Why is Harvard refusing to release certain admissions data?
I've been following the recent news about Harvard and noticed discussions about the university not releasing some admissions-related data after the Supreme Court decision on affirmative action. As someone who's hoping to apply this fall, this makes me wonder what information they are holding back and why it's such a big deal.
Does anybody know what kind of data Harvard is refusing to share? Is it related to their decision process or something else? I’m trying to understand if this is something that could potentially affect applicants in the next few cycles, especially for those of us from underrepresented backgrounds. Any insights would be super helpful, especially from anyone who’s following the legal updates closely or applied recently.
Does anybody know what kind of data Harvard is refusing to share? Is it related to their decision process or something else? I’m trying to understand if this is something that could potentially affect applicants in the next few cycles, especially for those of us from underrepresented backgrounds. Any insights would be super helpful, especially from anyone who’s following the legal updates closely or applied recently.
6 months ago
•
23 views
Luis Nario-Malberg
• 6 months ago
Advisor
After the Supreme Court decision ending affirmative action in college admissions, there’s been more scrutiny of how top schools like Harvard evaluate applicants. The main data Harvard is being asked to release revolves around details of its admissions process—specifically, how students are rated and evaluated, including breakdowns by race, legacy status, donor connections, and other so-called 'tip' factors.
For years, Harvard and similar institutions have kept some of these specifics confidential, arguing that sharing the details could compromise applicant privacy or their internal admissions strategies. However, now with affirmative action off the table, watchdog groups and journalists are pressing Harvard to disclose how applicants are being selected without race as a factor.
The controversy is significant because this data could reveal whether Harvard’s admissions policies are shifting in response to the legal changes, and give insight into how much other factors (like legacy or athlete status) influence decisions. This is particularly relevant for those from underrepresented backgrounds, since transparency could show if Harvard is finding new ways to build diverse classes without explicit race-conscious policies, or if certain groups are gradually losing ground in the process.
An example: Historically, data shows legacy applicants and recruited athletes are admitted at much higher rates. If Harvard released new post-decision cycle data, it might highlight whether those trends have intensified or changed. The school’s reluctance suggests they may want to avoid immediate public debate or legal scrutiny while they figure out how to adapt their processes.
If you’re applying soon, the withheld data probably won’t directly affect your chances, but what happens in these ongoing discussions could shape future admissions practices, especially for diversity initiatives. It’s smart to keep following this topic—any policy changes that come from it could influence how applicants from different backgrounds are evaluated in coming years.
For years, Harvard and similar institutions have kept some of these specifics confidential, arguing that sharing the details could compromise applicant privacy or their internal admissions strategies. However, now with affirmative action off the table, watchdog groups and journalists are pressing Harvard to disclose how applicants are being selected without race as a factor.
The controversy is significant because this data could reveal whether Harvard’s admissions policies are shifting in response to the legal changes, and give insight into how much other factors (like legacy or athlete status) influence decisions. This is particularly relevant for those from underrepresented backgrounds, since transparency could show if Harvard is finding new ways to build diverse classes without explicit race-conscious policies, or if certain groups are gradually losing ground in the process.
An example: Historically, data shows legacy applicants and recruited athletes are admitted at much higher rates. If Harvard released new post-decision cycle data, it might highlight whether those trends have intensified or changed. The school’s reluctance suggests they may want to avoid immediate public debate or legal scrutiny while they figure out how to adapt their processes.
If you’re applying soon, the withheld data probably won’t directly affect your chances, but what happens in these ongoing discussions could shape future admissions practices, especially for diversity initiatives. It’s smart to keep following this topic—any policy changes that come from it could influence how applicants from different backgrounds are evaluated in coming years.
Luis Nario-Malberg
Mooresville, North Carolina
Harvard College, Class of 2018, A.B. in Philosophy
Experience
5 years