I used to work in admissions - in fact, as a graduate student I worked with Bill Fitzsimmons’ admissions team as interviewer. Candidates could “practice” interview with us before the official interview they’d have with an alum like puzzlegal. It was a risky thing, because a great performance would essentially be meaningless - we weren’t officially part of the admissions process. But if a student was terrible, it surely wasn’t helpful. I did meet some fairly amazing young people.
The question is - what exactly makes a Harvard education so valuable? In truth, there are hundreds of universities in the U.S. that provide a strong educational experience: excellent faculty, challenging curriculum, tremendous peers, vibrant co-curriculars. What Harvard offers is networks and reputation. A Harvard student will be immersed in an environment with sons and daughters of wealthy and connected people who can provide access to opportunities that are unique (and international). So a Harvard grad is likely to be set up for success in any field of endeavor, simply because there are probably very powerful folks in that field who also attended Harvard and will potentially give that resume a second look. Add in things like organizational affiliations and it’s even more powerful.
The other aspect is the signaling of a Harvard degree (as compared to the process). Process-wise, there are great professors and classes in a LOT of places. But the signal a Harvard degree sends to most people is one of very high quality. (Of course there are those who delight in finding Harvard grads who are jerks and jackasses.) As one of my profs said to me when I was in grad school, “Nobody is agnostic about this place.” I have found it to be true, and part of the reason for the “I went to school on the East Coast/Boston/Cambridge/ok, fine, Harvard” act. One never knows how someone is going to perceive it - if you say it straight out you’re bragging (to some).
The reality is, if you believe Harvard provides access to social mobility, it seems that those who have the least access to those networks should get an opportunity. If a student is competitive at Harvard, we know two things: 1) they have the confidence and/or support to even fathom the possibility of being admitted, and 2) they will probably be successful at a lot of great institutions. For first generation, low income kids of color, the first factor is the most challenging. They have probably never known someone who went to Harvard and it sounds as possible as going to Mars. Programs that target specific communities do a lot to promote the sense of possibility for those young people, and actually walking on campus and seeing kids from similar backgrounds and communities is equally important.
The reality is that being rejected from Harvard isn’t the end of the world for most students. (One of the SFAA students ended up at Williams College, and later said he didn’t regret not getting into Harvard.) But for those kids who have not had access to those forms of capital, attending Harvard is truly transformative for them and their family. As we say, first generation college students are almost certainly the last in their families to hold that status. Their siblings, cousins, and offsprings will be inspired to attend universities, even if they aren’t one of the elite 300 or so that have these hypercompetitive admissions processes. (Most of the 4,000 postsecondary education institutions in this country are open enrollment - show up with a high school diploma and test scores, apply, and and you’re in.
My greatest worry post-SFAA is that the students least likely to apply to elite universities (and in fact, are probably the greatest justification for their existence) will see it as evidence that they are not welcomed or wanted there. I served on graduate admissions committees for my graduate program at Harvard, and cultivating students to apply was easily one of the hardest things to do. We weren’t obsessed with test scores, but actually were more interested in what students had done, and would do after their degree. Only when we brought a critical mass of underrepresented students of color (hosted by current students of color) did we move the sense of possibilities in many folks’ minds.
Great institutions know that in some disciplines and fields, test scores are very important. But that’s not a universal rule. Nobody who works in admissions would advocate making decisions purely by test scores. And even seemingly objective measures like GPA are skewed by factors like access to prep courses, knowing how to navigate university processes (appealing grades, advocating [successfully] for grade bumps, knowing how and when to drop a course, building mentoring relationships with faculty), and access to resources (think of a student working 30 hours a week and living off-campus compared to one who works 10 hours a week in a desk job or in a lab related to their interest, tied to their coursework, who lives on campus or very close).
I’ve had students with 4.0s and 3.2s apply to grad programs, and in some cases, the 3.2 student is the one who blows me away because they’re able to make those grades with the additional burden of working, caring for family members, and doing volunteer work. Whereas sometimes the 4.0 student has a surfeit of resources that makes their achievement more likely. And don’t get me started on the immorality of unpaid internships, which provides access and opportunity to students who can afford to work for free.