Sandel Criticizes Selective Admissions and Exclusive Student Clubs At Harvard Talk

Harvard government professor Michael J. Sandel criticized selective college admissions as a source of inequality and social division at a Wednesday event at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, arguing that elite universities have helped recast inherited advantage as earned success.

Speaking to a packed audience at the Askwith Education Forum, Sandel said admissions at highly selective colleges shape how Americans understand success and failure — convincing those who gain entry that they deserve their outcomes, and those who do not that they have only themselves to blame.

“The divide between winners and losers has been deepened, poisoning our politics, setting us apart,” he said.

While he acknowledged that widening gaps of income and wealth have contributed to the divide, Sandel argued that it was also driven by “changing attitudes towards success.”

That logic, Sandel said, has seeped into campus culture. He pointed to student organizations at Harvard that advertise low acceptance rates as badges of distinction, including consulting groups on campus and the Crimson Key Society, a student organization that leads orientation events and student tours.

“If you’re a Harvard undergraduate,” Sandel said, “chances are you’re going to be plenty good with a little training in conducting a campus tour.”

Crimson Key Society president Ryan F. Irving ’27 wrote in a statement that “it’s no secret that Key runs a selective recruitment process, though our selectivity has nothing to do with an interest in harboring Exclusivity.”

“Our low acceptance rate — currently around 9% — is the natural product of a fixed number of available membership slots,” he added. “We work diligently to uphold the rigorous and meritocratic recruitment process that has become characteristic of Key.”

Sandel said most undergraduate organizations could dispense with competitive admissions altogether, arguing that only a small number — such as orchestras — require specialized skills. For the rest, he said, low acceptance rates function less as a necessity than as a performance of exclusivity.

Sandel challenged the assumption that meritocratic competition offers equal opportunity, citing international data on social mobility. In Denmark, he said, it takes roughly two generations for someone born into poverty to reach the median income. In the United States, it takes five — a disparity he said reflects deeply unequal starting points.

Even with equal access to opportunity, Sandel added, meritocracy rests on shaky moral ground. He asked whether pop star Taylor Swift deserves to earn thousands of times more than a high school teacher, a question that drew little support from the audience.

“If LeBron had lived back in the days of the Italian Renaissance, even as a gifted athlete, he wouldn’t have made as much because people didn’t care much about basketball,” he said.

Sandel also criticized the central role of four-year college degrees in determining economic security, noting that roughly 62 percent of Americans do not hold one. He argued that universities — particularly elite institutions — have reinforced this hierarchy by prioritizing selectivity.

“We allowed ourselves in fulfilling this role — this meritocratic mission — to become sorting machines for a market-driven, meritocratic society,” he said.

Selective admissions, Sandel argued, advantage students whose parents attended elite colleges, compounding benefits such as access to strong schools, test preparation, and extracurricular opportunities.

“The reason for the strenuous striving is that the transition privilege of meritocratic privilege is not guaranteed,” he said. “It depends on getting in.”

As a remedy, Sandel proposed introducing lottery systems at highly selective institutions once applicants meet a basic threshold of qualification.

Sandel finished by calling for expanding access to high-level learning beyond elite campuses and using technology to make education “a public good, not just a private privilege.”

“What we really need is to break down the steep hierarchy of prestige that has come to inform this sort of intuition,” he said. “Promoting teaching and learning, especially on civic questions, should not be the sole province of the young people who win admission to selective universities.”

—Staff writer Mahpara Faatin can be reached at [email protected]. Follow her on X @mahparafaatin.