Harvard's Application Culture Has Gone Too Far

What do Harvard’s student groups, internships, and even select courses have in common? They are among the many corners of collegiate life protected by some form of an application.

While they go by diverse names in the Harvard lexicon — “comps,” petitions, applications — students having to formally request an opportunity is a nearly ubiquitous experience. The abundance of such barriers between students and their learning threatens the intellectual exploration the College seeks to foster; we must instead commit to opening opportunities for all.

Once students are admitted to Harvard through its incredibly selective application process, they face near-constant obstacles to further involvement in college life. First up, course petitions ask students to submit statements for enrollment in small or selective classes.

Second come the infamous comp processes through which clubs admit new members. These base membership in student activities on applications evaluated on either completion or up to months of competition.

Then, of course, are the applications standing between students and career development, guarding everything from internships to research opportunities and grants.

As the pressure builds, students begin to experience what might be called “application fatigue.” Asking students to continuously jump through hoops just to learn new things or build a social life costs an exceptional amount of time, their energy, and most importantly, opportunities for experimentation.

When gate upon gate closes off sections of Harvard, students get little chance but to do what they are already familiar with. Otherwise, they risk wasting the accumulated time and attention these applications can require. A student can pour hours into written statements, interviews, and auditions, and still wind up unsuccessful.

An aspiring research assistant, for example, with the little experience he has, will probably not fare well in applying for relevant positions. The other alternative he has is to apply to conduct independent research, a process quite intimidating for any beginner.

Our application culture effectively insists that students constantly justify their interests. A Harvard undergraduate education lasts only four years. Students ought to spend that time engaging and experimenting, not re-explaining what brings them to a program or their long-term goals.

This culture directly contradicts the College’s stated mission, which expresses the twin goals of inviting experimentation and encouraging reflection. Applications may correctly get students “assessing their values and interests.” But they make it hard to access “exposure to new ideas, new ways of understanding, and new ways of knowing.”

To give students that exposure with less fatigue, we must recalibrate our application culture. Recruiters from across the College — be it club leaders, faculty, or program directors — should seek to provide the wide-eyed with opportunities for exploration even when normal application processes fail to.

Competitive student groups can create membership tracks that invite students to engage in some capacity with minimal to no application. For example, the Harvard Undergraduate Mock Trial Association could make training sessions available to students who try out, extending an experience they can learn from if they don’t make the team.

Research opportunities also tend to be selective. But what if a program allowed beginners in undergraduate research to gain experience in their field by, for example, turning a standard course paper into a larger research project? Such a program could include supplements such as workshops or consultations with professors, and perhaps even a formal conference. This may be equally as demanding as traditional research programs, but with a less intimidating, less intensive process to join.

Now, for selective courses, the same solution is less likely to work. Seat numbers can be fixed based on physical constraints or course format. The College could, however, introduce more lottery-based or “first-come, first-served” enrollment in small courses. A number of classes, including General Education courses and various seminars like Government 94, already use such processes.

Granted, eliminating applications is not feasible for opportunities that have necessary barriers to access for material constraints, such as program capacity or budget. A professor can only hire so many research assistants. A seminar can only accommodate so many students.

Some positions indeed require certain levels of skill or experience. Advanced classes, student groups competing in high-level tournaments, and jobs that require technical expertise cannot help but be selective.

There is no denying that we need applications to give out limited seats to those who merit them. But increasingly, applications have come to guard too many places ripe for student experimentation.

Harvard owes its students more than an opportunity to apply. It’s time we put a check on our application culture.

Michael A. Babayev ’28, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a Government concentrator in Currier House.