I think this is an issue worthy of the Council’s attention when we return from spring break:</p>
<p>[The</a> Harvard Crimson :: News :: College Eliminates Transfer Admissions for Next Two Years](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=522688]The”>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=522688)</p>
<p>Citing space issues in the houses, the College has announced that it is not accepting any more transfer students for the next two years. This decision comes just a year after the College announced that it was slashing the number of transfer admits roughly in half – from 75 a year to 40.</p>
<p>While it is true that in some years, for various reasons, the College has not accepted any transfer students (the most recent instance of this was 2003), this decision is nonetheless troubling.</p>
<p>Transfer students come from a wide range of backgrounds and the majority contribute positively – and often significantly – to campus life upon joining the Harvard student body. They are HoCo chairs, and magazine editors. They are musicians and athletes, Crimson writers and peer advisers. They produce shows and help run organizations like the IOP. They give admissions tours, and volunteer in local schools. They are student leaders, and some, may even be future Rhode scholars. They are also teammates, roommates, friends and peers. In addition, they are also your constituents. And yes, they generally pay the UC termbill fee.</p>
<p>These are students who for some reason or another didn’t arrive at Harvard as freshman. Yes, some are students who applied out of high school but for whatever reason weren’t initially granted admission. Many others are individuals who chose to attend unique two years schools – such as Deep Springs in California – before applying as transfers. Others worked their way through community colleges like Bunker Hill. Others are foreign students who first attended foreign universities in places like Hungary, Australia and the UK to prove their academic meddle. And still others are students who for many reasons opted to attend alternative universities first, but in the course of their academic development decided that the resources and opportunities available at Harvard are what will enable them to reach their potential and ultimately succeed.</p>
<p>To be clear, I am not arguing that transfer students are somehow more entitled to attend Harvard than anyone else. What I am suggesting though is that the transfer program is too valuable to simply put on hiatus or suspend.</p>
<p>For many years, Harvard as been somewhat unique among the Ivys in maintaining a strong commitment to its transfer program. It has done so out of a belief that there is more than one path to success in life, and out of a belief that the Harvard community is stronger when it incorporates people who have followed different paths. But by suspending transfer admits for the next two years, the College runs the risk of adopting a very different belief – that there is only one path to success, and that our community is “strong enough” without the contributions of those who may follow another.</p>
<p>This decision is also troubling for more practical reasons:</p>
<pre><code>* There is nothing to assure us that the College will not ultimately use this as a precursor to suspending transfer admissions permanently. Following last year’s decision to cut transfer admits in half, Dean Gross told The Crimson that he did not expect further cuts in future years, noting “We always want to have space for some exceptional transfer students.” But just a year later, the College is already departing from this commitment. What assurance do we have that the program will in fact be resumed in two years?
- Although the College’s primary motivation here is a consideration of living space, by eliminating transfer admits altogether, it is potentially sending the message that it views transfer students as somehow expendable. Why weren’t alternative or additional channels pursued? For instance, why not make a stronger push to encourage more students to study abroad?
- In suspending transfer admissions for two years, the resources currently devoted to the program may disappear. How does the University expect to provide adequate resources for transfer advising and to preserve the institutional knowledge of the current advising system during the two year hiatus?
- The decision comes after roughly 1000 prospective transfer students already submitted applications and paid their $60 application fee. Will this fee be refunded? What of the other costs individuals incurred – such as getting SAT scores or transcripts sent? Why wasn’t this decision made at a more appropriate time?
- Why wasn’t some type of accommodation struck? Why not reduce the program further (e.g. take 20 rather than 40) rather than suspend it for two years?
</code></pre>
<p>If this decision cannot be revised, at the very least, I would encourage the Council to request answers to the questions raised above – in writing – from both Dean Fitzsimmons and Dean Pilbeam. In addition, I would encourage the Council to request that both of them also provide written assurances that transfer admissions will be reinstated in two years as they say, and that both of them reaffirm the College’s commitment to transfer admissions – and transfer students – in the long run.</p>
<p>Finally, though a transfer student from [college name removed for privacy] myself, I write because I believe that this to be an issue important not just to myself or even the several hundred transfer students on campus – but the student body and the College at large. I hope you agree, and I hope that this is a conversation that the Council will have.</p>
<p>In the mean time, have a great spring break.