New England Board of Higher Education » Harvard University

Right This Way Please … Early Admissions Debate Rages On

John O. Harney — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 21:44:38 +0000

In September 2006, Harvard made the decision to end early admissions. Early admissions takes on two forms: early action and early decision. What Harvard had in place was non-binding early action, meaning that a student applies before the regular deadline—in early November—and has until admissions decisions come back from other schools before deciding where to attend.

Early decision, on the other hand, is a binding option, where the process is the same as early action with one caveat—a person commits to attending the school if accepted. This means making a final decision on a school before receiving financial aid packages, and as John O. Harney argued in The New England Journal of Higher Education (then known as Connection): “no poor kid can make that kind of gamble.”

Indeed, the discussion surrounding both early action and early decision practices is not without controversy. Some argue that such practices give yet another college admissions advantage to students already imbued with social and cultural capital, that is, students who attend well-resourced high schools, have parents who attended college and so on. Applying early increases one’s likelihood of admissions, yet the typical college applicant may not even be cognizant of the option. In low-income communities with understaffed and underfunded high schools, college counselors have large caseloads and struggle to get through explaining the basic admissions and financial aid process to students, let alone the inner workings of early admissions.

It is not only overworked high school college counselors who say early admissions gives more affluent students another leg up in the application process; as a 2006 New York Times article quoted Harvard Dean of Admissions Bill Fitzsimmons: “There is no question about it: early admissions advantages the advantaged … It’s truly tilted.”

Tufts University President Lawrence S. Bacow wrote an article for Connection in 2006 stating that early admissions is an enrollment management tool used to fill slots with applicants most likely to matriculate, thereby increasing “yield percentage,” a number often considered when evaluating the quality of a school. Yet spaces are filled more often than not with full-pay students who do not apply for financial aid, and are thus less economically, geographically, racially and ethnically diverse than the regular applicant pool. Bacow noted that early admission disadvantages students, putting pressure on individuals to make premature decisions about schools due to the appeal of easier admissions and an earlier decision. Tufts continues to have an early decision (but no early action) option.

Of course, early admissions has its backers too. Washington Post education columnist Jay Matthews in a 2006 article commented that early admissions relieves student anxiety by getting the college application process over with before winter break and helps fill campuses with students who actually want to be there, consequently contributing positively to the overall ethos of the campus. He adds that instead of hurting low-income students from poorly resourced high schools, early admissions can actually help such students by encouraging them to stay on track and preventing college counselors from providing yet “one more excuse to let junior year slide by with little effort to help those students.”

But apparently Fitzsimmons and Harvard are singing that tune as well. Just yesterday, the Harvard Crimson announced that Harvard would bring back early action. According to the article, trends over the past few years have indicated that many talented students are choosing schools with early admissions programs. Michael D. Smith, dean of Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences, said these students include “some of the best-prepared low-income and underrepresented minority students.”

As often, when Harvard makes a move, others are quick to follow. When Harvard eliminated early action in 2006, Princeton and the University of Virginia announced their respective eliminations shortly after. Not surprisingly, the Crimson reported that on the same day as Harvard’s announcement to re-instate early action, Princeton followed suit.

It’s a good bet that other top-ranked schools also restore their early admissions programs over the next few weeks. And it will be interesting to see whether Harvard’s class of 2016 will have more or fewer lower-income and minority students, compared with the regular decision cohorts
that came before them.

Technically Speaking, NE’s Largest Grad Enrollments

John O. Harney — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 14:02:25 +0000

The weekly Mass High Tech newspaper recently published a list of New England institutions with the largest "tech graduate enrollment." The list of 20 includes some famous New England private research institutions such as MIT and Harvard as well as seven public universities.

Although Mass High Tech didn't use a specific definition of "tech" programs, it offered survey respondents examples of tech programs in areas of computer science, engineering, life sciences, robotics, as guidelines.

Rhodes Scholars Abound in New England

Shoshana Akins — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 10:52:19 +0000

Ten of the 32 new Rhodes Scholars are from New England or studied in the region.

They are: Mark Jia and Nicholas DiBerardino, both of Princeton University; Laura Nelson of the University of Virginia; Zachary Frankel, Daniel Lage and Baltazar Zavala of Harvard; Alice Baumgartner and William Zeng of Yale; Gabrielle Emanuel of Dartmouth; and Jennifer Lai of MIT.

NE Campuses Wearing Green on 2011 College Sustainability Report Card

NEBHE Admin — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 03:59:58 +0000

The College Sustainability Report Card 2011 is out today, revealing the profiles of 322 schools and their sustainability policies. The fifth edition of the report by the Sustainable Endowments Institute assesses 52 indicators, ranging from green initiatives to recycling programs, and uses an A to F letter-grading system to evaluate different colleges and universities nationwide.

Some New England campuses made honor roll with A- grades, including Amherst College, Brown University, College of the Atlantic, Middlebury College, Smith College, University of New Hampshire, University of Vermont, Wesleyan University, Williams College, Yale University and Harvard University.

Others followed close behind with B+ grades, including Clark University, Colby College, Dartmouth College, MIT, Northeastern University and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

For more information, visit GreenReportCard.org.

As Leaves Change, So Do College Officials

Shoshana Akins — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:35:00 +0000

College of the Atlantic President David F. Hales announced he will retire at the end of the academic year. During his tenure, the college became a carbon-neutral institution, expanded its faculty and diversified its academic programs. A search for a new president is underway for the 2011-12 academic year.

Suffolk University President David Sargent, whose high pay captured regional and national headlines, announced his immediate retirement after a special board meeting held Oct. 20.

Former Massachusetts state representative, champion of the state's Education Reform Act, and lead sponsor for its Gay Rights Bill, Mark Roosevelt will become president of Antioch College of Ohio.

Roger Williams University has not yet found a permanent president after the sudden resignation of its eighth president Roy Nirschel. An interim president has been named but the university is still looking for applicants.

Harvard University announced its newest vice president for capital planning and project management, Mark R. Johnson. Harvard says Johnson, with more than 20 years of experience in construction and architectural design, will be able to "balance the nature of academia with the practicalities of planning and budgets."

Boston University Provost David Campbell will be replaced by the University of Southern California's Jean Morrison at the end of the semester. Morrison, who is currently USC's executive vice provost for academic affairs and graduate programs, will succeed Campbell as BU's chief academic officer, overseeing educational and budget policies for the university's 14 schools and colleges.

The Connecticut State University System has experienced a slew of managerial rearrangements since the departure of Southern Connecticut State University President Cheryl J. Norton, the state attorney general's recent assertion of the board's misguided delegation of responsibility in this matter, and last month's surprise announcement by the chancellor of system Chancellor David Carter that he will retire next September.

The Chronicle of Higher Education noted that questions have been raised about whether the state system needs a major overhaul. (As former Quinebaug Valley Community College President Robert Miller wrote in NEJHE in Summer 1991 when the journal was called Connection: "The slogan that Connecticut seems to have embraced over the years as it contemplates the future of its higher education system is: 'If in doubt, reorganize.'"

Biotech Firms Still Brewing Work in Cambridge, Mass.

Shoshana Akins — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 17:09:10 +0000

Cambridge, Mass., dominates the list of biotechnology firms with the most employees in New England—accounting for seven of the top 10 providers of biotech jobs in the region, reports the specialty newspaper Mass High Tech.

With 12,000 total employees, Genzyme Corp. employed nearly 5,000 in New England and recently announced 502 job openings in Massachusetts. The second largest employer of biotech workers in New England, Biogen Idec Inc. claimed almost 2,000 New England employees among its 4,750 total and said it was looking to add 142 people in Massachusetts.

MHT notes that the biotech leaders are hiring in New England at a time when most other companies are growing only cautiously.

Cambridge officials suggest the city has emerged as a hub for leading biotech companies due to the presence of MIT and Harvard University, the nature of the community as a whole and "access to an unmatched pool of talent and a wealth of institutional resources."

An early champion of biotechnology, NEBHE in 1988 published Biomedical Research and Technology: A Prognosis for International Economic Leadership. The report of NEBHE’s Commission on Academic Medical Centers and the Economy of New England explored the promise of New England’s biotechnology industries and issued major recommendations to encourage biotech manufacturing in New England.

Buying Access to Ivy—A Way to Revive Harvard

John O. Harney — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 10:10:47 +0000

Of the many, many articles written on Harvard University’s endowment woes, I have yet to read one actually sympathetic with Harvard. Perhaps this reflects our gleeful voyeurism when the high-and-mighty fall, or sense of justice that the reckless should pay for their recklessness, or belief that no university truly needs or deserves such a large nest egg, or perhaps the reality that, even after this precipitous fall, Harvard still retains the largest endowment in the solar system. But the impact on the Harvard operating budget and its people is substantial. Harvard’s loss, after all, exceeded the total endowment of all but a half-dozen American institutions, and recovery could take a generation or more to reach its previous peak.

But I have a solution for Harvard University to quickly restore the endowment. Harvard can re-establish its total principal in just two years: simply by selling seats to prospective freshmen. Let’s say that for $10 million each, 600 18-year-olds could gain automatic admission to the world’s most renowned institution. Their parents would ante up their wealth before admissions—so these freshmen might never know if they otherwise would have been accepted. The only admissions stipulations would be the ability to communicate in English and the absence of any criminal record. Over a two-year period, Harvard could recoup the $12 billion lost to mismanagement and recession. Harvard should also promise not to let another secretary of the treasury handle this now-restored endowment.

There would, of course, be universal outrage and ridicule, some lawsuits, and perhaps even a few government hearings and investigations into Harvard’s non-profit status. But that publicity alone should alert the world to this opportunity. Given the Harvard brand, or what would be left of it, there should be little difficulty filling this quota.

To mitigate the PR fallout, Harvard could announce that much of this money would fund scholarships for those who did not submit this $10 million application fee. Harvard could rationalize its actions by claiming to be selling admissions not degrees—in fact, the Harvard faculty, to prove a point, would be even more prone to inflict academic rigor on these undergraduates.

The world of public opinion might still come reigning down on Harvard for this self-serving solution. The more cynical would question why this is even newsworthy. Affluent parents, after all, invest in their children’s advantage from nursery schools through high school, buying extra test time by certifying bogus learning disorders, giving strategic donations and gifts, contriving exotic experiences to pad their children’s applications, and hiring counselors to help with college essays and interviews. Cynics will argue that for years Harvard has been for sale, at a much lower price, for that 10% of its freshman class admitted because of their family’s connections. This simply closes the connection between financial gifts and access, recalibrates the market value of the Harvard degree, and opens up access to a wider share of the upper class—now without the government subsidy of a tax-deduction and at a much higher return to Harvard.

Perhaps some would even awaken to appreciate what a fragile treasure an institution like Harvard is. Once Harvard weathered the barrage of indignation from alumni, faculty, academics who suffer from Harvard envy, and opinion-makers across the globe who would relish yet another opportunity to blast this bastion of elitism, Harvard could embark on one of the most interesting social experiments ever. If Harvard admitted a third of its freshman class based solely on the ability of parents to pay $10 million, and protected their ongoing anonymity, it would be fascinating to see whether the non-meritorious would succeed, or not, in their academic careers and beyond—and just how much the Harvard experience and imprimatur are worth.

The immediate internal dynamics would be intriguing to observe. Would faculty be able to discern, without frequent and embarrassing mistaken identity, which students bought their way into Harvard? Would parents choose to tell their children that they paid $10 million to ensure their admission? Would those students who methodically built a resumé of youthful accomplishments ostracize those who chose this lazy shortcut into Harvard? Would some of those admitted the old-fashioned way secretly suspect their parents of paying up front—just in case? Would all freshmen be eternally second-guessed by insiders and outsiders because some did not earn their way into the class, or would the Harvard halo extend to the entire group?

This longitudinal study could start with academic performance at Harvard and continue throughout graduate and professional schools and into careers. Do Harvard students succeed at subsequent stages of their lives because of who they are—or because of the educational value and prestige of the institution? Is it their pre-established nature or their institution’s nurturing that deserves the credit for their accomplishments? Would the current 97% graduation rate decline? Would the tainted one-third have the same earning power, similar levels of achievement, and comparable happiness in their lives? Their parents, after all, would have wagered that the Harvard Advantage is worth at least $10 million. This would test the wisdom of their investment.

After two years of prostituting its admissions process, Harvard University could return to its more meritorious ways (though a suspicious public might then doubt if this practice had actually ceased)—now far wiser in Harvard’s actual influence on students, and the strength or fragility of its reputation.

Jay A. Halfond is dean of Metropolitan College and Extended Education at Boston University.