• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

IZA Newsroom

IZA – Institute of Labor Economics

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Press Lounge
  • DE
  • EN
ResearchOctober 10, 2019

Legacy and athlete preferences at Harvard

Two recent IZA papers analyze admission decisions over time

© iStockphoto.com/janniswerner

The admissions advantages of privileged applicants have gone up over time at Harvard University. Privileged applicants currently make up 43% of white admits at Harvard, but less than 16% of admits of other ethnicities.

Competition for slots at elite universities in the United States has become increasingly fierce, with admit rates below 6% for schools like Harvard University, Princeton University, Yale University, and Duke University. Records made public in the Students for Fair Admissions, Inc v. Harvard University lawsuit revealed how one elite university makes admissions decisions, which, up until now, remained a closely guarded secret.

Elite universities offer legal advantages to those who come from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. These include advantages to legacies (i.e. children of alumni), relatives of donors, and children of faculty. Admissions advantages for athletes may also benefit those who come from higher socioeconomic backgrounds (depending on the sport).

In two IZA discussion papers, Peter Arcidiacono, Josh Kinsler, and Tyler Ransom investigate what has been happening to legacy and athlete admissions over time at Harvard University. They also quantify the extent of admissions advantages for recruited athletes, legacies, relatives of donors, and children of faculty (ALDC) relative to their non-ALDC peers.

In “Divergent: The Time Path of Legacy and Athlete Admissions at Harvard,” the authors show that, over an 18-year period, applications for legacies and athletes (LA) have remained constant, while applications for non-legacy non-athletes (NLNA) have skyrocketed. At the same time, the share of admitted students who are legacies or athletes has remained roughly constant at just under 25% of the admitted class.

In fact, admissions advantage for legacies and athletes (relative to non-legacy, non-athlete applicants) has increased from four times higher to nine times higher over the 18-year period. Moreover, the matriculation rate for legacies and athletes has increased from 80% to 90%, suggesting that their academic strength has declined. (Matriculation rate is the likelihood that an admitted student will enroll at the university; a lower matriculation rate for a group of students indicates that they have better options of where to enroll than those with higher matriculation rates.)

The authors then show that, if the admissions advantage for legacies and athletes were held fixed, Harvard would have enrolled a more ethnically diverse student body.

In “Legacy and Athlete Preferences at Harvard,” the authors describe in detail Harvard’s admissions process and examine the frequency of ALDCs by race, as well how much more or less academically qualified ALDC applicants and admits are relative to non-ALDC applicants and admits.

Following so-called “holistic” or whole-person admissions practices employed at many elite, private universities in the United States, Harvard admits students based on academics, as well as extracurricular experiences, athletic prospects, personal qualities, recommendations from secondary school teachers and administrators, and an in-person interview with a Harvard alum.

Among admitted Harvard students who are white, 43% are ALDC, compared to less than 16% of admitted non-white students. Legacies are the largest group of special applicants, followed by recruited athletes and relatives of donors. Children of faculty make up a very small fraction of special applicants.

The authors compute that nearly three out of four admitted ALDCs who are white would not be admitted if they were treated the same as their non-ALDC peers. The authors also show (similar to the above-mentioned findings) that the racial composition of the admitted class would be more diverse if Harvard abandoned admissions advantages for legacies and athletes.

Holistic admissions practices have come under increased scrutiny in the United States. The authors show that Harvard’s holistic admissions work to make the racial distribution of admitted students look more like the racial distribution of the United States. However, within racial groups, holistic admissions may lead to more inequality, depending on which non-academic characteristics universities value.

Featured Papers:

IZA Discussion Paper No. 12634 Divergent: The Time Path of Legacy and Athlete Admissions at Harvard Peter Arcidiacono, Josh Kinsler, Tyler Ransom IZA Discussion Paper No. 12633 Legacy and Athlete Preferences at Harvard Peter Arcidiacono, Josh Kinsler, Tyler Ransom

Share this article

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share via e-mail
  • education
  • elite
  • inequality
  • privilege
  • students
  • university
  • Josh Kinsler
  • Peter Arcidiacono
  • Tyler Ransom
Previous Post
Shuffle
Next Post

Reader Interactions

Primary Sidebar

COVID-19 and the Labor Market

covid-19.iza.org

Recent Posts

  • June 24, 2022

    Minimum wage increases lead to substantial declines in vacancy postings
  • May 23, 2022

    Minimum wage contributed to rise in solo self-employment
  • May 17, 2022

    Employer market power in Silicon Valley

Related Content

  • May 11, 2021

    Higher minimum wage lowers enrollment in academic programs at universities
  • May 15, 2015

    What happens to student applications when university tuition fees go up?
  • May 20, 2015

    Should colleges share the burden of student loan debt?
  • 
  • 
  • Archive
  • 
  • Research
  • 
  • Legacy and athlete preferences at Harvard

© 2013–2022 Deutsche Post STIFTUNGImprint | Privacy PolicyIZA