There are thousands of nonprofits that receive federal (and state) tax deductible donations, most of which is “invisible”. Are you suggesting that they ALL need to so publicize decision-making?
(btw: by law, they have a public Board that oversees such things.)
That is a much different issue than was raised by the authors of the article.
What on earth is the rationale for secrecy? These are, in theory, nonprofit institutions. Some universities, like UVA, do disclose their legacy admission rate (42%, and that 70% of the legacies who apply are out of state). I have yet to learn any convincing rationale for why colleges hide this data, other than to cover their own questionable decision making. Aggressively marketing an overall admission rate of 5-7% to high school kids when the unhooked rate is really no more than 2.5% is both misleading and unethical, IMO.
I’m suggesting that the admissions process at many selective colleges operates much more like that of the member admissions process for a yacht club, not a public service or an education open to all citizens so is not in keeping with how most of the public would consider a nonprofit operates. Having served on multiple nonprofit boards and holding a CPA license, I suspect many of the college admissions practices that are coming to light present significant questions on whether they are in keeping with regs or could potentially jeopardize tax and other subsidies.
Secrecy of the admissions process is a big part of why there hasn’t been more widespread inquiry into whether the tax deductions and subsidies are appropriate. As people - and government agencies - become more aware of some of the preferences which may not be in keeping with regs regarding taxes or public policy, it would be reasonable this is debated.
Here are a few of the potential challenges I see could result from admissions practices becoming disclosed:
Frankly, I don’t care what the majority of nonprofits in America do. But if one has a balance sheet in the billions, receives tens of millions of dollars in government benefits yearly, and has a disproportionate role in American public life and leadership (see, for exmple, the Supreme Court justice alma maters), then yes, I expect an open and rational decision making process that can be both articulated and defended.
As a general rule the more information you put out there, the more that information can be used against you, which is exactly what we do here on CC and why Universities keep admissions policies to themselves.
Fear of some unknown harm doesn’t qualify as a rational reason, IME. UVA owns up to its legacy data and is still standing, last time I checked. If you are unable to explain the decisions, that is the essence of an arbitrary and capricious process, inconsistent with an educational mission.
Clearly you are not a lawyer.
Actually, I am a lawyer. Admitted to the Supreme Court bar.
I’ve been to that bar too. 
Do we really think that the kid who sends in an application when the admit rate is 5% will refrain because they learn the real rate is 2.5%? I doubt it. At a certain point, the chances are so small that it makes no difference psychologically. Kids will still get their hopes up and still grumble that it isn’t fair when they don’t get in.
When I started reading here at CC, I was stunned by the stats of the rejected kids. I didn’t understand the concept of “average excellent.” In my mind an unweighted 4.0 average was astounding. But now, I have met many of these kids in my own town. They are good kids and smart and hard working. They all participate in school and community and would probably be fine at any college including Harvard. But they aren’t extraordinary. They are just excellent. I’ve seen some of the extraordinary ones too and not all of them have the perfect stats, but I have read the poetry and seen the passion turned outward to amazing achievements. I wouldn’t have been surpprised to see them admitted to Harvard.
The simply excellent kids are a dime a dozen in the Harvard application pile. If Harvard is going to take some of them, why shouldn’t they ask for something extra as well. An average excellent kid who is a legacy brings loyalty and continued donations. One who is URM brings diversity. Or one might bring geographic diversity or athletic prowess.
And none of that is taking into account the intangibles – the letters of rec that are either glowing or ordinary, the interviews, the essays. Harvard and other schools already tell us plainly that these things matter. They clearly state that they take into account legacy, ethnicity, geography, etc. People here want to know the legacy admit rate, but it wouldn’t tell the whole story. Someone posted stats showing that the legacies actually have HIGHER average stats then the rest of the class. Maybe the admit rate is high because they are well prepared by parents who know the school well.
Oh I agree they are free to use any legal criteria they choose to in admittting students, just not to hide that process from the public which is paying their bills. And an earlier poster brought up the exact problem-school X publishes a 7% admit rate, unhooked kid thinks his perfect scores/grades push him up to maybe 15-20 % chance, when for his demographic, the admit rate is 2% and the perfect scores really don’t improve that number much at all. 92% of applicants with a 4.0 gpa are rejected from Princeton, for example. So the kid thinks he has maybe a 20% chance, which is in reality closer to 2%. That misperception skews the applicant’s decision-making.
I have made many posts on this topic. The problem is not that the 7% published rate is really 2%. The problem is the misconception that its 20%. This is what needs to be corrected. I think this is more of a problem at schools a step or two down from Harvard. At this point, most people probably understand the reality at HYPSM. But they are still fooling themselves at places like Lehigh, Tufts, and Wesleyan. They believe that because the 75% ACT score is 33 or 34 and they have a 35, their chances are significantly higher then the published rate. Its not true. They think of Tufts as a match and Brandeis and BU as safeties and it isn’t true. It doesn’t really matter whether the true rate is 5 or 2.5. It matters that it isn’t anywhere close to 20.
@lookingforward “Not picking on you, but…” Love it when people say they aren’t gonna do something, then jump right in and do it. Some of us don’t have 30,000 posts on this forum, or the time it would take to read and post to that many threads. I was under the impression that CC was founded to help people navigate this convoluted process, but maybe I am mistaken.
@roycroftmom thanks for being a voice of reason on this thread
@gallentjill Yes legacies may have higher stats than the general population. Athletes, developments and URM’s get a significant bump in admissions, so their stats bring down the overall average (their are lots of high stats in these categories, but in general this is true). But compared to the unhooked population, legacies definitely have lower stats - otherwise there would be no need for legacy preference.
In fact, it is entirely possible that the average stats for admitted students at Stanford (for example) are lower than the average stats for students rejected from Stanford, given the emphasis on athletics there. We just don’t know because they don’t publish that information.
Taxes and public funds are the subject of many other threads.
No bright, inquisitive, activated kid with strong thinking and processing skills should think “his perfect scores/grades push him up to maybe 15-20 % chance…” Not in holistic for tippy tops. It’s incomplete, misses the point.
You don’t get in based solely on your stats and hooked vs unhooked. And not for “assuming” everything that brought you glory in your own hs is enough. That’s not even close to tippy top thinking. It’s half the game.
Any kid who thinks he has a 20% shot is dreaming- because so much more is weighed than hs stats. And plenty of times, we need to point kids to the web page with those P facts, kids don’t go digging. Or they claim they;re desperate for MITand don;t know of the blogs. Whose fault is that, really?
Test scores are just ONE of ~6 factors that are considered. And more importantly, colleges are extremely upfront and transparent about that fact. Despite that transparency, the test data is still misconstrued…
It is not the colleges’ fault that some applicants have a misconception that gong from above median score to a top quartile score increases admission chances by nearly 3x.
Yes, CC helps navigate. But those are choppy waters, considering the amount of misinfo, misunderstandings, found on forums and various blogs or from friends, and the weight of faith in anecdotes.
To me, knowing there’s a single digit admit rate should already clue in kids and families that there are no admit guarantees. Any reading of what these colleges look for (not what CC says) would better inform kids. Sorry, but if they don’t pick up the ball (seek and try to comprehend the info that IS there,) it won’t help to throw more balls (parse it all down to bite-sized pieces.) There’s great irony in asking for more info that likely won’t be read. Or believed (because someone knows someone who said…)
No one has provided one sound reason for secrecy. Not one.
According to you no one has. Thats an opinion.
Even calling it “secrecy” is a subjective reaction. Do we expect everything in our lives to be made crystal clear?
I know many want what they feel would be transparency. But the logical question would be, then, what will they do with that? Would it make you more informed, better able to understand the colleges’ wants, better able to self match? Or just give you, eg, a more precise idea of how many unhooked kids got in?
That doesn’t help you judge your own record, your shown traits, doesn’t mean you choose the right/relevant LoR writers or can meaningfully answer supp questions.
Imo, it’s become a rallying cry. But it doesn’t help your chances. You still need to put in your app, make your self presentation. You still need your due diligence. Knowing 1% get in doesn’t tell you if you can be one of those.
They want to have a carte blanche to admit whoever they want.
Harvard does not want to have demographic and SES distribution of their students to mirror that of Stuyvesant HS