Ivy League’s meritocracy lie: How Harvard and Yale cook the books for the 1 percent
“Admissions began to change, however, when Charles William Eliot
became president of Harvard in 1869. Annoyed with “the stupid sons of
the rich,” Eliot sought to draw into the university’s fold capable
students from all segments of society. To ensure that smart students
could attend Harvard regardless of their means, Eliot, in 1898,
abolished the archaic Greek admission exams that were popular up until
that time. He also replaced Harvard’s admissions exams with exams
created by the College Entrance Examination Board because it tripled the
number of locations where applicants could be tested. The result of
Eliot’s changes was the admission of more public school students,
including Catholics and Jews.“A.
Lawrence Lowell, Eliot’s successor, attempted to reverse the trend of
admitting those without WASP status and values. The “Jewish problem” in
particular alarmed Lowell. The number of Jews at Harvard had increased
steadily, from 10 percent in 1909, to 15 percent in 1915, to 21.5
percent in 1922. In addition to their growth in numbers, Jews generally
outperformed non-Jewish students academically. Lowell worried that
Harvard might suffer the same fate as Columbia, which experienced “WASP
flight” as more Jewish students started to enroll. In response, Lowell
limited freshman enrollment to one thousand and altered the admissions
criteria to include an emphasis on “character,” legacy, and athleticism
rather than solely on academic achievement. Additionally, the
application process now required interviews and photos, as well as
letters of recommendation. Initially a method to limit Jewish
enrollment, the notion of a “well-rounded” applicant was born in the
first half of the 1920s.”I went to Harvard for undergrad, and this is a lot more true than most people would like to admit–especially since, once we graduate, it is not in our self-interest to admit it and decrease the perceived value of our diplomas. Also, am I the only one who sees a lot of veiled anti-Asian (the updated version of anti-Semitic) sentiment in the new rhetoric about relying less on standardized test scores and more on “character / personality” as revealed by in-person interviews and essays? The descriptions of the kind of students they don’t want seem to align pretty thoroughly with American stereotypes about Asians (as intelligent and hard-working but somehow lacking in “humanity,” as an undifferentiated mass of future doctors and engineers…as though medicine and engineering weren’t careers requiring compassion and creativity.)
You are definitely not the only one seeing a lot of anti-Asian strategies emerging.