Probably many people have a NIMBY-like attitude here – they want someone else to hire them so that they can work in honest jobs and not go back to crime or end up on welfare, but they themselves are too afraid of recidivism to even consider them as possible employees or co-workers. Analogously, they want them to be able to go to school, just not the same school that they or their kids go to.
You’d like true positives to be 100%, but you could say that 50% is better than 0%. That’s assuming there are 50% false negatives, people who are beyond the pale creeps but weren’t caught in the dragnet.
But that says nothing about what ucbalumnus notes, that is, false positives who get screened out by mistake.
Unless people inherently think that a Harvard education is irreplaceable, and I would beg to guess many of us folks on CC think it is not, there is no true loss to the false positives.
Regarding giving people another chance, didn’t Harvard tell the kids identified to basically write a letter to defend themselves, before they made decisions on whether to rescind?
And BTW, according to this:
http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/06/06/531591202/harvard-rescinds-admission-of-10-students-over-obscene-facebook-messages
the kids were dumb enough to form their private group from contacts made via a Harvard Facebook site. So there actually were links to the university - Facebook tracks people doncha know…
This lists a few more details:
https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/6/6/15741198/harvard-withdraws-admission-facebook-memes
Note to self: spew racist violent garbage under an assumed name on the internet…
@QuantMech @roethlisburger - if, for example, H gets an application where the essays, recs and stats paint a picture of someone who’s the child of uneducated immigrants but has worked very hard and done well at school, with strong grades, meaningful leadership roles, etc., H is likely to conclude that that kid has good personal qualities, character and judgment (even if, for example, the test scores aren’t tippy-top). That’s a reasonable assessment, and the kind that I believe most would agree H needs to make as it evaluates almost 50k applications to admit 2k students. If H offers a spot to the kid, and he/she is outed for making racist memes in the summer before they enroll, based on what happened this year it appears H will conclude they were wrong about the kid’s character and rescind their offer.
So, in this scenario, H made an assessment of character based on a lot of evidence, which turned out to be wrong, and they corrected their error. It feels like some believe that because H initially got it wrong, they should drop any pretense of being able to judge character, and cease claiming that character matters in admissions. That makes no sense to me.
Based on the last 10 rounds I went with @LadyMeowMeow on the subject of H admissions (it hurts so good - that’s why I keep coming back for more), I think the objection is really more to the lofty tone H adopts in describing its process. H readily acknowledges that it judges different groups of applicants by different standards, and doesn’t deny - although they certainly don’t say it too loudly - that a comparatively small number of kids with certain attributes (celebrity kids, development cases, star athletes, etc.), because of what they bring to H, get special love in admissions (assuming, critically, that the admissions office is confident that they clear the two bars of being able to graduate and not being bad people). I’ve argued elsewhere, and believe, that how H builds its classes is its own business.
That said, all evidence I’m aware of suggests that the vast majority of kids H admits are smart (sometimes brilliant) and good (very occasionally saintly) people. I imagine all of them make more or less serious mistakes from time to time (publishing racist memes is in the “more serious” category, as far as I’m concerned). To fixate on the comparatively rare occasions when H admits a bad person, or someone who can’t handle the work, ignores the fact that, far more often than not, the kids H admits are objectively very impressive, with strong academics and, yes, good character. I agree, though, that it gets a little grating when the rhetoric from the admissions office about the importance of personal qualities, character and judgment glosses over the less attractive elements of the sausage-making.
First, you have to define the terms of the debate. You seem to be using character to mean a kid is smart, hard working, and hopefully has some leadership potential thrown in. Others are defining character, as adhering to some type of moral code. @Hanna mentioned misbehavior, which to me which includes illegal drug use. Then, you’ve got other posters talking about whether a student is in the “mean girls” clique.
@jonri -
If that obnoxious girl was dumb enough to ask your friend for a recommendation, my recommendation is that your friend describe exactly what you just did.
@DeepBlue86 Yes, my objections are mainly to what Harvard says, not what Harvard does, although what Harvard says is something that it does.
What you call a “lofty tone” and “a little grating” I’d be more tempted to call arrogant, obnoxious, and annoying, especially for potential (and rejected) applicants who may be naive enough to believe that the “ability to exercise good judgment” is a “critical factor in the admissions process” and that “personal qualities and character provide the foundation upon which each admission rests.”
The way you describe it, Harvard is basically just trying to keep out the bad apples, but since there’s not much to go on in the files, it’s quite natural that a few sociopaths, malcontents, nihilists, con artists, rapists and Yale-sympathizers slip into each class. Of course Harvard gets it wrong, you suggest, but by and large the hallowed halls are teeming with good judgment, great personal qualities, and character.
Maybe, maybe not. They’re definitely – provably – teeming with high GPAs, SATs, athletic and creative talent, and leadership potential. But character? That’s an opaque-to-the-point-of-empty signifier. One person thinks that kid over there has grit, another says she’s obstinate. One salutes her for her “drive,” another can’t stand her “ruthlessness.” Extreme examples such as racism, hate speech, or cruelty aside, there’s never much agreement on “character.”
Common sense and recent history both suggest that Harvard shouldn’t 1) pretend to know how to recognize “good judgment” in applicants so well that it could become a “critical factor” in the admissions process or 2) make character the “foundation of every admissions decision” if adcoms – like the rest of us – can’t reliably distinguish among good and bad characters.
Harvard should make it clear that in admissions they’ll enforce their code of conduct (screen out the bad apples as best they can) but otherwise drop the Santa-Claus pretense of knowing who’s naughty or nice.
No, @LadyMeowMeow - that’s not what I’m saying. H isn’t just trying to screen out bad people, they’re also trying to take in the ones who they believe are most likely to be leaders/succeed/make a difference. What determines that? Talent and character.
What H is asking themselves when they look at a whole lot of kids who seem at first glance to be interchangeable is: which of these, using their innate talent, has made the best choices and is likely to continue to do so? Who shows it in their essays, and whose recommendations make it clear that this person is a positive force on those around them, and has a real chance to do great things? In other words, who has character?
There are undoubtedly plenty of Harvard students who have such a strong talent in some area that you’d assume nothing else in their application mattered, but generally the talent won’t do any good unless it’s nurtured and directed, which takes character.
Sure, H tries to screen out the bad apples early on, just like they try to screen out the kids who can’t do the work (and sometimes they get it wrong). But after that, they’re looking at the whole picture. There are very few people who are so profoundly smart or talented that they don’t have to try, so the vast majority of those H admits are smart, talented people with character. You’ll see the same thing at Y in the fall; there are some shockingly talented kids, but most are people who just impress on multiple dimensions.
I take your point that one person’s strong woman is another person’s bitch, but I don’t think that’s the point. H wants people who are going to make a difference in many different ways, and that probably means they have character even if they aren’t necessarily very nice (e.g., Ken Griffin).
They already lose federal financial aid. Unless they’re full pay they may as well be excluded from college. And no, I don’t think that’s right.
@DeepBlue86 In one short post, you’ve defined “character” in (at least) three ways, i.e. as “being a positive force on those around you,”“likely to succeed and do great things,” and “likely to make a difference, even if you’re an a**hole.” Only the first, incidentally, would justify rescinding the 10 meme-loving students.
This variety suggests that Harvard doesn’t need to invoke an impossibly ambiguous “character” concept to define what it seeks in its applicants. Instead of pretending that the whole incoming class will have “good judgment” – since it’s a critical factor in admissions! – and then explaining away the many inevitable mistakes, it would be better to say: “we want a diverse cast of characters that includes people who will be a positive force on others, people who are likely to succeed and do great things, and people who are likely to make a big difference in the world even though they’re a***holes.” You’d have to give them better language. I know you can do it.
I’m mostly quibbling about rhetoric. As I’ve said, I think Harvard played this episode right and I believe their process works well and builds great classes – with the exception, obviously, of development admits.
“They already lose federal financial aid.”
Quick clarifier on this good post. They lose federal financial aid if criminally prosecuted and convicted. Just being caught by your school using illegal drugs, or just admitting that you’ve used drugs, doesn’t kill your FA.
Many might argue that both are character flaws.
Exactly, @LadyMeowMeow - those are all aspects of character, which I’d broadly define as personal traits conducive to making the most of what you’ve been given, and ideally helping others to do so, within the constraints of societal norms. I think one word for it is just fine - I don’t think I could do better - although Aristotle had a lot to say about it.
I really like LadyMeowMeow’s post #225. Incidentally, here I was, smugly thinking that my character was fine, until LadyMeowMeow threw “Yale-sympathizers” into the mix.
DeepBlue86’s posts in combination with LadyMeowMeow’s have clarified the situation for me somewhat.
If DeepBlue86 and Harvard admissions share the same view of the meaning of “character,” then I would term those qualities “personality,” “behavioral patterns,” “personal characteristics” or–if not feeling existentialist that day-“nature.”
But I think of character in terms of moral excellence. This is perhaps due to a combination of age and region/class where I grew up.
From the fact that a person works hard, you can tell a bit about his/her conduct, but very little about what I would call “character.”
@DeepBlue86 Your language for “character” is better than what’s on Harvard’s website but it still wouldn’t help a potential candidate for admissions. To an applicant, it looks like Harvard wants to do whatever it wants, share no useful information, but keep the moral authority that goes with claiming that it’s all about “character” (moral excellence, virtues, good behaviors.)
Consider this exchange between Harvard and a high school student:
H: While academics, test scores, talent, and creativity are important, the most crucial element in Harvard admissions is character.
S: What do you mean by character?
H: It’s a special something that catches our eye, like when George Bush looked into Vladimir Putin’s soul and declared that it was good. We do the same thing. Think of it as personal traits conducive to making the most of what you’ve been given, and ideally helping others to do so, within the constraints of societal norms. We know those traits when we see them.
S: Can you give me an example?
H: Sure. We tend to accept applicants who are self-centered jerks because that often correlates with success and making the most of one’s chances. We also tend to reject applicants who are self-centered jerks because they create an unpleasant atmosphere on campus and don’t foster a learning community. Same thing for students who are meek, pious, gritty, altruistic, pragmatic, idealistic, trusting, skeptical, and every other character trait you can name. We tend to accept them and we tend to reject them.
S: So you have no way of knowing whether your students have better character than the general population?
H: If they’re Harvard students then obviously they have good character because while academics, test scores, talent, and creativity are important, the most crucial element in Harvard admissions is character.
LOL I tend to agree with your facetious post. I think kids are pretty much capable of the same things all over the place. I don’t think being accepted to Harvard or any particular college bestows some innate differentiating characteristics. I remember last winter when UofM frat kids totally trashed a hotel and commentators in Michigan media channels were like" but, but, but they are UofM students"…as if that --high SES, high GPA, high test scores – bestowed some particular character fiber in all UofM students that students at any other college in Michigan were lacking.
People have to stop viewing everything through the lens of rejected Harvard applicants, i.e., their children (my children). I understand @LadyMeowMeow 's point about how insulting it is for Harvard to pretend that it’s making character judgments about applicants, but the number of people who could legitimately feel insulted by that are a tiny slice of the population, and they’ll get over it in a few months. The fact is that Harvard DOES try to make character judgments. It may not do that very well, it may not always have adequate information to do that well – although I suspect it has more, and more valuable, information than you think – but it’s certainly part of the mix. That said, it would be ridiculous to think that any particular Harvard applicant was rejected for less-than-stellar character. I am sure people at Harvard would confirm that they waitlist or reject scores of kids with absolutely wonderful character, and that sometimes they even admit kids of slightly dubious character because there’s something else wonderful about them.
Notwithstanding how rejected high school seniors feel, being rejected by Harvard is not a judgment on your intelligence or character. Being accepted by Harvard is indeed an implicit judgment on your intelligence and character, or some balance of them and perhaps other qualities, but because Harvard has so many applicants for so few places all you can tell about someone based on his or her rejection by Harvard is that he or she was rejected by Harvard and probably does not walk on water. The not-walking-on-water part is true of most kids accepted at Harvard, too. No one, at Harvard or elsewhere, pretends that there’s a clear difference between the last 1,000 kids accepted and the first 1,000 waitlisted, or that if Harvard could possibly make those decisions with the benefit of hindsight it wouldn’t change a bunch of them.
To be fair, another way of looking at this is that to whom admission to a particularly elite/respectable institution is bestowed, much more is expected and one will be held to a higher standard.
Best summarized by a quote from some comic book creator Stan Lee:
“With great power comes great responsibility”
Whether one believes that or if one’s an alum of one such institution…tries/can’t be bothered to live up to those higher expectations/standard is up to each individual.
Whether Harvard’s efforts are effective/meaningful or just self-promoting happy talk, filtering out bad actors is not a choice. It’s a necessity. I can think of a number of real-life scenarios (in recent years at a number of colleges and universities) in which no attempt at filtering would get the college in trouble — including on-campus shootings or roommate-on-roommate crime. In such extreme cases, the school would be liable for not doing sufficient background checks or not doing enough when presented with evidence of mental instability or other anti-social proclivities. This isn’t just the pursuit of social idealism or polishing the Harvard brand. It’s a common-sense step made necessary by social reality, too. I would guess that Harvard is just as stunned as the rest of us at the stupidity of these actions, and are equally disturbed that the 10 students got through the filter in the first place.
Any college that doesn’t auto admit hopes their choices have high moral character. These kids were ignorant about social media and paid a price. Lesson learned. They will all be just fine wherever they attend this fall and will no doubt think twice about what they post on the internet.