Harvard strategically redacted information—including the “distinguishing excellences” that the College looks for in top students—from hundreds of pages of court filings last week.
In 1922, Lowell and other administrators had become “increasingly alarmed” over the rising number of Jewish students earning admission to the College based on their high test scores, SFFA’s document reads.
Over 33 percent of legacy applicants—Harvard hopefuls with at least one parent who graduated from the College or Radcliffe—gained admission to the Classes of 2014 through 2019.
Legal experts say Students for Fair Admissions' claims of intentional discrimination in Harvard's admissions process demand a “very high standard” of proof.
If Harvard made admissions decisions based only on applicants’ academic qualifications, more than 51 percent of the average admitted class would be Asian-American, according to court documents filed Friday.
Admits to Harvard’s “Z-list,” a deferred admissions pool for a small number of students each year, are overwhelmingly white—and nearly half have parents who attended Harvard, according to documents made public in a lawsuit against Harvard.
Students for Fair Admissions reports in court filings that Harvard consistently scored Asian-American applicants lower than applicants of other races on “personal traits” including “positive personality,” “likability,” “kindness,” and “humor.”
Never-before-public details of the College's secretive admissions process reveal Harvard assigns each applicant a personal rating based on traits including humor, sensitivity, grit, integrity, helpfulness, and courage.
Harvard’s Office for Institutional Research concluded the College’s admissions process has "negative effects" for Asian Americans and advantages legacy students and athletes more than it does low-income students.