Summary Legacy and Athlete Preferences in Harvard Admissions public.econ.duke.edu
16,280 words - PDF document - View PDF document
One Line
The Harvard admissions lawsuit showed that preferences for legacies, athletes, and faculty/staff children have a significant impact on admissions decisions, and removing these preferences would greatly affect the racial makeup of admitted students, raising concerns about fairness and wealth inequality.
Slides
Slide Presentation (10 slides)
Key Points
- The lawsuit Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard University revealed the preferences given to certain groups in the admissions process, such as recruited athletes, legacies, and children of faculty and staff.
- Among white admits at Harvard, over 43% were children of faculty and staff, while the percentage was much lower for African American, Asian American, and Hispanic admits.
- Removing preferences for athletes and legacies would significantly impact the racial distribution of admitted students, with a decrease in white admits and an increase in other groups.
- Legacy preferences are common at many competitive schools in the United States.
- Concerns about fairness in college admissions are driven by wealth inequality, growing competitiveness in higher education, and the expectation of merit-based admissions.
- Detailed admissions data from Harvard were made available due to the court case, providing insight into applicant characteristics and internal ratings used in the admissions process.
- Legacy applicants and admits were found to be disproportionately white and come from higher income households.
- Harvard has a large number of varsity teams and a high participation rate in intercollegiate athletics among its undergraduates.
Summaries
82 word summary
The Harvard admissions lawsuit revealed that preferences for legacies, athletes, and faculty/staff children greatly impact admissions decisions. Removing these preferences would significantly affect the racial makeup of admitted students. Legacy preferences are controversial due to concerns about fairness and wealth inequality. Admissions data showed that legacies and faculty/staff children were disproportionately white and from higher income households. Athletes admitted had lower credentials compared to other students. Harvard has a large number of varsity teams and 20% of undergraduates participate in intercollegiate athletics.
137 word summary
The lawsuit against Harvard University revealed how the school makes admissions decisions, including preferences for recruited athletes, legacies, and children of faculty and staff. Data showed that a significant percentage of white students admitted were legacies or children of faculty and staff, while the share among African American, Asian American, and Hispanic students was much lower. Removing preferences for athletes and legacies would greatly affect the racial makeup of admitted students. Legacy preferences are common but controversial due to concerns about fairness and wealth inequality. The court case provided detailed admissions data from Harvard, revealing that legacies and children of faculty and staff were disproportionately white and from higher income households. Admitted athletes had lower credentials compared to other students. Harvard has a large number of varsity teams and approximately 20% of undergraduates participate in intercollegiate athletics.
221 word summary
The lawsuit Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard University revealed how Harvard makes admissions decisions, specifically in regards to preferences for recruited athletes, legacies, those on the dean's interest list, and children of faculty and staff (ALDCs). The data showed that a significant percentage of white admits were ALDC, while the share among African American, Asian American, and Hispanic admits was much lower. Removing preferences for athletes and legacies would significantly impact the racial distribution of admitted students. Legacy preferences are common among competitive schools in the US but are viewed unfavorably due to concerns about fairness and wealth inequality. The growing competitiveness of the higher education market has also raised concerns about privilege in college admissions. Detailed admissions data from Harvard were made available as a result of the court case, providing insight into applicant characteristics and internal ratings used by the university. ALDC applicants were found to be disproportionately white and from higher income households. Admitted athletes had lower credentials compared to typical admits. The breakdown of applicant ratings by race and LDC status is provided in Table D1. Harvard has the most varsity teams among NCAA Division I colleges and universities, with approximately 20% of undergraduates participating in intercollegiate athletics. The list of varsity sports offered at Harvard is extensive and has been established throughout the university's history.
652 word summary
The lawsuit Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard University provided an unprecedented look at how Harvard makes admissions decisions. The preferences Harvard gives for recruited athletes, legacies, those on the dean's interest list, and children of faculty and staff (ALDCs) were examined using publicly released reports. It was found that among white admits, over 43% were ALDC, while among African American, Asian American, and Hispanic admits, the share was less than 16% each. A model of admissions showed that roughly three-quarters of white ALDC admits would have been rejected if they had been treated as typical white applicants. Removing preferences for athletes and legacies would significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students, with the share of white admits falling and all other groups rising or remaining unchanged. Legacy preferences were found to be relevant at many competitive schools in the United States. Wealth inequality in the US has been expanding for decades, and college admissions preferences for groups that may already be advantaged are generally viewed poorly. There is widespread concern about the "fairness" of college admissions, as applicants with greater academic preparation and accomplishments expect to be admitted at higher rates relative to less qualified applicants. Preferences for ALDC applicants have the potential to subvert this meritocratic ideal. The rising concerns about privilege and fairness in college admissions are also driven by the growing competitiveness of the higher education market. Over the past twenty years, application levels have risen dramatically at elite colleges and universities in the US, with essentially no change in the number of seats available. While detailed admissions data are tightly guarded by universities, rich data on Harvard admissions were made available as a result of the court case. The data contain a plethora of applicant characteristics, including detailed information on demographics, academics, and extracurricular activities. Of particular importance, the data contain information on Harvard's internal ratings of its applicants on a host of dimensions, including academic, extracurricular, athletic, and personal. The availability of Harvard's internal ratings allows for a better description of the differences between ALDC and typical applicants, as well as accounting for factors that would typically be unavailable when estimating admissions models. ALDC applicants and admits were found to be disproportionately white and come from higher income households. On average, LDC applicants were stronger than typical applicants, but the average LDC admit was weaker than the average typical admit, suggesting an admissions advantage for LDC applicants. Admitted athletes had significantly worse credentials than typical admits. A model of Harvard admissions that
Table D1 provides a breakdown of applicant ratings by race and LDC (Legacy, Dean's Interest List, and Children of Faculty/Staff) status. The table includes ratings for Overall, Academic, Extracurricular, Athletic, and Personal categories. The ratings are further categorized as 2 or better, 3, or 4 or worse. The data shows the distribution of ratings for each racial group and LDC status.
Harvard University has the most varsity teams among NCAA Division I colleges and universities, with 42 teams. Approximately 20% of Harvard undergraduates participate in intercollegiate athletics, totaling around 1,200 student athletes. This is more than the number of athletes at Stanford University, which has a similar undergraduate enrollment but 300 fewer athletes. Even Ohio State University, with a much larger undergraduate enrollment of nearly 46,000, has fewer student athletes than Harvard, with 1,038 student athletes in 30 different sports.
The list of varsity sports offered at Harvard includes men's heavyweight crew, baseball, football, outdoor track, lacrosse, fencing, ice hockey, basketball, cross country, soccer, wrestling, lightweight crew, indoor track, golf, squash, tennis, sailing, swimming and diving, skiing, and women's heavyweight crew, tennis, basketball, field hockey, lightweight crew, outdoor track and field, swimming and diving, squash, fencing, lacrosse, cross country, sailing, skiing, indoor track and field, soccer, ice hockey, softball, men's volleyball, men's water polo, women's volleyball, women's water polo, golf, and rugby. These teams have been established at various times throughout Harvard's history.