Against this backdrop, the article explains who does get in to Harvard, and how. In the process it delves into the bureaucratese of the admissions game, the terms of trade Harvard uses—“dockets,” “the lop list,” “tips,” “DE,” the “Z-list”—to construct an undergraduate demographic that fits its vision of diversity, in which perfect SATs are far from the be-all and end-all. Those “dockets” refer to two dozen geographical regions Harvard divides the United States into, giving priority to, say, North Dakota, where applicants are rare, over, say, New York, where they abound. After that, admissions officers rate applications in five categories—academic, extracurricular, athletic, personal, and “overall”—then supply “tip” factors in five more: racial and ethnic minorities; the children of Harvard grads; relatives of a significant donor; children of faculty members; and recruited athletes. At the close of the process, the final list has some students “lopped” off, as the new class is aligned with diversity goals.
Tag: Harvard
Too Harvard To Fail
Interesting to note that Harvard’s $37.1billion endowment is bigger than half the world’s economies.
But on the second point, Harvard has floundered, turning in consistently “disappointing” endowment returns with material consequences across the University. Harvard Management Company, the University’s investment arm tasked with growing the endowment, has been forced to undergo some institutional soul-searching after years of falling behind peer institutions: This year, the gap between Harvard’s and Yale’s endowments narrowed to within $10 billion.
Why Employers Favor Men
The researchers wanted to take a closer look at the source of this gender divide, so they used online experiments to probe two types of gender discrimination:
-
Statistical discrimination, which is rooted in beliefs about average gender differences in abilities or skills.
-
Taste-based discrimination, which is driven by stereotypes, favoritism for one group, and a bias against another group.
What Makes Us Happy?
This one is a masterpiece of an article. A 72 year experiment at Harvard, following the lives of 268 men to find the answer to the elusive question – What makes us happy? This is a 2009 article but definitely timeless.
Case No. 218
How’s this for the good life? You’re rich, and you made the dough yourself. You’re well into your 80s, and have spent hardly a day in the hospital. Your wife had a cancer scare, but she’s recovered and by your side, just as she’s been for more than 60 years. Asked to rate the marriage on a scale of 1 to 9, where 1 is perfectly miserable and 9 is perfectly happy, you circle the highest number. You’ve got two good kids, grandkids too. A survey asks you: “If you had your life to live over again, what problem, if any, would you have sought help for and to whom would you have gone?” “Probably I am fooling myself,” you write, “but I don’t think I would want to change anything.” If only we could take what you’ve done, reduce it to a set of rules, and apply it systematically.
Right?
Joshua Wolf Shenk — The Atlantic