From reading HN the last time this controversy came up, I've come with a possibility.

I think a portion of it is that if you judge based solely on academics then you will only get a certain type of person who is focused on scores in academics. You could easily fill your class with the top X% of scorers but that won't necessarily make an interesting group of graduates in the real world. It especially won't make an interesting group of people to interact with. I don't think I'd go to that school even if I had been admitted.

I think part of it is that they're hoping to find people who will end up being important people in the world. Not necessarily just those who perform well academically.

The admissions are based on academics, extra-curricular activities, and personality.

I can understand how #2 is important, but #3 is ripe for personal bias.

A high bar, with people passing it entering lottery quotas is a far fairer way of having both diversity, and removing personal bias from the equation.

Absolutely this.

Academic performance is mostly a disqualifier to figure out if someone would be successful enough. Harvard, doesn't really care about the GPA of its existing students which is why they also don't care about grade inflation. They're looking for signals that you'll succeed outside of academia. If you want to go to Harvard, stop looking at the application as a checklist. The best applicants are differentiated beyond the classroom.

Sure that's why they have an entire category called extra curriculars, which Asian applicants also do well on. The only category they score low on is personality, which measures, through a half hour interview, such lofty ideals as courage and leadership. It's obviously just there so Harvard can give a subjective score to balance out their racial ratios.

> They're looking for signals that you'll succeed outside of academia

You mean signals like parental wealth?

> Academic performance is mostly a disqualifier to figure out if someone would be successful enough

Really?

Harvard has around 1000 admissions spots in any year. I think there are roughly 30,000 people who score a SAT 2200+ in a given year. Say half of those a have A level GPA. At that point there's more significant non-academic differences, than academic differences.

I think we would agree that non-academic considerations are important. I wouldn't say that academic performance is a disqualifier, which makes it sounds like there's an inverse correlation between academic performance and success.

The same reason that employers don't give all applicants a standard test and hire the people with the best scores. The culture of a school is something that people think is important and you can't control that culture by accepting people based purely off of academics. That is why things like admission interviews exist and kids have always picked up electives in high school that would "look good on a college application".

This practice has certainly been abused in the past and you can argue it is still being abused, but I don't think that means that judging a kid based on anything beyond academics is a bad move for colleges.

Because they think a "diverse" student body is better than one comprised of the best possible students, so they tweak the process to admit more blacks and hispanics.

I think it would just be easier to be more honest about it rather than judge by "personality."

One criterion which would actually achieve what they want (and in fact greatly improve the diversity of any university) is to take into account the income/wealth background of applicants. It would not only allow more people of color, it would also open up the application process to poor white folk too who are also in a disadvantaged position in society. If there is anything that Harvard and Ivy's lack, it is the perspective of working people.

And especially WASPs.

Harvard is trying to admit people who will be rich and powerful in 30 years. Those people aren’t always academic achievers.

The piece argues it's a way to lower the bar for lower performing ethnic groups, and restrict Asians from getting into the school.

The article talks about how it favors Hispanics and African Americans by ramping the personality score for them.

It is a subjective criteria so they can get more control over who gets admitted or not.

Because the postmodernist view is based on "identity" - race, gender, ethnicity - not academic achievement or merit. They see any system that doesn't produce the outcomes they prefer as inherently racist and bigoted.

Who of us can really judge another person's personality objectively anyway especially from a short interview. Anyone with a history of high academic performance clearly has the personality to succeed academicly.

The article explains it very well why:

> "To prevent a dangerous increase in the proportion of Jews, I know at present only one way, which is at the same time straightforward and effective,” wrote A. Lawrence Lowell, Harvard’s president in the 1920s, “and that is a selection by a personal estimate of character on the part of the Admission authorities"

I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that Harvard's admission practices should include other factors, but if they are receiving tax breaks there should be a federal / state-level monitor to evaluate the admissions practices. It's ridiculous to apply arbitrary criteria while they enjoy tax exempt status.

If an educational institution wishes to apply capricious standards, let them pay taxes.

> If an educational institution wishes to apply capricious standards, let them pay taxes

Race is a protected class. Converting to a taxable entity would not protect Harvard Admissions from being racist.

Whoosh. They're not being "racist". They're simply applying a "character test".