of those who are not able to rely on personal connections to get them in. By following more need-blind practices and moving away from methods like early decision (which can negatively impact students who need to compare financial aid packages before deciding), universities can learn a lesson from Harvard’s rough summer and take more steps toward a truer diversity of incoming classes.
