If Harvard Cared About Equality, It Would Abolish Legacy Admissions, Not ACT and SAT Requirements
The university is making standardized tests optional for admissions through 2026.

Harvard University has decided to extend its pandemic policy of making SAT and ACT scores optional for applicants until at least 2026, which means standardized test scores won't play much of a role in admissions decisions for years to come, if ever again at all.
Harvard cited the pandemic as the reason for the extension, but the broader push to abolish the ACT and SAT in college admissions is grounded in a misguided idea that the tests are unfair to underprivileged teenagers. The University of California system, for instance, has moved to stop requiring the exams due to concerns that they disfavored black and Hispanic applicants. As EdSource notes, this was part of a settlement with anti-test activists:
The settlement marks the end of a lawsuit that was filed in 2019 by students, community organizers and the Compton Unified School District. The settlement was praised by critics who say standardized tests are biased against low-income students, students with disabilities and Black and Latino students.
The historic settlement "marks an end to a sordid chapter in the history of the University of California. The Regents' stubborn insistence over generations upon usage of the SAT and ACT despite indisputable evidence that these exams only measured family wealth cost hundreds of thousands of talented students of color a fair opportunity to matriculate in their state's system of higher education," Mark Rosenbaum, one of the attorneys representing students in the case, said.
Contra Rosenbaum, the evidence is highly disputed. As Freddie de Boer, author of The Cult of Smart, has argued very persuasively, some combination of grade point average and SAT/ACT scores is highly predictive of success in college. And it's simply not true that prioritizing test scores punishes racial minorities more than alternative admissions standards. On the contrary, the more that schools rely on non-academic criteria such as extracurricular activities and legacy status, the more they reward applicants who are wealthy and well-connected. A gifted but impoverished Latino teen who is the first in his family to finish high school has a better shot in a system that cares about his SAT score than in a system that cares if his parents paid for clarinet lessons and secured him a spot on the water polo team.
"There is no reason to believe that getting rid of the SATs will increase what people actually mean by 'diversity' at elite colleges, and every reason to believe colleges will continue to game these systems," writes de Boer.
If institutions like Harvard really cared about being fair to the unprivileged, they'd take a machete to legacy admissions: a special boost to applicants who are the scions of previous graduates. From 2014 to 2019, the general admittance race for Harvard applicants was six percent—but the admit rate for legacies was 33 percent, according to The Harvard Crimson.
The most prestigious educational institution in the country should take the brightest students, and standardized tests are a better metric for that than the alternatives on offer.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If you are alone in France you must to visit our web platform and find ladies for casual chat Transexuelle sex Nice
I beg to differ. Transexuelle sex not Nice!
depends on if you are pitching or catching, i'd guess.
#transwomenaredudeswithtits
Reason contributor, Brendan O'Neill on why "woke" education harms the worst-off students.
If institutions like Harvard really cared about being fair to their academic and cultural legacy, they'd take a machete to their admissions committees.
Literally.
That's why they need to admit more Hutus.
Since Trump lost, Princeton has been on a Tutsi roll
"Tut Tut Tutsi Goodbye" Rwanda National Anthem
Cut the genocide jokes already!! I’m not axing you again!
Depends on the admin. If they are Hispanic they can use a machete, if they are French they have to use an epiee, if they are japaneese they have to use a katana.
They can be murdered but don't be so crass as to suggest cultural appropriation is okay in blade selection
#StopAsianHate
This is fantastic news.
I learned in college that whenever Black people perform worse on average than white people, the only possible explanation is SYSTEMIC RACISM. Standardized tests are obscenely racist and should have been abolished long ago.
#DiversityAboveAll
Trump paid another person to take the SAT exam on his behalf and was therefore fraudulently admitted to Wharton.
The professors—all of whom teach ethics at Wharton—believe the university should revoke Trump’s 1968 undergraduate business degree if a probe can confirm the claim originally made by his niece in her best-selling, tell-all memoir published last month.
“When a student gains admission by fraudulent means, it undermines the integrity of our academic standards and fairness of our admissions process.
Dear dbruce,
You are boring, and an asshole. Please go fuck yourself.
Hugs,
UCS
'Dear dee-bag,
You are stupid, predictable and boring, and seem a completely biased asshole. Please go fuck yourself, then die in a corner knowing you are despised for your ignorance.
2 to the head, 2 to the chest,
HF'
I fixed your far too friendly response.
All the professors recall Bone Spurs talking like that and thank you.
You just thanked someone for calling you a douche.
Only a coward would say things like that on-line. Another person attempted to interpret it and failed miserably.
“Only a coward would say things like that on-line.”
No it’s the truth. I’ll say it anywhere. Hank called you a douche and you thanked him.
Your claim has NOT been verified! POLITFACT!!!!!!
'Dear dee-bag,
You are stupid, predictable and boring, and seem a completely biased asshole. Please go fuck yourself, then die in a corner knowing you are despised for your ignorance.
2 to the head, 2 to the chest,
HF'
I fixed your far too friendly response. Can you spot the word "douche"? I won't be waiting, just add it to my huge list of successes.
OMG!
Of course Mueller already proved Drumpf has been a Russian intelligence asset since 1987 who colluded with a hostile foreign power to "win" a hacked Presidential election. But this SAT revelation will finally land him in prison where he belongs.
#Bombshell
#TippingPoint
#WallsClosingIn
#BeginningOfTheEnd
SDNY is on it. Of course w/o Preet's razor sharp intellect -too often confused as hubris, they are suffering, but one is certain that orangehitler will see the inside of a cage soon.
Look, Trump is hiding under your bed, go check it out!
did you learn in college what defines a white person or black person? dying to know.
no
>>student gains admission by fraudulent means
your applications were spotless, yes?
I couldn't afford to pay someone to take my SAT for me. My parents didn't give me a $Million when I was 3.
Get better parents.
Anyway, I would never have paid them back with interest when I was 3, I would have blown it all on donations to HRC, like Stable Genius.
Or be better at basketball. My college roommate had a tidy little business arrangement with a couple of street agents taking SATs for would-be scholarship recipients.
Harvard only cares about creating a monoculture of retarded progressives
and then ruling over them
As the Editorial Board of The New Yorker
"If Harvard cared about equity..."
Shhhhhh... don't tell anyone, but, Harvard does not care one whit about equity, only the appearance of equity, and damn, what are they going to do about the asian problem too.
*reads title*
*reads byline*
*Contemplates whether presence or absence of "to be sure" is the more laughable instantiation.*
When did anyone ever think this?
The Ivies care about their status, posturing, making money, and how using social trends impact these. Nothing else.
When did anyone ever think this?
Robbie. Predictably. Whenever it affects the poors and brown people. Otherwise, Muh Privut Schoolz!. Bowf Sidez! To be sure!
I mean, it's right there in the article. The offensive case is an impoverished Latino kid. The well-to-do black kids who just happen not to take clarinet lessons and the impoverished Asian kid with bad grades who taught themselves the clarinet can go fuck themselves.
The marvelous thing about conditional statements is that if the antecedent is false, then whatever statement you make is true.
The Marching Morons
"The University of California system, for instance, has moved to stop requiring the exams due to concerns that they disfavored black and Hispanic applicants."
They're just trying to rationalize discrimination against Asians with the equality of outcome standard.
Meanwhile, they're doing everything they can to attract foreign students to come into the University of California system and pay out of state tuition rates.
It's a good thing California's taxpayers aren't supporting the University of California system with their tax dollars--because that would be infuriating if they had to pay taxes to support a government institution that actively engages in racial discrimination against the very taxpayers who support it.
You mean they ARE using taxes to support the system?!
Not to worry. I'm sure the people of California will will flood Sacramento with Republicans in the next election and put a stop to this once and for all!
P.S. Don't laugh. Because Californians deduct federal income tax to pay state taxes in California, federal taxpayers in the rest of the country are paying for this shit, too.
It is illegal to administer an I.Q. test to a black kid in California. That's not a punchline, that's the law.
Will students qualifying for say Rutgers but not Harvard be accepted if they document a fake Cherokee ancestry?
Only if they can prove genuine Rutgers ancestry.
Harvard's too smart to fall for that twice. The next applicant will have to claim Shawnee or Apache ancestry.
Harvard Indian College closed after King Phillip's War. Dartmouth ended up with the franchise
That's a Red Herring.
So let me see if I have this right. College entrance exams are "racist" because Blacks and Hispanics do poorly on them.
Math is "racist" because Blacks and Hispanics do poorly with it.
So to combat "racism", we don't try to help Blacks and Hispanics do better, we drag everybody else down. Why is that? Maybe because the Socialist Progressives believe that blacks and Hispanics cannot be taught. Maybe it is that they believe that Blacks and Hispanics are not intelligent enough.
That could be, after all they keep supporting the real racists.
A race to the bottom.
And the attitude you describe is pretty much the most racist thing I can think of.
It's fucking bizarre that we aren't supposed to talk about racial correlations with IQ, but these fucking assholes will happily say that black people can't be expected to work hard or learn math. How is that not another way of saying that some races are inherently inferior?
They are in denial. Racial differences are just inherited traits. So the actual science is that if you want to improve outcomes for everyone, encourage them to breed with people who possess the desirable genetic trait in question (intelligence).
The smarter groups, being smarter, might not want this, because it dilutes their offspring's natural advantage. The evil ones among the smart groups go so far as to make the claim that the real goal is to eliminate black and red people to encourage those groups to be as insular as possible in defense of their 'race'.
A reply I had to a friend in reference to Charles Murray and the controversy about him was "so wait, him talking about these IQ ranges of various groups is racist, fascist, eugenic-loving stuff...but you are on board with people saying being on time, prepared, and analytical is something associated with whiteness; I dont know how you cant see which is the more racist sentence"
I think there is just an inherent white-savior racism that they kind of know they have but dont fully grasp. They have to take care of the savages that cant do it for themselves, and they hold them to lower standards than they do whites. But somehow the thought that it is absolutely racist as fuck never crosses their minds.
Progressives and Democrats have believed that blacks are intrinsically inferior for more than a century. That’s why they implemented eugenics and segregation. Why would you expect them to change now?
It is the classic socialism / marxism formula. They are just applying it to race. Critical race praxis in action.
Capitalism and meritocracy push people to achieve higher levels, as it directly motivates them through incentives. Socialism does the opposite, ignoring human nature and just assuming everyone will continue working just as hard when in the end they will not reap the rewards, just be given what the govt gives them. We have seen it over and over, you cant fight human nature.
But somehow itll work this time. Rather than make sure struggling people do better and catch them up, we should rather handicap those doing well and take away any incentive for them to continue producing at the levels they were. The people at the bottom get dumber, because their problem was not addressed. The people at the top lose incentive and stop trying as hard. Everyone in the class (or society) just ends up doing worse, with the average production going down overall.
Its why with socialism / communism everyone always ends up poorer, everytime (and in capitalist societies, the poor do better than they do in socialist ones). They think somehow they will figure out the magic switch to fight peoples human nature and create their utopia, then for some reason always need to threaten at gunpoint everyone that doesnt want to follow along.
Public schooling has failed black and hispanic students. It's failed everyone, but no one moreso than poor students, who are trapped in shitty schools with abysmally low proficiency levels.
In order to really help black and latino students, they would have to either dismantle the public school system, which isn't going to happen because it's a cash cow for progressives, or allow school choice, and let those kids from poor districts go to school wherever they want. That's also not going to happen, because rich, white progressives don't want their kids sitting in the same class as "those people," and poor kids with low academic achievement will negatively impact their school's rating, which will negatively impact their property values. High-rated schools= desirable neighborhoods. And white progressives CERTAINLY don't want poor Latinos moving into their neighborhoods.
So, they'll just eliminate standards of achievement and proficiency instead. Problem solved. Eliminating standards won't affect rich white prigressives' kids, and it'll keep the yucky poors out of their schools.
I have always wanted to be a jet pilot but have been kept from attending flight school due to the silly little rule about not giving licenses to blind people. I am blind, but I can play the drums like nobody's business and I think my drum-playing ability should certainly count for something in determining whether or not I get into flight school. The rules keeping me out of flight school might very well be racist as well since, being blind, I don't know whether or not I'm black. I'm pretty sure I'm not a Mexican since I don't even own a rake, a shovel, or a wheelbarrow.
I'd say this is clear evidence that there is systemic discrimination against the visually impaired at flight schools.
you should see how they treat applicants with cerebral palsy.
Harvard cares about money and power. And that’s all they care about. Everything else is a means to those ends.
Gotta protect donations from alumni somehow.
A good start for Harvard for equality would be to not adjust SAT scores to disfavor certain applicants based on their race.
Adjust SAT scores? Is completely getting rid of them an adjustment?
Besides legacy admissions, they could also stop favoring celebrities, as well as children of celebrities, politicians, and world leaders.
What this argument misses is that one of the few things that elite colleges offer that others can't are networking opportunities. What all of the whining about fairness in admissions ignores is that you need to sneak some of the elite through the back door, so that the people who got in on merit have a chance to network with them. Giving admission advantage to donors not only encourages donations, it also filters out all the folks for whom $10K isn't pocket change.
Yes. It isn't fair. Yes. They take seats from smarter and more capable people. But the animals don't have to pay admission to the zoo. The elite will be successful regardless of which school they attend. It is just bragging rights for them because they are set for life regardless. However, elite universities have done very well for themselves selling access to the elite to people with the inherit drive and capability to take maximum advantage of such connections. Destroy the backdoor and you mess with one of the big reasons to bother going to an elite school.
That's a very smart observation. I always wondered how actors and actresses who went to college, always were at Harvard or Princeton or Stanford. There's no one who's an already famous actor who then enrolls at Arkansas State University.
You are correct, no famous but a bunch of NFL, no famous.
"The most prestigious educational institution in the country should take the brightest students, and standardized tests are a better metric for that than the alternatives on offer."
Who says Harvard is the most prestigious? Harvard?
You see the ivys are prestigious because they are old and tell you their good. A key note on this is the Ivy is a conference like the PAC 12, or the big 10, it has nothing to do with education
The remnants of the KKK needs to pay attention because this is how you properly racist. Rig the game so the appearance of success and inclusion can be touted when in reality you've set much of the minority attendees up to fail or better yet, become minions in your oppression of them.
Face it, "equality" to the elites is when other white men are the minority.
So house whiteys support prejudices against field whiteys?
This lets them side step the racism against Asians problem. It has been well documented you can get in easier as a black/brown person with lower scores, and they directly discriminate against Asians (others too, but this is clearly the worst).
Now? Problem solved! We didnt discriminate, because we took away any comparative metrics. Everyone is equal so we can let in less Asians because there are so many there already and thats not fair! It basically allows them to install their race quotas without any pushback because without any test scores, everyone is equal right?
College sports sure could use some equity. Philippinos absolutely love basketball. And there are pretty much no Philippino college basketball players while black students are vastly over represented.
I guess for equity we should stop considering their height, ability, and points-per-game and put in a racial quota system to make sure its fair for every race. Why does your superior ability and high point average matter when there is a socialist utopia to achieve?
Hey man, no offense taken but it's Filipino or Filipina.
Unless you're the type that insists on using Filipinx.
In the long run it's beneficial for everyone (except Harvard alumni) if Harvard's academic reputation and precedence get tarnished a little, and people start relying on a wider range of institutions when considering higher ed reforms, picking judicial clerks, etc.
This step will help that tarnishing a little.
This is the logical next step for the participation trophy mentality. Do you really want to be operated on by a doctor who bombed the MCAT but volunteered at an animal shelter every weekend? What about the straight-A kids who have no extracurricular activities on their resumes because they were working to support their families or save for college? Why should they be excluded in favor of less qualified rich kids who had the time to play lacrosse or less intelligent minorities who missed their science test to go protest some irrelevant issue. I don’t care about skin color, I care about brains. You know who else cares about brains? The Chinese.
Admissions go through different phases of what matters on applications. When I was applying it was very skewed in favor of extracurriculars. Even though I made it a point to have on my app that I worked full time in college and had a second job I did on saturdays only (a 12 hour shift) - basically completely paying my own way - they just looked right past it and went right to "but how come you have so little extracurriculars? No shadowing, no missions, no volunteer work?" That was what everyone was loading their applications up with. Especially the rich kids who had their college and vehicle payed for. They packed their resume with medical missions, volunteer work etc. Admissions offices drooled over that shit.
That will be changing though. Its going to be all about enforced "diversity" quotas. And packing applications with activist trash. Oh its fine that you couldnt hang on the MCAT or keep a high GPA, you're the right color / gender and participated in the right BLM protests or pride rallies. My application process was hard enough, but the one we are heading toward is going to be a nightmare, producing the most sub par docs.
The toughest part was you could still win the game, you just had to work harder. You could get in as a white or asian, but you just had to absolutely blow the tests out of the water, score in the top 10 percentile with a 4.0 GPA and it used to be hard for them to turn you away. But they have found a way around that. Just throw the test scores out the window and presto, all of a sudden you can let in bottom tier students that have the correct racial and political traits.
The medical schools are not doing this.
You have to actually perform on practical tests to graduate medical school.
So your doctor will not It be a graduate of the California public schools with their no fail/no test policy.
Your doctor will be a graduate of a private school
Or from China or Israel
Robby, you should look into "spousal hires" if hypocrisy in higher education with regard to equality interests you. Universities around this country increasingly hire the spouses of faculty that they want to recruit and retain, often into other faculty positions. This practice often blocks-out other candidates, including minority ones, from having the opportunity to apply, and even if given the opportunity to apply, competing against a potential spousal hire is not going to be a successful effort. This is despite the heavy hand that University administrators use to put race in the forefront of faculty hiring decisions, yet they do not seem to notice, or mind if pointed out to them, the hypocrisy.
If you want to investigate, start by inquiring about "spousal hiring programs" at major research universities. Nearly all such institutions, including public ones(!!), have and use these programs.
What if they are heavily recruiting a black person that has a black spouse?
As a practical matter, I have witnessed many spousal hiring situations, and not a single one involved a black person. Though such situations occur, I am sure. Even if it did, I personally believe that each hiring decision should be made on the merits of that potential employee alone.
"some combination of grade point average and SAT/ACT scores is highly predictive of success in college."
Failure does not provide equity, it destroys the person's will to succeed.
These people would be more successful in life attending a technical college or graduating higher in their class in a community college.
"From 2014 to 2019, the general admittance race for Harvard applicants was six percent—but the admit rate for legacies was 33 percent"
So what? Without telling us how legacies do on standardized tests vs. the gen pop this is a meaningless stat. There is plenty of reason to believe legacies are generally superior academic candidates all else being equal. If you want to create more academic equality, stop giving athletes a bonus.
1157-60-4
https://nucleotech.bocsci.com/product/pseudouridine-5-monophosphate-cas-1157-60-4-339789.html
Pseudouridylic acid; (1S)-1,4-anhydro-1-(2,4-dioxo-1,2,3,4-tetrahydropyrimidin-5-yl)-5-O-phosphono-D-ribitol; pseudouridine 5'-phosphate;