STUDENT DIVERSITY at the BIG THREE: Changes at Harvard, Yale

place frontmatter pg1 eps

(please delete this text box before importing image)

First published 2013 by Transaction Publishers

Published 2017 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Catalog Number: 2012039362

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Synnott, Marcia Graham. Student diversity at the big three : changes at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton since the 1920s / Marcia Graham Synnott. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4128-1461-4 1. Harvard University—Admission—History. 2. Yale University— Admission—History. 3. Princeton University—Admission—History. 4. Minorities—Education (Higher)—United States. 5. Educational equalization—United States. I. Title. LD2126.S95 2013 378.74—dc23 2012039362 ISBN 13: 978-1-4128-1461-4 (hbk) To the students of Harvard (and Radcliﬀ e), Yale, and Princeton, past, present, and future

Contents

List of Tables ix

Acknowledgments xi

I. Introduction: Historical Perspectives on Admissions Policies at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton Universities 1

II. From Margins to Mainstream: Jewish Students and Faculty at the Big Th ree 65

III. Hesitant Courtships: Coeducation at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton 113

IV. Aﬃ rmative Action and the Pursuit of Racial Diversity at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton Universities, 1960–2012 177

V. Invisible No Longer: Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”; Return of the ROTC; and Inclusion of LGBTQ Students and Students with Disabilities 247

VI. Conclusion: Campus Protests and New Elites at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, 1960s–2012 299

Bibliography 331

Index 355

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Religious Census of Harvard Students from 1921–1922 to 1936–1937, Tabulated from Voluntary Responses by Harvard Undergraduate, Graduate, and Professional School Students to Survey Distributed by Phillips Brooks House Annually as of October 80

Table 2.2 Denominational Preferences of Harvard College Students for the Academic Year 1936–1937 Submitted to “A National Survey of the Religious Preferences of Students and Faculties in the Colleges and Universities of America for the Year 1936–1937” 81

Table 3.1 Percentages of Female Undergraduates Enrolled in Princeton by Fall Semester 151

Table 3.2 Percentages of Female Undergraduates Enrolled in Yale College by Fall Semester 151

Table 4.1 Recipients of Bachelor’s Degrees by Gender and Race at Harvard, Princeton, and Yale: 1975–1976 180

Table 4.2 Harvard College and Radcliﬀ e College Admissions Statistics for the Class of 1980 188

Table 4.3 Harvard College (and Radcliﬀ e College until 2000) Admissions Statistics for the Class of 1995 190

Table 4.4 African-American Students (Men only until 1969), Matriculating at Yale by Class Year, 1964–1997 196

ix Table 4.5 Yale: University-wide Enrollments by Ethnicity in 2001–2002 197

Table 4.6 Percentages of African-American Women and Men Matriculating at Princeton, 1969–1970 to 1973–1974 200

Table 4.7 African-American Students (Men only until 1969), Matriculating at Princeton by Class Year 201

Table 4.8 Number and Percentage of Undergraduates Enrolled by Race at Princeton in the Fall of 1995 202

Table 4.9 Princeton Undergraduate Enrollment, 2000–2001 203

Table 4.10 Minority Admissions (Men and Women) to the Harvard Class of 2004 207

x Acknowledgments

Student Diversity at the Big Three: Changes at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton since the 1920s is my companion volume to Th e Half-Opened Door: Discrimination and Admissions at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, 1900–1970 . Foreword by Arthur S. Link. Contributions in American History, no. 80. (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, Inc., 1979). In 2010, it was republished by Transaction Publishers with my new introduction, which refl ects some of my more recent research. As universities lifted time restrictions on presidential and other offi cial papers, I have revisited the Harvard, Yale, and Princeton archives and other libraries to conduct research on affi rmative action, quotas, and coeducation. I have published part of this research in one journal article and three essays: (1) “Th e Evolving Diversity Rationale in University Admissions: From Regents v. Bakke to the University of Michigan Cases,” in the Cornell Law Review , Symposium issue on “Revisiting Brown v. Board of Education: Fifty Years of Legal and Social Debate” 90:2 (January 2005): 463–504; (2) “Anti-Semitism and American Universities: Did Quotas Fol- low the Jews,?” in Anti-Semitism in American History, ed. David A. Gerber (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1986), pp. 233–71; (3) “A Friendly Rivalry: Yale and Princeton Universities Pursue Parallel Paths to Coeducation,” in Going Coed: Women’s Experiences in Formerly Men’s Colleges and Universities, 1950–2000, ed. Leslie Miller-Bernal and Susan L. Poulson (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2004), pp. 111–150; and (4) “Th e Changing `Harvard Student’: Ethnicity, Race, and Gender,” in Yards and Gates: Gender in Harvard and Radcliff e History, ed. Laurel Th atcher Ulrich (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, a division of St. Martin’s Press, LLC, 2004), pp. 195–211 (an online version is available through http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn- 3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA (accessed December 1, 2012). Finally, to complete the research for Student Diversity at the Big Th ree , I have made additional visits to the Harvard, Yale, and Princeton archives in 2010. 1 At diff erent stages of my research, several historians shared their insights and off ered encouragement: Morton Keller and Phyllis Keller; John R. Thelin, Harold Stuart Wechsler, and Roger Geiger. I also acknowledge the positive role of the late Professor Irving Louis Horowitz in urging me

xi Student Diversity at the Big Th ree to write a companion volume to Th e Half-Opened Door for Transaction Publishers. Th ough the research and writing took longer than either of us expected, I hope that he would be pleased with Student Diversity at the Big Th ree . I want to thank university archivists who over many years have answered my inquiries and directed me to pertinent sources: Mr. Daniel J. Linke, Uni- versity Archivist and Curator of Public Policy Papers, Princeton University Library; Ms. Judith A. Schiff , Senior Research Archivist, Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library; and Mr. Harley P. Holden, former Harvard University Archivist (1971–2003), as well as longtime staff members Robin McElheny, Associate University Archivist for Programs, and Timothy Driscoll, Senior Reference Archivist. I also want to thank Angelico Razon, student president of the Phillips Brooks House Association (2007–2008), for granting me the permission to examine the statistics on religious affi liations voluntar- ily submitted by Harvard students in the 1920s and 1930s in PBHA’s records that are deposited at the Harvard University Archives and also Carolyn Chou, student president of PBHA (2012–2013), for permission to use these statistics in Student Diversity at the Big Th ree. Th e author gratefully acknowledges the permission granted by each of the following to quote excerpts from the presidential and other offi cial records as well as from certain published materials in their archives: Daniel J. Linke, University Archivist and Curator of Public Policy Papers, Princeton Univer- sity Library; Susan Gibbons, University Librarian, Yale University; Virginia A. Hunt, Associate University Archivist for Collection Development and Acting Associate University Archivist for Records Management at Harvard University; the President and Fellows of Harvard College; and Ellen M. Shea, Head of Public Services, Schlesinger Library, Radcliff e Institute for Advanced Study, Harvard University. Note 1 . Seven of my other articles and essays, listed in the order of their publication, have also contributed to my thinking on discrimination and university admissions policies: (1) “Th e ‘Big Th ree’ and the Harvard-Princeton Football Break, 1926-1934,” Journal of Sport History Vol. 3, No. 2 (Summer 1976), pp. 188–202; (2) “Th e Admission and Assimilation of Minority Students at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, 1900-1970,” History of Education Quar- terly Vol. 19, No. 3 (Fall 1979), pp. 285–304; (3) “Th e Half-Opened Door: Researching Admissions Discrimination at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton,” American Archivist Vol. 45, No. 2 (Spring 1982), pp. 175–187; (4) “Jerome Davis Greene,” American National Biography, John A. Garraty and Mark A. Carnes, General Editors. Published under the auspices of the American Council of Learned Societies. Vol. 9. Gilbert-Hand (New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press, 1999), pp. 527–28; (5) “Ivy League,” Dictionary of American History 3rd edition, Stanley I. Kutler, Editor in Chief (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2002), pp. 449–50; (6) “Numerus Clausus (United States),” xii Acknowledgments in Antisemitism: A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice and Persecution, ed. Richard Levy (ABC-CLIO, 2005), pp. 514–15; and (7) my review of Jerome Karabel, Th e Chosen: Th e Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton (Boston, New York: Houghton Miffl in, 2005), American Journal of Education 113, no. 4 (August 2007): 663–70.

xiii

I Introduction: Historical Perspectives on Admissions Policies at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton Universities

In Th e End of American Innocence: A Study of the First Years of Our Own Time, 1912–1917 , Henry F. May described “three central doctrines” of American civilization widely accepted in 1912. Th ey were, said Stephen Hopewell, the United States’ moral leadership, the consequent inevitability of economic and technological progress, and the enduring values of English and European literary culture. Th ese doctrines, which sustained Americans’ sense of independence, individual rights, and opportunity to pursue their personal ambitions, began to erode with the literary and political rebels of the prewar years and the 1920s, the carnage of World War I, and the 1960s revolt of the post-World War II baby boomers. Other issues to which May gave relatively little weight also undermined cultural doctrines and divided Americans: race, immigration, religion, and socioeconomic status. By 2012, many Americans ceased to be certain about the purity of the nation’s moral leadership and, following a period of stock declines and job losses, questioned the certainty of economic and technological progress. Th ough still fascinated by the spectacle of the British monarchy, Americans are less likely to argue for the superiority of “Anglo-Saxon” civilization than to recognize the value of many diﬀ erent cultures, in particular Asian. 1 One hundred years ago prestigious American universities, especially Har- vard, Yale, and Princeton, the so-called “Big Th ree,” believed that they were the guardians of American culture and should primarily educate a certain “type” of young man—white, Protestant, and middle- or upper-class men, who would best project their institutional values. Th ey reluctantly tolerated a small number of students viewed as outsiders as long as they remained relatively “invisible” on campus. Among the “invisible students” were Jews, who were restricted by a quota; African Americans who were restricted

1 Student Diversity at the Big Th ree

(excluded at Princeton); and undergraduate women who were excluded at Yale and Princeton, though Harvard’s professors taught separate courses to young women at the Radcliff e Annex. Reacting to an infl ux of Jewish students at Harvard by the early 1920s, President A. Lawrence Lowell defi ned how they should conduct themselves: “More than half of the diffi culty would be overcome” if they should “on admission be overcome with an oblivion of the fact that they were Jews, even though all the Gentiles were perfectly aware that they were Jews.” Even after the quotas imposed during the 1920s and 1930s began to be lifted after World War II, Jewish applicants had to be consider- ably better academically than non-Jews to gain admission. African Americans were at an even greater disadvantage in the eyes of most white Americans, including President Lowell and a signifi cant percentage of Harvard alumni. Despite Harvard having awarded Booker T. Washington an honorary Master of Arts degree at its 1896 Commencement, decades would pass, wrote May, “before the Negro himself was to be in a position for revolt, but his exclusion impaired the whole cheerful picture.” 2 In his publicized exchange of letters with Roscoe Conkling Bruce, a Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude graduate of the Harvard Class of 1902, President Lowell explained why he personally turned down the father’s application on behalf of his son for admission to the freshman halls as a member of the Class of 1930. Since freshman hall residency was compulsory for white freshmen—“99 ½% of the students,” wrote Lowell, they should not be forced to live in proximity with the one- half percent who were blacks. Th ey could spare white sensitivities by living elsewhere. 3 Nevertheless, World War II began to reshape American views on race, ethnicity, and religion, a process that would take almost a quarter of a century to win widespread acceptance. Th ough Lowell did not limit gay students by a quota or relegate them to separate housing as he had done in the case of African-American students, he wanted them to be invisible to other heterosexual students or to leave the University. 4 Nor did Lowell favor Harvard professors spending time teaching women students at Radcliff e. Even his successors, James Bryant Conant and Nathan Marsh Pusey, who accepted coeducation in the classroom continued religious segregation during morning prayers in Appleton Chapel. Th e policy of relegating women students to sitting behind a screen was not changed until 1955.5 During the past fi fty to one hundred years, one of the major changes at the Big Th ree was the inclusion of diverse groups of students who promoted the intellectual, cultural, and social education of all students. In this process, those who had once been excluded, or restricted, or rendered invisible on campus would become visible and active participants in student life. As a group, Harvard undergraduates in 2012 bear little resemblance to those of 1912. Prior to World War I, Harvard drew close to 40 percent of its undergraduates from Massachusetts, a percentage that rose to 55 percent as of 1925, with another 5 percent coming from the other New England

2 Introduction states. In the next quarter of a century, Harvard would shift from being an “intersectional” to a “national” university. By 1959, 30.5 percent of the entering freshman class (Class of 1963) came from the Middle Atlantic states, about a half percent more than those from New England (29.1 percent); whereas those from Massachusetts dropped to 21.3 percent. Even though Harvard continued to embody New England culture—explicit in the words of “Fair Harvard,” the Commencement hymn written for the University’s bicenten- nial in 1836 by Rev. Samuel Gilman, Class of 1811: “O Relic and Type of our ancestors’ worth, Th at has long kept their memory warm,” the anthem also extolled: “With freedom to think, & with patience to bear, And for Right ever bravely to live” and renounced “moss-covered Error.”6 Becoming more heterogeneous, “at least fi ve Harvards in the prewar years” coexisted within the University, wrote May: “a national center of strenuous educational reform, a world center of research, the parochial pleasure-ground of clubmen (through which passed both Roosevelts), the teaching institution, and, already, the mecca of the disaff ected young men who wanted to write.”7 One hundred years later, there are still several diff erent “Harvard’s.” As the University continued to develop as “a world center of research,” it became an international institution in terms of faculty and students. While the fi nal clubs still exist, Harvard cut formal ties with them in 1986, because they were gender exclusive—men only. In February 1973, however, the Hasty Pud- ding Club (1795), a pathway to the fi nal clubs, voted three-to-two to admit women, faculty members, and administrators. 8 Meanwhile, to enhance their social life, Harvard women founded fi ve clubs and three sororities between 1991 and 2008. In establishing sororities and fraternities, Harvard was following, rather than leading, a national trend at other private and public institutions.9 Periodically enhancing the undergraduate curriculum, recently in terms of interdisciplinary studies and majors, Harvard demonstrates its concern for teaching and encouraging the creative arts. It enrolls both young men and women who want to write, though today’s undergraduates are less rebellious than the rebels of the pre-World War I era or the Vietnam War protest years. Th e current “generation of Harvard protesters often puts dialogue before destruction, classes before causes, and private conversation before public confrontation,” concluded staff writers in the Harvard Crimson’s Year In Review, published for the May 2011 Commencement. With the exception of a degree of binge drinking, which the college is trying to curb, the “Harvard student is a rule follower,” who succeeded in being admitted “because they followed the rules.”10 Th e characteristics of Yale and Princeton have also changed since the early twentieth century, as their student bodies became more diverse and international. Yale, described by F. Scott Fitzgerald as “November, crisp and energetic,” is now more relaxed. Instead of operating like a “system” to produce

3 Student Diversity at the Big Th ree

“a type,” characterized by Kenneth S. Davis as “athletic, hearty, extroverted, ambitious, and intensely competitive,” Yale encouraged greater individualism. Princeton, no longer defi ned chiefl y by its pleasant “atmosphere,” produces students who are more than “socially adroit and graceful.” What changed both campuses was the admission of ethnic, religious, and racial minorities and women undergraduates. 11 As the “Big Th ree” have gradually lifted some of their time restrictions on sensitive collections in their university archives, scholars can fi nd out much more about their past admissions policies, in particular their Jewish quotas, and the various ways in which they have defi ned other students based on their ethnicity, race, and gender in the admissions process.12 In the 1920s, as amply documented by both historians and sociologists, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton followed Columbia University in adopting “selective” admissions and imposing anti-Semitic quotas to protect themselves from a possible “invasion” by Jewish applicants, whose parents immigrated from eastern Europe and Russia to the United States. Whereas Columbia’s quota limited Jewish enrollment to about 20 percent, Harvard’s quota cut their percentage from 20–22 percent to 10–15 percent, which was slightly more generous than Yale’s 10 percent and Princeton’s 3 percent.13 Th e anti-Jewish quotas imposed at these and other Ivy League colleges and also at East Coast medical, dental, and law schools had spread to the Midwest, Far West, and South by the 1930s. Despite considerable institutional variations, many of them, in turn, rationalized adopting similar quotas to protect themselves from an infl ux of Jewish students who were denied admission elsewhere. Indeed, nationally, between 1935 and 1946, total Jewish enrollment in professional schools declined from 8.8 to 7 percent, and their representation in all higher educational institutions was almost unchanged at about 9 percent (192,476 out of 2,140,331 students enumerated).14 By the 1960s, the proportion of Jewish students was 25 percent or more at Harvard and was increasing at Yale and Princeton. Asian Americans had experiences similar to the Jews, in that as their numbers grew toward the end of the twentieth century, they usually had to be academically stronger than other applicants. Under pressure from the Civil Rights movement, the Big Th ree began seriously recruiting African-American students, but it was not until late in the 1960s that they became enthusiastic about educating women. For almost its fi rst one hundred years as a college, Radcliff e had to accept a quota on the number of students it admitted, because of the limited amount of instruction Harvard professors would provide to women’s separate classes in Radcliff e Yard. Th ough Radcliff e women were admitted to Harvard classrooms in 1943, the strict gender quota limiting women to one-fourth of the number of men admitted continued for another thirty years before the ratio began to change to 2.5 to 1. In recent years, fi rst-year women either equaled or exceeded the number of fi rst-year men. Th e same trends occurred at Yale

4 Introduction and at Princeton. When they fi rst admitted undergraduate women to their colleges in 1969, they off ered only a limited number of places with the result women applicants had to be twice as good as male applicants. Committing themselves to the principle of gender equity, Yale and Princeton have achieved almost a fi fty-fi fty male-female ratio in recent years. Th ese patterns suggest that the Big Th ree have been moving in the direction of greater diversity in terms of ethnicity, race, religion, and gender. 15 To a signifi cant extent, from the mid-nineteenth century to the 1970s, the Big Th ree have evolved through the “fi ve phases” of higher education admissions policies identifi ed by historian Laurence Veysey. Th e fi rst phase was admission by examination, but as Veysey pointed out, applicants could still be admitted “on condition” and then pass the individual examinations in Greek, Latin, and mathematics by remedial study in college. His second phase introduced admission from approved secondary schools or by passing standardized College Entrance Examination Board tests, but this requirement still allowed academically weaker students to be tutored until they passed. During Veysey’s third period, dating from the late 1910s until post World War II, Columbia, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, followed by other “selective” colleges, implemented informal quotas on Jewish students. In Veysey’s fourth period, which fully revealed the Nazi genocide of the Jewish people, universities ended quotas and allegedly embraced meritocratic admissions. Each of the Big Th ree offi cially rejected exclusionary quotas based on race, religion, or sex as being contrary to the educational goals of a democratic society and as being counterproductive to their evolving educational missions to educate not only a highly qualifi ed but also a diverse student body. Th ough Veysey dated the arrival of “intellectual meritocracy in a pure form” to the 1950s and 1960s, in reality its actual adoption remained problematic and varied from institution to institution. In Veysey’s fi fth phase, “meritocracy” yielded ground to “benign” admission quotas adopted in the late 1960s to compensate minorities who had experienced past discrimination.16 Indeed, both elite private colleges and universities and public fl agship institutions have defended their affi rmative action programs as a way to ensure student ethnic and racial—and cultural—diversity, although their critics have questioned whether “benign” quotas for underrepresented groups are justifi able, if they result in the exclusion of academically better qualifi ed applicants. In crafting their fi rst-year classes, university administrators and faculty have embraced a certain degree of transparency on their admissions web sites; whereas in the past, they tried to keep their admissions decisions as secret as possible. During the past thirty-fi ve years, moreover, they have justifi ed their affi rmative action policies by fi ling legal briefs in several court cases, while continuing to resist intense scrutiny into the process by which they decide who to admit and who to reject.17 In studying the history of elite private universities, the following are the

5 Student Diversity at the Big Th ree observations about Harvard which were made in a letter that Provost Paul Herman Buck, a long-time insider, wrote to President James Bryant Conant on November 20, 1952, and that merited being remembered:

As a historian I share the professional distaste of easy phrases like a Golden or a Silver Age, “Declines” and “Falls,” “Nadirs” and “Peaks.” Human institutions are much too complex for that. At any fi xed point of time something is being born while something is dying and something else is reaching full maturity while here that which gave great promise peters out and there something again fl ourishes beyond any comprehension. To measure advance or loss you need a fi xed point from which to measure. Where is that fi xed point? . . . Each generation has its own assignment to work out in terms of the forces, pressures, trends, factors, circumstances, resources, liabili- ties, legacies from the past, and horizons for the future—describe them as you will—and the only judgment history can properly make is to measure the achievement in terms of the accompanying circumstances.18

An examination of the admissions policies of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton during the past one hundred years revealed various “Nadirs” and “Peaks,” in Buck’s words, although opinions may be divided over what were the highs and lows. Few today would dispute the fact that Jewish quotas were “nadirs,” but opinions have ranged from approval to disapproval on affi rmative action measures for racial minorities, if they received a substantial “tip” in the admissions process. While coeducation generally receives positive reviews today, there are some who regret the presence of women on a campus they remembered fondly as a place for men. On the “hot button” campus issue of the Vietnam War era—the presence of Reserve Offi cers Training Corps (ROTC) units, the attitudes of most faculty and students at Harvard and Yale and other Ivy League universities have shifted in favor of welcoming ROTC units back (Princeton has had an Army ROTC unit since 1972). Th ough there are still diff erences of opinion on whether lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBTs) should be welcomed on campus, they are no longer admonished to remain invisible, as was the case prior to World War II. In addition, students with physical and/or learning disabilities are no longer invisible on campus, though some question whether Harvard, Yale, and Princeton have moved as expeditiously as they should have in providing academic accommodations and handicapped access to classrooms, libraries, dining rooms, and dormitories.19 Other current debates concern whether preferences for alumni children or legacies should be continued, as most already enjoyed advantages of being white and affl uent. Preferences are also given to “development cases,” children of wealthy parents who could make multi-million dollar donations

6 Introduction to the university that admitted their son or daughter, and to the recruited athletes for inter-collegiate teams. Critics contended that well-endowed universities such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton have not done as much as they could have to encourage applications by—and, if accepted, attendance by—children of middle- or working-class families and to reach out to those who were the fi rst in their families to seek a college education. Th ose who were most disadvantaged in the admissions process—applicants from lower socio-economic status families—lacked the wealth that opened doors for the so-called “development” cases, a legacy preference, or a racial diversity “tip.” Indeed, in weighing the competing demands of legacies, athletes, and diff erent groups of newcomers, “Big Th ree” admissions committees, together with their fi nancial aid offi ces, have exercised considerable discretion in crafting classes for their own and future generations in keeping with evolving institutional preferences. Th eir decision-making process has been described as analogous to the bidding on the fl oor of the commodity exchange markets. Nevertheless, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton can take a degree of pride in their freshman classes that enrolled in the second decade of the twenty-fi rst century, with demographic statistics—and photographs—of ethnic, racial, religious, and socioeconomic diversity diff erent from classes that enrolled ten to twenty years ago, distinctly diff erent from classes enrolling fi fty years ago, and dramatically diff erent from those enrolling ninety years ago. 20 Trends in Admissions Policies at Harvard Perspectives on “the Errors of the Past” From the vantage point of the late twentieth century, it is easy to see how often—and perhaps too readily—administrators and faculty of the pre-Civil Rights era temporized in addressing controversial issues. 21 Nevertheless, the university that President James B. Conant left, on January 23, 1953, required more competitive academic standards for admission—and was more ethnically diverse than the Harvard of Lowell. Provost Buck viewed Conant’s accomplishments, achieved with his own considerable assistance, as progressive, if not revolutionary. In his illuminating 1952 letter to Conant, Buck refl ected on the changes that he had witnessed in Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences during the previous twenty years. Aptly expressing how institutions, especially academic ones, evolved over time, he emphasized that before 1925, Harvard’s admissions requirements were rather modest, letting in “anyone with real motivation who wished to enter the College or the Graduate School,” an assessment with which Laurence Veysey would subsequently agree. “Admission then was primarily a matter of maintaining a certain intellectual standard,” observed Buck, “and that standard in the College was not so high as to defeat the eff orts of an assiduous tutor like the Widow Nolan or Benchermal to get dumb boys through the tests.” A distinguished historian who earned his Ph.D. from Harvard in 1924, Buck noted that “the

7 Student Diversity at the Big Th ree standards of the Graduate School” did not “exclude many men of obvious B quality.” Nor did it have an “eff ective policy of eliminating failures who had been admitted to the School and who in cases lingered on for years.” Finding the 70 percent rise in enrollments fi nancially unsustainable, Harvard College had to raise its standards, concluded Buck: “Sometime between 1925 and 1940 a change of revolutionary proportions took place—and it happened at Yale and Princeton at about the same time and in the same way.” Although Buck could not anticipate all the shifts in their policies, admissions committees at the Big Th ree assumed “great power” during the 1930s as they rejected the older “laissez faire” policy by selectively admitting “only 1 out of every 3 or 4 or even 5 applicants,” which was based more on academic merit than what had been followed earlier. Changes began at Harvard before World War II with the National Scholarship program (1934) that recruited competitive students nationwide, but the implementation of more academically rigorous admissions policies took time. Buck wrote to Conant, “Th e most serious headaches--as is always true--arise from the errors of the past,” but they “should be taken in perspective.” Perhaps he intended to write the history of Harvard’s transformation that his letter to Conant outlined, but this task would be fulfi lled by Morton Keller and Phyllis Keller in their Making Harvard Modern: Th e Rise of America’s University (2001). 22 None of the Big Th ree anticipated that the postwar period would bring along with it an ever-increasing number of applicants with excellent academic credentials, both veterans on the GI Bill and high school seniors, whose qualifi cations challenged the continuation of ethnic, racial, religious, and gender quotas that protected the admission of less qualifi ed white, Protes- tant, and middle- or upper-class men. After World War II, various committees and organizations investigated and exposed the diffi culties that Jews had in gaining admission to medical and other academic and professional programs. For example, the Mayor’s Committee on Unity in New York City (1946) denounced discrimination by higher educational institutions in the metropolitan area. With the passage of state fair educational practice laws in New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, colleges and professional schools deleted questions on nationality, race, and religion from application forms. However, when and if all discriminatory devices ended cannot be precisely determined, although specifi c restrictive quotas on Jewish students and other minority groups were dropped almost everywhere with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlawed institutional discrimination on the basis of race, religion, or sex.23 Post–World War II Social Changes at Harvard By the late 1940s, some prominent Harvard alumni began to urge greater student diversity and a broader range of views on its governing boards. In discussing his successor on the Harvard Corporation, Henry James wrote to

8 Introduction

President Conant in March 1947 that if Harvard wanted “to be a national university,” it needed “essential diversity of age, background, professional and geographic connection” among its fellows. James felt “it would be really unfortunate to have a Corporation composed of men whose spheres of experience appeared to be confi ned to Mount Auburn Street, State Street, Milton and Boston,” a city that was “no longer the Athens of America.”24 Fol- lowing the path taken earlier by the Board of Overseers, which by 1925 had ended “the geographical dominance of Proper Boston” by electing seventeen out of its thirty members from “cities from New York to San Francisco,” the Harvard Corporation began to select fellows from beyond Boston and then gradually to include Jews, blacks, and women as fellows. However, it did not restructure and enlarge the Corporation until forced to do so by the fi nancial crisis of 2009. 25 Headmasters and teachers at schools in metropolitan areas, for example, Boston Latin School and the Fieldston School in the Bronx, continued to complain that Harvard turned down many of their best students; some alumni also complained. In their November 1946 letter to President Conant, two Harvard graduates and World War II veterans, expressing a commitment to Christian principles, criticized Admissions Committee members for considering “themselves to be ‘watch dogs’ whose self-appointed duty it is either to discriminate against Jews, Negroes and other members of so-called minority groups, on the basis of race or religion, or at least to require of these boys higher standards of scholarship and character than would be required of the Anglo-Saxon, private school, potential fi nal club member type of student.” Th ey recommended that Harvard include graduates from other colleges on the Admissions Committee, remove any current member who considered “racial origin or religion [was] per se a factor” in admitting applicants, and appoint “Jews, Negroes and men of other minorities.”26 By 1950, Harvard announced through the University News Offi ce that its student body was more socially and economically diverse than in the past and that almost 50 percent had applied for scholarships, compared to only 20 percent during the interwar period:

Th e College student body is no longer a relatively homogenous group. It has become steadily more diverse over the last fi fty years. Today more than 1100 Freshmen enter Harvard College each year from about 500 diff erent secondary schools. Th ese students come from diverse educational, geographic, social, economic, religious, and racial backgrounds. Th ey come with diverse codes of behavior, diverse standards of value, diverse religious attitudes, intellectual interests and educational goals. Th ey come from a society in which the stabilizing infl uences of the family and religion have been declining steadily in strength.27

9 Student Diversity at the Big Th ree

Nevertheless, acceptable diversity had certain limits, as was proved by Harvard’s admissions policies. In the early 1950s, preferences for athletes received a boost in reaction to alumni unhappiness over Harvard’s losing football seasons and its recurring defeat by Yale. After two poor seasons in 1949 and 1950, the football team, though suff ering crippling injuries, achieved a 5-4 record in 1952 for its fi rst winning season since 1946. Complicating postwar eff orts to recruit athletes was the fl ood of veterans coming to Harvard and other colleges, who were little interested in intercollegiate football. In his 1946 article for the Harvard Alumni Bulletin , Provost Buck had called for “Balance in the College” in terms of recruiting and admitting students.28 Concerned that the best students were going to other Ivy League colleges or to Stanford or the University of Michigan, Harvard asked alumni to help identify the most talented high school seniors nationwide—the strongest scholars and best athletes, musicians, and artists. Seeking to reenergize the athletic program, Paul Buck announced at a special press conference on March 11, 1950 that Harvard aimed at playing football competitively within the Ivy League and that it would not abolish the sport, something which the University of Chicago had done in 1939. Th e University instituted four major changes: (1) In March 1950, it placed scholarships, student loans, and jobs under the management of the Financial Aid Center. (2) In 1951, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences took over supervision of the Harvard Athletic Association, which was renamed the Department of Athletics, and assumed $318,000 of the athletic program’s debt. President Conant considered athletics “as much a proper charge against the resources of the Faculty as the maintenance of a library or a laboratory.” (3) To sustain fi nancially Harvard’s required non- varsity athletics for undergraduates and to eliminate ticket costs for attending athletic events, in 1952, Buck recommended including such fees in a higher tuition charge. Th ese new changes cost the Department of Athletics about $100,000. Th e Crimson protested that students should not have to pay higher tuition fees if they were not interested in attending athletic events. Th e fi nal change that reshaped athletic policy (4) was Buck’s appointment of Wilbur J. Bender ’27, as Dean of Admissions and Financial Aids (1952–1960). Charged with doubling, if not quadrupling, the number of applicants for the 1,100 places in the freshman class, Bender endeavored to engineer a “balance” in undergraduate admissions by recruiting, with the assistance of Harvard alumni clubs, applicants who were high achievers in both extracurricular activities and scholarships. 29 To curb excessive enthusiasm for intercollegiate athletics, President Conant met in 1951 with Yale President A. Whitney Griswold, Yale ‘29 (1950–1963), and Princeton President Harold Willis Dodds, Princeton M.A. and University of Pennsylvania Ph.D. (1933–1957), to develop a Statement of Scholarship Policy. Th is statement, according to a 2003 Crimson article

10 Introduction by David B. Rochelson ’05, laid “the groundwork for the formal code of the Ivy Group in 1954, particularly the Ivy commitment to amateur sports.” Th e Offi ce of Admissions and Financial Aids was in charge of making all fi nal decisions, despite pleadings by alumni and coaches, and athletes would be awarded scholarships and campus jobs on a competitive basis with other applicants. However, said Rochelson, “Harvard failed in its fi ght for a provision to bar coaches from visiting high school athletes, and eventually expanded its recruiting eff orts to match those of its Ivy League peers.” Th e Big Th ree, in particular, was accused by Maryland football coach Jim Tatum, in his November 1952 interview by the Crimson , “of concealing scholarships they gave to athletes and speciously maintaining their athletes’ amateur status.” For their part, some Ivy League presidents saw their athletic programs as a work in progress, as President Griswold wrote in “College Athletics: Best of Two Worlds,” Sports Illustrated (October 17, 1955). 30 To improve Harvard’s image nationally, Admissions Dean Bender supported recruiting academically qualifi ed athletes who could help fi eld winning teams. He also argued that to achieve the best “balance” in each freshman class, applicants should not be admitted only on the basis of grades and test scores. In “A comprehensive formal statement of Harvard College admission policy,” September 18, 1952, he described the seven groups who usually applied to Harvard: (1) alumni sons, who had fallen from 25 percent in the Class of 1935 to about 20 percent in the Class of 1951; (2) “Greater Boston’s social and fi nancial upper-bracket families,” who overlapped with the alumni; (3) graduates from “selected private schools,” many but not all from the northeast; (4) the “solid middle class” sons of business and professional men; (5) scholarship students from across the nation; (6) sons of middle- and lower- income families from eastern Massachusetts, 15 percent of whom were commuters; and (7) “intellectual, musical or esthetic individuals,” some of whom were “eff eminates.” According to him, Jewish students were signifi cantly represented among the last two groups. In selecting freshmen, Bender emphasized that admissions decisions had to consider alumni loyalty and fi nancial support, relations with private and public feeder schools, geographical representation, and “political considerations” with regard to applicants from Cambridge and Boston. Finally, three-fourths of those admitted must be “paying customers.” Bender succinctly described Harvard’s admissions policy, which did not “discriminate” among the various groups: “Th e practical question really is not whether we should give any preference, but what are the limits of preference?,” a statement that continues to be at least partially accurate today.31 Bender did not favor Jewish applicants, because he was wary about admitting too many of them. As he wrote to President Conant, in 1951, the problem was “complex and thorny, but the last thing we want to do, it seems to me, is to stimulate more applications from New York City.” Bender justifi ed Harvard’s “expanded admission program” as helping to “bring us more

11 Student Diversity at the Big Th ree

‘good boys’ from other parts of the country, to counterbalance legitimately the snowballing New York contingent.” In 1953, Bender defi ned the admissions problem as keeping “some kind of balance among the diverse groups needed to make a healthy student body,” given competition from such colleges as Princeton and Williams for the so-called “good boys.”32 But maintaining such a balance was a real challenge when 95 percent of applicants qualifi ed for admission and, by the Class of 1955, over 85 percent (954 of 1,112 freshmen) graduated, compared to less than 75 percent (568 of 763 freshmen) in the Class of 1930. 33 To assess the present condition of Harvard admissions and to “look at the terrible problems of future admission policy,” in the words of Dean Bender, the Committee on Educational Policy formed a new sub-committee, the Special Committee on College Admission Policy, in the spring of 1959. Chaired by Franklin L. Ford, associate professor of History (He was appointed Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, 1962–1970, and Acting Dean in the spring of 1973.), this sub-committee that functioned as a general study group aimed at making appropriate recommendations to the Faculty Committee on Ad- missions and Scholarships. Ford explained to the Harvard Crimson that it was not a rebuke to the Admissions Offi ce staff , which, of necessity, had to concentrate on traveling to schools, interviewing potential applicants, and then reviewing several thousand fi les, rather than broadly surveying the types of students who applied to Harvard. Serving on the sub-committee were Bender, John Usher Monro (Dean of Harvard College, 1957–1967), and the following professors: Walter Jackson Bate, History and Literature; Clarence Crane Brinton, History; Alwin Max Pappenheimer, Jr., Physiology at Harvard Medical School; Samuel Andrew Stouff er, Sociology; and Edgar Bright Wilson, Jr., Chemistry. Wilson and Chemistry professor George B. Kistiakowsky, who joined the Faculty Committee on Admissions in 1957, argued most strongly in favor of raising academic standards and of measuring the academic caliber of each class by the number of degrees with honors and the rank list standings of its members.34 Th e February 1960 fi nal report of the Special Committee on College Admission Policy recommended that Harvard College continue to seek and provide as much fi nancial assistance as possible to students with a wide range of talents who come from diff erent socioeconomic and geographic backgrounds. To emphasize the increased competition for places in the freshman class, the Committee pointed out that the Class of 1956 had 3,089 applicants, 1,940 or 62.8 percent of whom were admitted; 1,222 of whom had registered in September 1952. Th e Class of 1962 had 4,030 fi nal applications, but only 38.9 percent could be admitted, a percentage that was anticipated to decline in subsequent classes as the number of applicants increased. First among the Committee’s nineteen recommendations was its rejection of “any preconceived notion of an ‘ideal class,’” because “primary attention should be

12 Introduction paid to the qualities and promise of the individual applicants.” Second, the Committee supported the Admission and Scholarship Committee “for its policy of admitting no candidate unless he appears to possess the requisite intellectual ability to take advantage of the opportunities and to meet the demands inherent in undergraduate education for a highly selected student body.” Since “intellectual promise” was of foremost importance, “Harvard,” in the words of one committee member, “must keep trying to push its top one percent of brilliant students up to two percent.” Th ird, it should enable Harvard to make “every eff ort to attract candidates who off er the highest promise of distinguished intellectual achievement,” and it should, fourthly, “undertake an investigation of possible correlations between admission data and outstanding performances by Harvard graduates in all fi elds of human endeavor.” To ensure that it attracted the largest pool of qualifi ed applicants nationwide, the fi fth recommendation urged “Harvard” to “undertake a careful investigation of its public image or images, with special regard for the problem of ‘self-selection’ on the part of potential candidates for admission.” 35 Recommendations six and seven pertained to Harvard’s use of “additional scholarships funds” to assist “an increasing proportion of deserving candidates” to come to Harvard, while at the same time encouraging “the wise use of fi nancial self-help, including loans, summer earnings and term-time employment, as a supplement to the scholarship program.” Th e eighth recommendation reaffi rmed Harvard’s earlier decision to move away from “sharply defi ned prerequisites for admission” by recommending that the “College should not, at this time, adopt a set of formal prerequisites for admission, stated in terms either of secondary school courses or of prescribed scores on achievement tests.” Th e three essential requirements were: “(1) satisfactory completion of secondary school; (2) the school’s recommendation that the candidate is academically and morally fi tted for Harvard; (3) a satisfactory record on the Scholastic Aptitude Test and three Achievement Tests given by the College Entrance Examination Board.” Th e Information about Harvard College booklet listed the “ideal secondary school preparation for Harvard” in terms of years studying specifi c courses, which acknowledged that modifi cations could be made “for a candidate in the light of his particular talents and goals and of what is available in his school.” One of the obvious diffi culties would be requiring four years or more of a foreign language, since that could have disqualifi ed 40 percent of recent freshmen. If four years of mathematics had been required, “no fewer than 126 of the 344 students who graduated summa cum laude or magna cum laude in the Classes of 1957 and 1958” would have been excluded or might have been discouraged from even applying. Harvard would work in the future with other institutions to develop more specifi c curriculum requirements. 36 Recommendation nine discussed whether “two Predicted Rank List fi g- ures” should be assigned to all applicants, one based on “the four-year college

13 Student Diversity at the Big Th ree grade average,” and “the other using the four-year college grade average of concentrators in scientifi c fi elds.” Of concern was the “simple fact that 32.5% of the applicants with PRL’s pointing to Dean’s List performance were nevertheless rejected.” But the Committee then observed “that every admission to Harvard College is in some degree a gamble,” and that the PRL, though important, was only one indicator. Tenth, the Committee recommended continued rejection of “any system requiring that a candidate commit himself to accept admission before he has learned of the action taken by other institutions to which he may have applied.” Th e advice that Harvard sent to feeder schools about a particular candidate’s chance of admission based on “an A-B-C rating scale” was not a binding form of “early admission,” but rather giving a weaker candidate an opportunity to apply elsewhere. Appreciating the fact that some faculty members were willing to attend meetings and read application folders, the committee did not think they should not involve themselves in individual decisions. Th e College should maintain its present size of 5,600 undergraduates, including around 1,100 Radcliff e students. 37 Th e Committee then considered “Questions of Preference and Emphasis,” for example, geographical distribution of admitted freshmen; whether they attended public or private schools; their family’s socioeconomic background; the decline in applications from the Greater Boston area; the number applying for advanced standing and advanced placement; the several dozen foreign students in each class; the rising number of Harvard son applicants and the declining percentage admitted; the percentage of Faculty sons admitted; the admission of athletes; and applicants’ indicated fi elds of concentration.38 Since the Class of 1929, when 60 percent of Harvard students came from New England (and 55 percent from Massachusetts), other regions had increased their representation making the College a national institution. First in representation in the Class of 1963 were students from the Middle Atlantic states (30.5 percent), followed by those from New England (29.1 percent), and the “Old Northwest Territory” of the Midwest ranking third (17.1 percent, up from 7.9 percent in the Class of 1939). However, Harvard’s allocation of scholarship funds to assist geographical distribution, “under-subsidized” students from New York. In terms of school backgrounds, the percentage coming from public high schools increased from 47.9 percent in the Class of 1956 to 55.2 percent in the Class of 1963, although a higher proportion of students from private schools (47.4 percent of 1,386 applicants) were admitted, compared to public school graduates (34.1 percent of 2,769 applicants). Even though private school students seemed better prepared for college work during their freshman year, a higher proportion of public school students than private school ones went on to graduate either summa cum laude or magna cum laude; and more private than public school students fl unked out. Th e committee complimented “the very fi ne performance of many students from private schools” and recognized that even those who did not strive to

14 Introduction graduate with honors contributed “a great deal to the intellectual atmosphere of Harvard.” Moreover, private schools did not simply educate the economically advantaged, but also provided scholarships for students from modest backgrounds.39 “Any preconceived quota, of any kind” for “any school, or category of schools” would be, maintained the committee, detrimental to the selection of “applicants on their own merits.” In keeping with that “philosophy of admissions,” the committee rejected “without qualifi cation, any discrimination against a boy on the basis of his ethnic background, his religion or his family’s station in life.” Committed to “keeping up the search for high abilities, everywhere in the American population,” in 1958–1959, Harvard granted almost $1,250,000 in scholarships and benefi ciary aid to enable “gifted boys” of modest means to attend the College. In addition, over three hundred Harvard students won General Motors and National Merit Scholarships valued altogether at $250,000. Harvard also quadrupled its loans to students to $400,000. Yet relatively few students from low-income families could af- ford to attend Harvard, because the scholarship aid that covered increased tuition could not match the higher costs of residing in Cambridge, which climbed from $1,500 in 1948–1949 to $2,750 in 1958–1959. Th e median family income of those with scholarships was $7,700 for the Class of 1963, $2,900 more than seven years earlier. “Th e long-established predominance of business and professional family backgrounds,” the faculty must recognize, “remains essentially unaltered.”40 According to statistics collected by Delmar Leighton, Master of Dudley House, which served non-resident students, applications from sixteen local high schools had declined since 1953 by 6 percent, from 276 to 258, while the volume of applications to the College rose by 30 percent. Even as Harvard as- pired to be a national university through its National Scholarships, it cherished its historic ties to Boston, but area students had no competitive advantages in admissions, and a slightly smaller percentage made the Dean’s List than undergraduates as a whole. With the percentage of Massachusetts residents dropping from 55.1 percent to 21.3 percent between the Classes of 1929 and 1963, the Committee continued the present approach of taking “somewhat longer chances on the ability of numerous local boys to make the grade at Harvard than we can justify taking in the case of applicants from a greater distance.” Harvard should also “re-educate Greater Boston as to our general admission standards and our determination to see that local applicants who are admitted have a fi ne educational experience in the College.” 41 Th e Committee agreed that admission with sophomore standing by completing advanced work in high school or by attaining grades of 3, 4, and 5 on three Advanced Placement Examinations as well as freshmen admission with advanced placement were “deserving of continued use, and possible expansion.” Given that the number of these College Board-administered

15 Student Diversity at the Big Th ree e xaminations grew from about 3,000 in the spring of 1958 to more than 8,000 the following year, the Committee anticipated that even more students would seek sophomore standing after admission or advanced placement as freshmen. Th ough seeing some risk in running “a boy through Harvard in three years” or admitting “him after only three years of secondary schooling,” the Com- mittee thought a student regularly admitted as a freshman should be allowed to “move as fast as he can in a fi eld for which he has already demonstrated precocious gifts.” But the Admissions Committee and the Committee on Advanced Standing should continuously reappraise such acceleration. 42 Undergraduate foreign students, admitted only after having passed College Board examinations and being screened by the University’s Adviser to Foreign Students, generally averaged between thirty and forty per class and added “a tone which Harvard has cause to cherish.” To the Class of 1963, Harvard accepted only 24 out of 124 applicants, excluding from this tally fi ve from Canada and graduates from overseas American schools. Th ough less than 3 percent of applicants, foreign students were granted 6.8 percent of Harvard’s scholarship funds with an implicit promise of continuation through their course of study, and with fi nancial provision for two trips home during that time. To ensure profi ciency in English, the Committee recommended that Harvard conduct “precautionary interviewing abroad” of both foreign undergraduate and graduate students. Of the 113 foreign students in the Classes of 1957, 1958, and 1958, eighty-nine had graduated and another nine were on course to receive their degrees. Because among the forty graduating with honors, there were eight summas and magna s, compared to fi fteen fl unking or dropping out, the Committee recommended that Harvard continue to admit about the same numbers of foreign students.43 Perhaps no topic before the Committee generated as much heated discussion—it was “a torrid zone”—as the sons of Harvard College alumni, whether or not they earned a degree. Before World War II, one-fourth of each freshman class was composed of alumni sons (there were 280 in the Class of 1939). Th eir numbers began to drop to a little over 21 percent in the Class of 1945 and then to 15.5 percent in the Class of 1948. With the exception of the Class of 1950, which enrolled 350 sons or 21.2 percent of those matriculating, sons averaged between 16 and 18 percent in classes during the 1950s, including the Class of 1960, which for the fi rst time rejected 109 sons, while admitting 214. Faced with 358 son applicants, the Class of 1961 admitted 219 or 19.4 percent and rejected 109; 219 enrolled. Th e Classes of 1962 and 1963 rejected even more sons, respectively, 119 out of 379, admitting 20 percent, and 143 out of 381, admitting just 17.6. Th e Committee emphasized that “immediate charges of excessive favoritism” should be balanced against the fact that the 214 sons in the Class of 1963 were fewer than in several earlier classes. Between the Class of 1955, when 93.6 percent of son applicants were admitted, compared to only 66.2 percent of all applicants, the percentages of

16 Introduction sons admitted dropped almost continuously to 62.5 percent in the Class of 1963, but so did the percentage admitted from the entire applicant group—to 38.4 percent. Once enrolled, Harvard sons performed less well academically than the class as a whole, accounting for fourteen out of forty-one freshmen in the Class of 1962 who fl unked out or dropped out for academic reasons. Th ey were “in the College almost entirely because of parental insistence, do not want to be here and generally fi nd ways to get out.” A third or more of alumni sons ranked in the top half of their freshman class, and between 12 and 16 percent were in the highest quartile. Given that postwar families were having more children, Harvard would have three choices should the number of alumni son applicants to future classes reach 500 or more: continue to accept the current percentage of sons, while rejecting a higher percentage of other applicants; keep the same percentages of both groups by enlarging the student body; or admit a fi xed number of sons to each class, which would increase the number rejected. Th e Committee recommended “further tightening in the admission of Harvard sons,” recognizing “that some degree, probably a quite substantial degree, of family continuity is vital to any college.” Harvard’s welfare depended on “countless devoted alumni,” whose motives for their sons’ admission should be respected. In addition to providing fi nancial support, regional Harvard Clubs recruited many applicants through their Schools and Scholarship Committees, which were “an indispensable part—of the College’s entire admission program.” But the infl uence of “parentage” had its limits and “should not be a basis for the preferential acceptance of weak candidates,” a fact that the Dean of Admissions should continue to communicate “to Harvard alumni, in clear but sympathetic terms.” 44 Sons of teachers, college faculty, and educational administrators at Harvard and at other institutions, who numbered to 93 or 7.7 percent of the Class of 1963, were admitted at a 58.2 percent rate. However, “Harvard faculty sons” did not qualify for a stipendiary scholarship given their fathers’ suffi ciently high income. Seven of the eleven sons of Faculty of Arts and Sciences members admitted to the Classes of 1959 through 1962 earned Dean’s List grades averaging B or higher, and the average grades of twenty-six of the forty-six sons of other Harvard faculty members (including fi fteen of the thirty-one sons of medical faculty) were in the lowest quartile. Consequently, the Committee recommended “careful re-evaluation” of “sons of Harvard faculty members,” so that any preferential treatment they received did not “invalidate every other position adopted by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.”45 Recognizing that a “minority of the faculty” opposed all consideration of athletic talents in admissions as “a lapse from ‘intellectual standards,’” the Committee was confi dent, nevertheless, that intellect could “hold its own in the midst of varied activities and momentary diversions—and could emerge predominant.” Only one quarter of the seventy-nine students rated “1” or of varsity potential was predicted to place in the upper half of the Class of 1962,

17 Student Diversity at the Big Th ree but more than one-third achieved that rank as freshmen. About 28 percent of these athletes were in the bottom quarter. Even those playing football and soccer, whose teams achieved winning records in 1959, were “‘brighter,’ in terms of academic performance, than were their notably less successful predecessors of a few years ago.” But the Committee rejected giving “special preference” to any “applicants on the basis of athletic ability,” though some preference was accorded to boys with “fi rst-rate promise” in art, music, or drama. A majority of its members agreed with the present Admission Committee policy that the athletic abilities of an applicant who has demonstrated “intellectual competence” deserved “to be noted as a signifi cant extra-curricular talent.”46 Finally, the Committee decided that an “applicant for admission” should not “be either accepted or rejected on the basis of his indicated fi eld of concentration.” As a study by the Harvard Offi ce of Student Placement showed, members of the Class of 1959 changed their fi elds between September and June of their freshman year: from 50 to 28 percent in Natural Sciences and Engineering; from 31 to 29 percent in Humanities; and from 19 to 43 percent in Social Sciences. Th e “pre-meds” shifted away from Natural Sciences and Engineering when they realized medical school requirements could be fulfi lled by another concentration; and others found college-level humanities and social sciences more interesting than those subjects in high school.47 To encourage potential scientists in the admissions process, the Committee emphasized that applicants should be judged by both types of tests—verbal aptitude and those that give “greater weight to mathematical skills.” 48 After identifying those among some 5,000 applications who were “clearly admissible on the strength of school records, test scores and personal evalu- ations,” the Admissions Committee rejected a “major fraction” that could not do the work, while making allowances for the 20 percent who would decline admission. Th en the Admissions Committee must use its “judgment and intuition” to select another 500 from “the remaining pool of ‘possible talent,’” numbering 1,500–2,000 applicants. With “its intellectual standards” safeguarded, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences should give full support to “such judgment and—since the alternative seems mediocrity—to intuition itself.” On April 11, 1960, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences approved the Committee’s report, which served as a blueprint for Harvard admissions for several decades. In curtailing the generous preferences previously granted to alumni sons and athletes, the report raised questions in the minds of some at Harvard and among its alumni nationwide as to whether it went too far in raising the academic standards for admission. 49 Wilbur J. Bender took a somewhat diff erent approach in his fi nal report as Dean of Admissions before announcing in October 1959 that he would resign on July 1. He described the main changes that had occurred primarily since World War II: the growing number of public school graduates outnumbered

18 Introduction those from private schools; geographic diversity increased and the number of commuters decreased, as Harvard provided more on-campus housing; and applicants to Harvard had higher grade point averages and scores on the Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SATs). By the Class of 1964, “the median student” had the same standing as a student “at about the 90th percentile of the Class of 1956 as measured by SAT and PRL [Predicted Rank List] scores.” But Bender paid deference to Harvard’s long-established “peculiar mixture of ‘gentlemen and scholars,’” which enabled the College “to serve the national interest eff ectively.”50 His report was, wrote Stephen F. Jencks, magna cum laude ’62, in the Har- vard Crimson, “a stunning and appalling investigation of the trend of College policy which virtually demolishes the bland, mousy optimism of last year’s Faculty Admissions report under a cascade of facts.” Bender pointed out that rising tuition costs meant that Harvard could not provide the amount of aid needed, even though it had doubled what it off ered since 1950. Bender, Jencks noted, was “extremely unenthusiastic about a college composed of students who are merely among those measured to be in the top one percent of the nation intellectually—he doubts that this relates clearly to the creativity, originality, and energy that may produce really distinguished graduates; he suspects that a homogeneously brilliant class may be cloying and pedestrian.” Bender worried about whether those admitted because of their top scores would become generous alumni and whether raising the admissions bar too high would discourage many good applicants. In addition, Bender criticized the entire faculty for diverting most tuition increases to their operating budget and for its “academic narrowness.” Harvard should avoid admitting only graduates who want to “go on only to more study,” because it would then become “as much an ivory tower as a prep school in which all seniors pass unthinkingly to ivy-covered halls.” In conclusion, Harvard needed to maintain a more fl exible approach in evaluating applicants.51 Defending his views in a January 1962 letter to the editors of the Harvard Crimson, Bender made it clear that he did not criticize Harvard’s present admission policy under Dean Fred Glimp as presented in President Pusey’s report, although a recent Crimson article seemed to suggest that he did. “For the record,” Bender said “that at no time, either before 1960 or since, have those responsible for Harvard College admission policy accepted what my report called the ‘top-one-per-cent’ policy.” Indeed, “the President, the Dean of the Faculty and the governing boards, especially the Corporation” gave their consistent support to “an admission policy which put weight on a variety of non-academic factors in the selection of students and which sought for the College a student body with a diversity of qualities and backgrounds within a considerable range of academic ability.” Bender explained that his report aimed at stimulating discussion by trying “to defi ne more sharply, the admission policy issues now faced by Harvard and other selective colleges.”

19 Student Diversity at the Big Th ree

Disclaiming “to be dogmatic about what is the best long-run policy for the Harvard College,” he was disappointed “that the proponents of the ‘top-o ne- per-cent’ policy have so far failed to express their views publicly.” 52 Despite concerns voiced over tougher admissions standards, Harvard continued preferences for alumni sons, as did Yale and Princeton. For example, with regard to the Class of 1969, entering in 1965, Harvard admitted 261 of 523 alumni son applicants (49.9 percent); 243 (93.1 percent) enrolled, constituting almost 20 percent of about 1,200 freshmen. Princeton admitted 192 (54 percent) of 355 alumni son applicants; 166 (86.4 percent) matriculated, representing 20.2 percent of the 820 freshmen. Yale admitted 237 of 573 alumni son applicants (about 41.4 percent) to the Class of 1969; 192 (81 percent) enrolled, about 19 percent of approximately one thousand male freshmen. 53 Yale’s Admissions Policies: From the “Allegedly Bad Old Days” to New Student Diversity Anti-Semitism shaped undergraduate admissions at Yale, but so also did the introduction of higher academic standards that were implemented about the same time as at Harvard. In Th e Power of Privilege: Yale and America’s Elite Colleges (2007), Sociologist Joseph A. Soares documented that in “the Allegedly Bad Old Days” from the 1920s to the 1940s, “nothing could get a boy into Yale if its academic formula put him below the line—not legacy status, or prep school records, or personal ties to administrators, or even White House connections.” Its academic formula was based on the “predicted grade” system, instituted in 1930 for the Class of 1934, which weighted high school records, College Board subject examination results, and SAT scores to derive an applicant’s score on a scale of 50–100. Under the administration of James R. Angell, “Yale wanted the sons of Protestant gentlemen who were intellectually capable of performing at what was thought of as a high academic standard.” 54 Nevertheless, this standard did not disqualify most alumni sons, whose percentage rose from 18.6 percent (164 out of 881 in the Class of 1930) to 29.6 percent (262 out of 884 in the Class of 1936).55 Yale did admit a signifi cant number of applicants from modest economic backgrounds, estimating that during the Great Depression “one third of the students” worked “for money with which to pay for their education.” When Yale allowed enrollment in the National Youth Administration’s work-study program in 1935–1936, about 250 students benefi ted. Because “ostentatious display of wealth is in bad taste,” Percy T. Walden, Yale dean of freshmen, ad- vised parents of students entering in 1931 to determine their son’s allowance “by the boy’s demonstrated ability to use money wisely.” However, according to Professor Emeritus Gaddis Smith, Yale’s reputation was signifi cantly shaped by “wealthy undergraduates,” whose lives “resembled escapist movies about the rich and carefree.” “Th ey enjoyed their automobiles, weekends in

20 Introduction

New York, country club summers, sailing on Martha’s Vineyard, and trips to Europe. Spectator yachts lined the Th ames when Yale rowed against Harvard at New London in June.” In contrast, maids cleaning student rooms in the rather luxurious residential college system that opened in 1933, funded with bequests from John W. Sterling and others, earned twenty-fi ve cents an hour or $8.75 for a thirty-fi ve hour seven-day week. In 1939, the Yale Corporation accepted a faculty committee report to improve labor relations and agreed to end work weeks of seven days and to raise maids’ wages by 40 percent. But as alumni fund donations dropped by 85 percent from more than $1 million in 1926–1927 to $142,732 in 1934–1935, the university’s ordinary income fell, leading President Angell to criticize the imposition of higher income and estate taxes on well-to-do donors. Th e drop in university enrollment by over 800 students, from 6,190 in 1929–1930 to 5,362 in 1934–1935, forced Yale to reduce faculty salaries and cut college positions from 107 in 1931 to 90 in 1932. In response to President Angell’s urging that more freshmen and transfer students be admitted in 1933, over one hundred applicants with weak records were admitted, but one-third were soon dropped and others failed to be promoted to the sophomore class. Despite its fi nancial circumstances, Yale rejected about 20 percent of its applicants in the 1930s, with academically qualifi ed Jewish applicants being among them. Board of admission chair Edward S. Noyes, Yale 1913, determined that Yale should not “admit ‘too large a proportion of candidates who are undesirable either racially [i.e., Jewish] or scholastically.’” Jews then comprised a substantial number of more than 570 students who resided in New Haven and applied for fi nancial aid. 56 By 1950–1951, Yale again received annual donations of over $1 million, which allowed President Griswold to enjoy “an era of great prosperity,” during which he tripled Yale’s endowment and oversaw the construction of “more than two dozen new buildings, including works by great contemporary ar- chitects.” 57 As applications also more than tripled, Yale had to decline about 60 percent, noted Soares. Whereas in the mid-1930s, about 1,450 students applied for admission to a freshman class of 850, twenty years later close to 4,500 applied, of whom 85 percent appeared to be qualifi ed for a place in a freshman class of 1,000.58 To reassure its alumni base, Yale emphasized “personal promise,” especially “leadership” qualities, over academic credentials as subjectively measured against alumni inclusion in Who’s Who . In addition to the all-important interview by an alumnus, which 70–80 percent of applicants experienced, and a required photograph on the application form, Yale developed additional ways of measuring “character.” From the 1940s to 1968, Yale measured height, weight, and body type of freshmen in required “nude ‘posture’ photographs,” as did the other Ivy League and the Seven Sister colleges, and utilized a lengthy questionnaire on which students indicated their parental birthplaces, religious denomination, family fi nances, and social class. Such information was apparently used by the examining physician to

21 Student Diversity at the Big Th ree make “a ‘personality appraisal,’” ranging from “‘A’ to ‘E’” of admitted freshmen that could be used in selecting future applicants.59 In the postwar period, Soares contended that “intellect” and “character” “were joined in a patriarchal marriage with character holding the dominant masculine position.”60 Both President Griswold and Dean of Admissions Ar- thur Howe, Jr., Yale ‘43 (1953–1964) believed Yale should recruit sons from the more privileged, rather than lower-class backgrounds, who presumably could fully benefi t from a liberal arts education to prepare them for national leadership. After state and federal laws banned religious and racial discrimination, its “logic of exclusion” shifted “from ‘racial’ anti-Semitism to social class.” Howe also recognized that Yale needed to admit approximately 60 percent of its freshmen from the top 3 to 5 percent of families so that they could fully pay tuition, room and board fees, and personal expenses, which would allow the university to off er some fi nancial aid to the other 40 percent, in particular to middle-class applicants.61 But an off er of fi nancial assistance became an eff ective tool to recruit or discourage applicants, as it did to Jews in the 1920s. Th e Yale Corporation, consisting of ten self-perpetuating trustees and six elected by alumni, together with the university president, and ex offi cio the governor and lieutenant governor of Connecticut, determined the number who received fi nancial aid and whether it was a grant, a work-study job, a loan, or a combination of the three. In 1953, the Corporation capped fi nancial aid from University funds at 25 percent of freshmen, down from 43 percent in 1952. Yale also began coordinating its aid packages with other Ivy League colleges and with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Chicago, and Stanford University. In 1958, the fi nancial aid offi cers of these institutions met together as the “Ivy Group,” an outgrowth of the collaboration that led to the “Ivy League” athletic agreement signed in 1945. Th e “Ivy Group,” together with the College Scholarship Service, established by the College Board in 1954, set guidelines for “needs-based” aid that would encourage the enrollment of middle-class students or those whose families earned less than the top 5 percent.62 Because at Yale “students of less intellectual motivation and ability,” whose families paid their college expenses, usually assumed campus leadership positions, Economics Professor James Tobin urged that outstanding scholarship students be freed from many, if not all, of their bursary jobs to enable them to participate in extracurricular activities. In contrast, at Harvard and Swarthmore, where “intellectual achievement occupies a higher place among undergraduate values . . . than at Yale,” there was “a large overlap” between academic and extracurricular leaders, because “scholarship students have time to do both.” As one of the fi rst National Scholars to go to Harvard—Tobin graduated summa cum laude in economics in 1939—his stipend was suffi cient so that he did not have to work during the academic year. He used time not spent on academic studies to participate in extracurricular activities.63

22 Introduction

Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, together with such liberal arts colleges as Amherst, Carleton, Claremont, Columbia, Dartmouth, and Wesleyan, were among those “off ering the most generous scholarships” to about 25–50 percent of their students, according to the report on “Financing College Stu- dents,” which was prepared in 1960 by the Education Information Service of Th e College Life Insurance Company of America. Th e Big Th ree also granted student loans, as did the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Tulane, Wesleyan, Florida State, and the universities of Kansas, Michigan, and North Carolina. However, the oldest private universities had “increased tuition and fees more since 1947 than they did from their establishment to 1947,” which had a serious fi nancial impact on middle-class families. In 1960, the tuition, room and board, and combined charges at Harvard were $1,320 and $1,050 for a total of $2,370; at Yale, $1,400 and $900 for a total of $2,300; and at Princeton, $1,450 and $810 for a total of $2,260. While a scholarship largely paid for tuition, the student and his family had to pay room and board and should also save funds for such expenses as books, travel, clothing, laundry, recreation, and snacks and refreshments, which could amount to another 70 percent or about $1,600. Moreover, the average four-year cost of attending a private college or university, which had been $3,700 in 1940 when parents graduated, had risen to $8,300 in 1960, and was projected to rise continually to $20,400 by 1980. Th e comparable fi gures for the average cost of four years at public colleges and universities rose from $2,700 in 1940 to $6,200 in 1960, and would rise to $14,900 by 1980. Parents were not saving enough money for projected college expenses, even with an anticipated “tripling of tax support for higher education” by the early 1970s. Because only 10 percent of all students would receive any scholarships from colleges—and they averaged under $280 in 1956—the overwhelming majority of students would have to pay about 90 percent of their expenses from family and personal savings, family contributions from current income, and student earnings from on-campus and summer jobs. On average, students usually earned about $300 annually. In 1956, on campus, Princeton students earned $280 and Yale students earned $350. Th e report was prescient in anticipating that many students and their families would be forced to borrow money for college expenses and both would have to pay off debts after graduation. Fifty years later, heavy debt continues to be the economic reality for many students, although the better endowed private universities have endeavored to reduce that burden by increasing their fi nancial aid. 64 In May 1963, shortly after President Griswold’s death, Yale publicized its “needs blind” admissions decision which increased fi nancial aid to some students, but, wrote Joseph Soares, it “made no impact on Howe’s basic 60/40 formula.” Th e same enrollment trend occurred at Harvard where students in the bottom quartile of income dropped from 8 percent of undergraduates in 1935 to 5 percent in 1986, and then rose slightly to 7 percent in 1999. 65

23 Student Diversity at the Big Th ree

Indeed, Yale and other elite private universities understood that “high socioeconomic status” correlated with “high academic grades and test scores,” seemingly objective—and meritocratic—standards on which to base admissions decisions. “Needs-blind” proved to be “a brilliant policy” that off ered “a hope of upward mobility for the bottom, a means to stay in the game for the middle, and a confi rmation of individual merit for the top.”66 In admitting freshmen, however, none of the Big Th ree selected students with the highest combined SAT scores (above 1,400), as was the practice at other colleges that ranked among the most selective sixty-nine institutions, for example, the California Institute of Technology (Cal Tech), Carnegie- Mellon, MIT, Stanford, Swarthmore, and the universities of California, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin.67 Th e continuation of signifi cant legacy preferences from 1974 to 1989 indicated that the administration did not wage “war against legacies and WASPs to usher the new meritocratic elite into Yale,” as was claimed by Nicholas Lemann’s Th e Big Test (1999). Although legacy admissions dropped from 1967 to 1972 (Classes of 1971 to 1976), during Kingman Brewster’s presidency (Fall of 1963 to May 1977) and R. Inslee Clark’s tenure as Admissions Dean (1965–Spring 1971), they revived thereafter. 68 Instead, as Geoff rey Kabaservice argued, rather than adopting “an ‘objective’ form of meritocracy” that based admission only on standardized test scores, Brewster favored a “‘subjective’ version of meritocracy” that relied equally on personal assess- ments of an applicant’s “quality, character and ability.”69 However, “Inky” Clark disturbed Yale alumni by emphasizing Yale’s commitment to admit the best students, including public high schools graduates and Jews, and began visiting New York City’s Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, and Brooklyn Technical high schools. Although some Corporation Fellows and infl uential alumni still wanted to restrict Jewish admissions to 6–10 percent based on stereotypical views of their “character,” and fi rmly believed “Yale” was “a Protestant institution,” as had President Griswold, President Brewster and Clark ended the anti-Semitic quota imposed in the 1920s—the number of Jewish freshmen rose above 20 percent in 1967—while maintaining “Yale’s commitment to the leadership class.” 70 Th e decline in the number of legacies admitted under Admissions Dean Clark proved to be short lived. Yale’s legacy admissions declined from 24 percent in 1950 to 18.2 percent in 1965, while Harvard’s rose from 17.6 to 20.1 percent, and Princeton’s from 16.5 to 20.1 percent. Peaking at 26 and 27 percent in 1960 and 1961 (Classes of 1964 and 1965), respectively, Yale’s legacies declined to about 14 percent from 1967 to 1972 (the Classes of 1971 to 1976).71 Yale developed a more conciliatory approach to alumni with the appointment of John Muyskens as director of admission under Clark, and in 1974, it admitted 20 percent legacies to the Class of 1978, as the Brewster shifted to restoring a higher proportion of alumni children during the last four

24 Introduction years of his presidency. Th e Corporation’s vote that legacies should have a 20 percent admissions quota lasted until about 1990.72 A Yale son who survived “initial comparison” with others in the top 50 percent of applicants would be admitted because of his family service and fi nancial contributions to the university, information which was shared between the Admissions Offi ce and the Alumni and Development offi ces. Indeed, observed Soares, the fact that between 1974 and 1989 “legacies occupied 83 percent as much space at Yale as during the ‘pre-meritocratic’ time period” indicated “academic record took a back seat to demonstrated leadership” in high school extracurricular activities. Yet being a legacy, with notable family connections, was even more of an advantage.73 In 1972, Yale abandoned the “predicted grade” formula for freshmen-year grades that had been in use since 1930, because its Offi ce of Institutional Research (OIR) told the Corporation’s Educational Policy Committee that it had diffi culty evaluating the signifi cance of transcripts from a wide variety of high schools. Moreover, grade infl ation, a reality at Yale, as at other universities during opposition to the Vietnam War from 1968 to 1973, undercut the valid- ity of the formula. Th e percentage of Yale classes that graduated with honors rose from 28 percent in 1968 to 57 percent in 1973, where it remained into the late 1980s. For the Class of 1992 and subsequent classes, Yale imposed a 30 percent ceiling since 80 percent of grades ranged from “B+” to “A.” Harvard also capped the number who could graduate with honors as the percentage rose from almost 65 percent in 1966 to 84 percent in 1976. 74 Since grades had lost some of their value in measuring success in college, Yale proposed to measure personal qualities, which it did in a two-year study involving nine colleges. “Yale’s last major research project, to date, on admissions criteria” objectively described and measured “student behaviors that hitherto had escaped quantifi cation.” Ultimately, the data identifi ed “seven types of successful students”: the “artists, athletes, careerists, grinds, leaders, scholars, and socializers”; and “fi ve types of unsuccessful students”: the “alienated, directionless, disliked, extreme grinds, and unqualifi ed.”75 Because “Yale could cherry-pick from among privileged and prepared youths the most promising artists, athletes, careerists, grinds, leaders, scholars, and socializers, while reserving room for legacy and racial targets,” neither brains nor test scores by themselves guaranteed admission. 76 Th e diversifi cation that occurred after the 1950s, Soares concluded, changed “racial and gender composition of Ivy colleges,” rather than “their economic composition.”77 Princeton’s Admissions Policies: From Privileged Legacies to the New Student Diversity According to the booklet “Answers to your questions about Admission of Princeton Sons,” which was distributed by the Alumni Council of Princ- eton, June 1, 1958, about 70 percent of Princeton sons who applied were

25 Student Diversity at the Big Th ree

admitted, compared to only 35 percent of other applicants. Under the “can he be expected to graduate?” criterion, the admission rate for Princeton sons had been consistent for a decade, except when it once dipped to 69.8 percent. Concerned that this criterion went “beyond what is reasonable,” John D. Rockefeller, 3rd, a 1929 graduate and Princeton trustee, expressed to President Robert F. Goheen (1957–1972) his opposition to setting “aside a percentage of its annual enrollment, even if this percentage is not large, for students who may be mediocre.” Rockefeller thought it opened “the university to criticism and raises the question as to whether we are really fulfi lling our obligation to higher education in the United States—our obligation in the spirit of our motto ‘Princeton in the Nation’s service.’” Th ough “troubled” by the pamphlet’s “exaggerated treatment” of alumni sons’ preferences, Presi- dent Goheen tried to reassure Rockefeller by saying that “since the ‘30’s that roughly between 17 and 20 per cent of each entering class has been made up of alumni sons, but the general constancy in these fi gures has been the result of stiff er standards applied to larger numbers, not the result of aiming at a theoretical percentage as a target.”78 Because Princeton was receiving over 4,000 applications a year, including a rising number from alumni sons, in 1957, Goheen requested the appointment of a subcommittee of the Curriculum Committee to conduct “a long-range study of Princeton’s admissions policies and procedures.” However, he was opposed to admitting only “the top 5 per cent on intelligence ratings,” because he did not think that Princeton should cultivate “only an intellectual upper crust.” Goheen cited to Rockefeller three justifi cations for admitting an alumni son, who “did not rank in the very top group academically”: fi rst, “he can contribute to the diversity which we seek in the student body,” a rather ironic argument, given the diff erent meanings of “diversity” in college admissions since the 1970s; second, Princeton’s obligation of “some sort of loyalty and preference” to its alumni when it claimed credit for their accomplishments after graduation; and third, “the crass factor of economics,” because the University depended “upon alumni for fi nancial support” and needed “their good will.” Goheen added a fi nal reason, which he described as “the mystery of human growth and achievement, or the diffi culty of assessing with any candidate what his future performance will be.” Th us, concluded Goheen, “the fact that we may be somewhat arbitrary in giving admission to an alumnus’ son against another candidate should not perturb us too greatly; not so long as we are truly convinced that the alumnus’ son has the capacity to take real intellectual profi t from what Princeton seeks to off er him.” Within a decade, the volume of applications from academically stronger non-alumni sons, many of whom graduated from public high schools, would force Goheen to recognize that of the alumni sons admitted a much smaller number met the same academic standard—or even exhibited stellar personal qualities and talents. In 1958, 50 percent of Princeton sons, 52 percent of whom graduated

26 Introduction from private preparatory schools, were placed academically in the bottom quarter of the freshman class, and they were fi ve out of nine freshmen with failing grades at mid-year. Yet Goheen and Princeton were slow to modify their generous view of the value of alumni sons, given the fact that the Class of 1957 achieved an “all-time record for participation in Alumni Giving among classes a year out of college.”79 Embracing the average student as being worthy of admission, Princeton fathers pointed out that generals U. S. Grant, William T. Sherman, and Philip Sheridan had not been outstanding scholars at West Point, but they went on to defeat the Confederacy. While he acknowledged that Princeton needed “brilliant scholars in physics, chemistry for research work,” one father insisted “we need more the average man in intelligence, which has made America great and not the ‘Brain Trust Boys’ brought down to Washington by Justice Frankfurter during Roosevelt’s Administration.” 80 Th ere were obvious parallels in admissions and recruitment between Princeton and other prestigious private institutions. As C. William Edwards ’36, Director of Admission (1950–1962), observed, reports by Harvard, Yale, and Amherst and several other colleges “would need only a few revisions in numbers to be virtually interchangeable with a similar report from Princ- eton.” All were competing for the most promising students from among an increasing number of applicants by promoting their message through school visits, alumni contacts, and interviewing students on campus. Indeed, the problems of selection faced by Princeton were similar to those outlined in the 1960 report, “Admission to Harvard College.” “Admission has become a profession and full-time activity in itself—twelve months of the year,” recognized Edwards, “and it is far diff erent from the situation fi fteen or twenty years ago.” Th e development of “selective admissions” in the 1930s, as noted by Paul Buck, had evolved by the late 1950s into an intensely demanding and competitive process requiring committees to sift through thousands of applications and make the most accurate decisions by the May 12 deadline that the Big Th ree had agreed to as the common mailing date of acceptances and rejections.81 By September 1959, when President Goheen appointed members to the Subcommittee on Admission Policies and Procedures, charged with addressing admission policy and criteria, acceptances to Princeton’s off ers again rose after dropping off due to “the various disturbances of the academic year 1957–1958, e.g., Father [Hugh] Halton”—the contentious chaplain to Princeton’s Catholic students whose university privileges were withdrawn, the angry voices of “‘Th e Unsilent Generation,’ [and] club bicker problems” that excluded Jewish students. Chaired by John R. Martin, professor of art history, the other members were Edwards; Jeremiah S. Finch, dean of the college (1955–1961), and professors John Tyler Bonner (biology), Charles Coulston Gillespie (history of science), and John C. Maxwell (structural

27 Student Diversity at the Big Th ree geology). During the fi rst year, the subcommittee focused on its function, developing a cordial relationship with the director of admission, and ways to identify and admit the most promising students from among 3,883 completed applications, an increase of over 700 since 1957. In its September 1960 report, the subcommittee made fi ve recommendations: fi rst, that its members “read the folders of all exceptionally promising students ,” those with either a 2 plus of higher converted school grade or 780 or above on the verbal or mathematical SAT. Second, it recommended that those placing in the top 2 or 3 percent of large high schools be rejected only for “clear and demonstrable ” reasons. Th ird, criteria should be applied fl exibly enough to admit “certain gifted students,” even though there were “risks” that some might fail. Fourth, the subcommittee recommended the establishment of a center to collect and analyze statistical data to assist the Admission Offi ce. Fifth, the subcommittee recommended greater eff orts “to induce more fi rst-rate students to apply and, no less important, to accept admission.” At some secondary schools, the best students were encouraged to seek admission to Harvard or to Yale. Two reasons some of those accepted by Princeton declined the off er were its social club system, and a sense that its campus off ered less freedom and welcome to the most brilliant students. Th e subcommittee emphasized the importance of removing such “misconceptions” and of communicating Princeton’s academic strengths to both secondary schools and the public.82 Th e 23 percent increase in completed applications in 1960 by the so-called “war babies” introduced the most signifi cant change since the wave of veterans in 1946. Princeton’s increase was in line with the 19–24 percent increases within the “Ivy Group.” Since over 3,000 applicants were probably qualifi ed on paper to meet Princeton’s academic requirements, “more than ever before factors that cannot be measured by tests played an important part in choosing among or between basically qualifi ed candidates,” said Edwards. From the 1,253 freshmen admitted, seventeen less than in 1959, he expected that over 840 freshmen would matriculate in September. Close to 67 percent had accepted admission, even though they did not receive fi nancial aid, loans, or employment. More of those who accepted admission indicated mathematics and science as a concentration, leaving engineering with about 157 students. Of the 277 alumni sons applying in 1960, Princeton accepted 186 and rejected 91, whereas of the 264 applying in 1959, it had accepted 194 and rejected 70. Th e total number of rejected applicants rose from 1,714 in 1959 to 2,413 in 1960. Th ose declining Princeton accepted admission to Harvard, which took fi rst choice from Yale, followed by Dartmouth, M.I.T., and Williams. In the “number of man-hours necessary to admit a class,” observed Edwards, their “experience this year has been that under the present procedures things are approaching a breaking point.” He suggested as a solution that colleges collectively develop “a standard procedure” for handling the rising tide of applications. 83

28 Introduction

From 1959 to 1961, as the number of its applications increased from 4,750 to 5,615 (about 23 percent), Princeton trimmed the percentage of alumni sons admitted from 73.6 percent to 67 percent, and then to 65.6 percent. In the Class of 1961, the Counseling Service found that of the bottom 10 percent, half were alumni sons. Nevertheless, the number of alumni sons on campus in October 1961, whose fathers had been undergraduates in the classes of 1912–1944, totaled 620. Because President Goheen hoped for 185 engineers in the Class of 1965 and wanted no signifi cant changes in the high school–preparatory school ratio or in the percentages of sons accepted, these three groups would be given “some priority” as the selection process.84 Headmasters of private schools as well as alumni fathers at Princeton, Harvard, and Yale remembered fondly the admissions deans of an earlier era and disdained the new, younger deans who were implementing higher academic standards. For example, in 1963, the headmaster of St. Mark’s School in Southborough, Massachusetts, complained to President Goheen that one of its seniors, a Princeton son, who earned a diploma with distinction was rejected by the “young, inexperienced” E. Alden Dunham, who was “a far cry from old-timers Rad[cliff e] Heermance, Ned Noyes, and Bill Bender, and from more recent or current admissions men like Bill Edwards, Art Howe, Fred Glimp,” who were more sympathetic to alumni sons. Five of the fourteen St. Mark’s seniors were admitted to Princeton; four were alumni sons. Th e fi fth senior accepted went to Harvard. But the Admission Committee judged the academic performance of the entire group to be average (given a 3 grade). Apparently, Dunham did not know the custom that the director of admission telephoned certain headmasters shortly before acceptances were mailed to inform them how their seniors fared. Th e headmaster retaliated by distributing blind copies of his derogatory reply to Dunham to other headmasters. Dunham, who had attended a private school, was not hostile to them, though he did not think that they “or any other school should receive special treatment.” 85 Dunham showed his sense of humor, after admitting a fi ctional applicant, Joseph David Oznot, created by four Princeton sophomores. He described it as “A magnifi cent hoax” in Time magazine, April 24, 1964. 86 In a March 1965 form letter, Dunham emphasized the “special scrutiny” given Princeton sons, but they could not be admitted before “clearly better qualifi ed” applicants. “It would obviously be wrong to let the heart rule the head; what is best for Princeton and your son must be the primary considerations.” Th ough Princeton had admitted 350 sons (53 percent of those applying), an increase from the previous year’s 306, with an expectation that 20 percent would enroll, the alumnus father felt he had been coldly rebuff ed by Dunham. 87 In 1966, Princeton evidently made “a special, careful, extra review” of rejected alumni sons, and sent warning letters to their fathers in advance of the offi cial rejection letter. For the Class of 1970, “the % comes out about 46%. Th ey tried to push it up, but they found they could not.”

29 Student Diversity at the Big Th ree

Of the 153 sons admitted out of 325 who applied, 134 matriculated, 16.2 percent of a class of 825. In 1966, Princeton also admitted two students under the African Scholarship Program of American Universities. To the Class of 1972, Princeton admitted 201 sons out of 358 who applied; 167 accepted, but 5 deferred and 29 declined. In addition, Princeton had an offi cial end-of-year considerations case in which a young man with a strong record was admitted as a transfer student.88 Under pressure from alumni, the admission rate for legacies rose to 56 percent in 1968, prompting Admission Director Timothy C. Callard ’63 (1971–1978) to institute the “general framework that has continued up until today.” By considering “each applicant’s personal and academic characteristics,” admissions offi cers off ered “advantages to historically underrepresented minorities, legacies and athletes.” Nevertheless, Princeton sons, many of them educated in private schools, faced greater competition not only from academically well-qualifi ed high school graduates, but also from the recruitment of minority students, specifi cally African Americans, and the admission of women, some of whom were alumni daughters.89 Admissions Policies at the Big Th ree Since the 1960s Th ough legacy preferences are more likely to be awarded in recent years after careful evaluation of each applicant than had been the case in 1958 when 70 percent of Princeton sons, who did not have to compete with nonlegacies, were admitted, they still enjoy more favorable admissions odds than the applicant pool as a whole. Th e percentage of legacies in each class at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton remains relatively stable at about 12–13 percent, as the percentage of all successful applicants becomes smaller. A close, comparative examination of admissions statistics at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton suggests that changes occurred more gradually during the 1960s and 1970s, as they continued to admit a substantial number of alumni sons, although the percentage of successful legacies declined as their applicant pools expanded with the postwar “baby boom.” For example, between 1963 (Class of 1967) and 1972 (Class of 1976), Harvard consistently admitted over two hundred legacies from among those applying in each of these ten years: 240/401; 251/454; 261/523; 252/495; 265/545; 241/521; 244/573; 223/532; 210/480; and 208/500. Harvard, no doubt, chose legacies carefully in order to ensure that a relatively stable number of sons matriculated during these ten years: 226, 226, 243, 231, 236, 223, 227, 195, 204, and 188. Th e high number of legacies matriculating was 243 in the Class of 1969; the low point was 188 in the Class of 1976. Whereas Harvard’s fi rst-year class size was around 1,224 men, Yale’s was around 1,025 men. Between 1963 (Class of 1967) and 1972 (Class of 1976), the corresponding legacy admissions from among legacy applicants to Yale College (sons) and the Graduate and Professional school (children) suggested somewhat more rigorous standards: 249/486; 247/523;

30 Introduction

237/573; 206/551; 178/465; 194/461; 183/500; 194/508; 199/482; and 199/477. Th e number of sons matriculating was 199, 209, 192, 170, 136, 141, 129, 146, 151, and 134. In 1969, Yale began a separate count of alumni daughters, who had about half the probability of being admitted as alumni sons because of a gender quota. To the classes of 1973–1976, Yale admitted the following number of women applicants: 50/269; 46/235; 49/196; and 74/210. In these four classes, 42, 37, 34, and 47 women matriculated. At Princeton, where male fi rst-year students averaged 808, the corresponding legacy admissions between 1963 (Class of 1967) and 1972 (Class of 1976) were, with the exception of the Class of 1973 for which data was not available: 180/264; 181/306; 192/355; 152/325; 158/308; 202/356; [Class of 1973]; 153/326; 138/293; and 145/311. Th e number of male matriculants in these nine classes, again with the exception of the Class of 1973, were 161, 159, 166, 128, 130,174, 118, 101, and 115. Princeton began its separate count of alumni daughters in 1970, admitting to the classes of 1974–1976 the following: 40/160; 55/139; and 64/153. In these three classes, 32, 45, and 50 women matriculated.90 In recent years, Princeton undergraduates have questioned the value of alumni preferences after reading reports in the Daily Princetonian that “legacies are still admitted at a signifi cantly higher rate.” To maintain the proportion of legacies at 10–15 percent of each class, Princeton “has admitted between 34 and 47 percent of legacy applicants over the last 17 years,” accepting them “at roughly four times the rate of non-legacies.” In 2009, Princeton admitted 42 percent of alumni sons, who were 2.5 percent of all applicants, while admitting only 9 percent of all others. Current Dean of Admission Janet Rapelye insisted that legacies were evaluated “fi rst and foremost, on his or her academic performance.” Only in “a small number of cases we do take into account the nature of a family’s ties to Princeton.” However, a legacy preference was a “hook,” in recognition of alumni annual giving, when the Offi ce of Admission must decide between two applicants who appeared relatively equal on paper. But that degree of legacy preference was judged as “an extremely tiny one,” even by some alumni whose children attended Princeton. One upperclassman felt that his being a legacy removed “the anxiety of the admissions process,” though the requirements were high—“a 2100 SAT score, a 3.7 unweighted GPA, four or fi ve AP classes.” A member of the Class of 2011 and the daughter of an alumnus described most legacies as “really, really smart. Like, terrifyingly smart.” In their 2007 study on affi rmative action for minority students, athletes, and legacies, Princeton Sociology Professor Douglas S. Massey GS ’78 and Margarita Mooney GS ’05, a sociology professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, found that legacies with a smaller gap between their SAT scores and institution’s average performed better academically than average, although those with lower scores, and hence a larger SAT gap, performed well below average. During their fi rst two college years, legacies averaged a 3.26 GPA, compared to athletes’ 3.12 and

31 Student Diversity at the Big Th ree underrepresented minorities’ 3.05. Even in a university like Princeton, which gradually embraced both diversity and “meritocracy” in selecting students from an ever ballooning applicant pool, legacy advantage by itself might be insuffi cient, unless the applicant had very strong academic credentials and one of or both his parents were very active on behalf of the University.91 Most recently, student participants in the Occupy Wall Street Movement and its Occupy Harvard off shoot, launched in 2011, have criticized legacy preferences as part of the benefi ts enjoyed by the privileged top one percent of Americans. Indeed, Occupy Harvard recommended and summarized editorial writer Elizabeth C. Bloom’s article, “Privileging the Privileged,” published in the Harvard Crimson , December 9, 2011. Bloom ’12, a social studies concentrator in Currier House, called on Harvard to eliminate legacy preferences in undergraduate admissions. Even though Harvard has made progress since her parents were students there in diversifying its undergraduates by recruitment eff orts and generous fi nancial aid packages, it should take the next step to increase the admission of disadvantaged students by eliminating any preferences for legacies, which, said Bloom, “privileges the already advantaged.” Legacy families are usually well-educated, with “better access to fi nancial capital, networks, and other opportunities than most non-legacy students.” Moreover, alumni may be more savvy about crafting a successful application and securing excellent references. Th us, alumni children really do not need a legacy advantage, which is often more than a “tiebreaker.” 92 Recognizing that some legacies are well-qualifi ed for admission to Harvard, Bloom doubts that all of them would have been admitted without the legacy advantage. She also referred to a study cited by Richard D. Kahlenberg ’85 of Th e Century Foundation that casts doubt on the institutional assumption that admitting legacies fosters greater alumni loyalty and leads to more generous donations. Rather many alumni can aff ord to give generously, because they earn high incomes. While each Harvard freshman class has about 12–13 percent legacies, whose “chance of admission” was increased “by 19.7 percent for a given SAT score range,” Cal Tech, which does not give legacy preferences, has only 1.5 percent. Moreover, institutions that dropped legacy preferences have not reported declining alumni contributions. “For applicants to Harvard,” concluded Bloom, “a hard-earned acceptance letter is more valuable than any donation could ever be.” 93 For the foreseeable future, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton will continue their legacy preferences, in part because their admissions policies are a balancing act. Th ey also grant preferences to athletes, and, beginning in the 1960s, added preferences for underrepresented racial minorities in the interest of promoting diversity within their student body. Since the late 1960s and 1970s, the Big Th ree began to address the recruitment of undergraduate women to benefi t the undergraduate educational—and social—experiences of their male students. Th ey have also increased the amount of scholarship aid to help match

32 Introduction the ever-increasing tuition costs so that students from lower socioeconomic families can aff ord to attend. With a growing awareness of globalization, the Big Th ree have, within the past ten to twenty years, encouraged more foreign students, many of whom need fi nancial assistance, to apply and enroll. To be a citizen of the world, rather than being defi ned as a citizen of a specifi c American state or region, for example, a New Englander, an undergraduate must interact not only with foreign students on campus, but must also participate in a signifi cant international experience. Endowment Losses and Belt Tightening Since 2000, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton have committed themselves to further diversifying their student bodies, recruiting more students from lower income families, and hiring more female and racial minority faculty. However, fi nancial issues and unsuccessful fund-raising drives dogged even these well-endowed universities, not only in the 1930s, when, to the chagrin of President James Bryant Conant, Harvard’s 300th Anniversary Fund raised only 18 percent of its $30 million goal in 1936, the year of its Tercentenary celebration. During the sharp economic decline in fi scal 2009, ending June 30, Harvard’s endowment dropped 27.3 percent from its high of nearly $37 billion in fi scal year 2008 to $26 billion, largely due to the Harvard Management Company’s heavy investments in private equity and hedge funds, which has prompted criticisms of the Harvard Corporation for its penchant for secrecy and failure to exercise diligent oversight of the university’s fi nances. Because the endowment funded a high percentage of Harvard’s operating budget, 60 percent in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the university had to cut its expenses by introducing a Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program for 531 eligible staff members, laying off 275 employees, and reducing work hours for dozens of others. In December 2009, however, the same month that Harvard announced it was offi cially halting the construction of its Allston science complex, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences announced that it would give, beginning in July, 2 percent of merit-based raises to faculty and staff and raise graduate student stipends by 3 percent, even though it still faced a $110 million budget gap and had to omit cookies at faculty meetings. (Hot breakfasts for students had been eliminated from Monday through Friday.) It has also closed the Quad Library (in the Radcliff e Quadrangle) and smaller, specialized libraries and hired fewer section leaders for lecture courses.94 Although Yale lost 28.8 percent of its $22.9 billion endowment, which dropped to $16.3 billion, the return on its endowment at negative 24.6 percent was a fraction better than Harvard’s. Faced with endowment losses of 23.7 percent in the 2008–2009 academic year, Princeton froze all salaries, except for faculty and staff in the lowest paid ranks, provided a Voluntary Incentivized Retirement for 460 staff members, which 145 accepted, planned other layoff s, and introduced various cost-cutting measures. However, the

33 Student Diversity at the Big Th ree

endowments of the Big Th ree began to improve in the fi scal year ending June 30, 2010. Princeton posted the best investment gain of 14.7 percent, boosting its endowment from $12.6 billion to $14.4 billion. Yale lagged behind Harvard’s 11 percent return with 8.9 percent. 95 In addition to reporting an investment income of $777 million, Harvard benefi ted, as did Yale and Princeton, from major donations from overseas alumni. On October 14, 2010, the Harvard Business School announced that it would spend $90 million to $100 million on a new executive education center, named Tata Hall for the technology and manufacturing group in India, and another $15 million to $20 million to convert the WGBH public television building on Western Avenue in Allston into a laboratory that would enable undergraduate and graduate students to collaborate with business school students on innovation and entrepreneurship ventures. Th e $50 million gift from Ratan Naval Tata, chairman of Tata Sons Ltd., who completed the Business School’s advanced management program in 1975, was its largest gift from a foreign donor. 96 Perhaps the most lasting change from Harvard’s endowment decline was the restructuring of the way the Harvard Corporation, formally entitled the “President and Fellows of Harvard College,” had operated since 1650. Under the University’s charter, its seven-member Corporation included the president, treasurer, and fi ve fellows. Th e fellows served unlimited terms and participated, together with the president, in choosing their successors, with the counsel and consent of the thirty-member Board of Overseers, who were elected by Harvard degree holders. Th e fellows also have the author- ity to hire and fi re the president. In their Op-Ed piece in the Boston Globe , December 12, 2009, Fred Abernathy and Harry Lewis, Harvard professors of Engineering and Applied Sciences, argued: “Th e Harvard Corporation is a dangerous anachronism” that “failed its most basic fi duciary and moral responsibilities.” Th e Corporation initiated “an intensive governance review” in which some members of the Board of Overseers, together with outside experts, contributed advice, and people in the Harvard community off ered their comments. After a year’s discussions, the governance committee presented its report. On December 6, 2010, Harvard offi cially announced that the size of the Corporation would be increased over the next two to three years from seven to thirteen members, who would serve for a six-year term that could be extended for a second six years. Th ey would also serve on separate committees, rather than function as in the past as a committee of the whole. Harvard was thus beginning to adopt the model of a larger governing board and board committees that had been established earlier at other universities: Th e Yale Corporation has nineteen members, Stanford has thirty-fi ve, and Princeton has neither fewer than twenty-three nor more than forty; thirty- eight is the norm for private doctoral universities.Elected by the other fellows, the senior fellow of the Harvard Corporation, then Robert Reischauer, would

34 Introduction have, according to President Drew Gilpin Faust, “more defi ned responsibilities for agenda development and leadership in a governance committee and other kinds of roles that weren’t made so explicit before.” She also wanted the fellows “to interact, both formally and informally, with a wider range of people and groups around the University—faculty, administrators, students, alumni.” Rather than immersing themselves in the day-to-day details that are the responsibility of the University administration, the Corporation should focus “on the big picture.” For Faust, “one of Harvard’s most enduring ideals and essential characteristics is a willingness to adapt and change.” In addition to creating a standing Corporation committee on governance, new Corpora- tion committees would be formed to focus on capital planning, fi nance, and facilities that could also include individuals who were not fellows. Finally, in preparation for a University capital campaign, Harvard planned to establish a joint committee of the Corporation and the Board of Overseers on alumni aff airs and development. 97 Among those voicing approval of the announcement was Harry Lewis, who called the expansion and term limitation “a very dramatic change for a structure that’s been around for more than 300 years.” Morton Keller and Phyllis Keller saw it as one of the decisive steps in the long process of “Mak- ing Harvard Modern.” In the early 1800s, the Corporation shifted from being dominated by Protestant clergy to one that was controlled by laymen, and then in the 1940s, to selecting fellows from outside Boston and eastern Mas- sachusetts. Almost doubling the size of the Corporation was, said former Harvard Dean Phyllis Keller, “a very sensible change and defi nitely a step forward.” President Emerita of the University of Chicago Hanna Holborn Gray, a former member of both the Harvard and Yale Corporations, said that having more members would benefi t Harvard by enabling “the right kinds of discussions to move the university forward.” Th e Corporation’s current “size is smaller than it needs to be, given the complexity and range of issues that need to be discussed and dealt with at present.”98 On May 25, 2011, the President and Fellows voted, with the consent of the Board of Overseers, the appointment of three new fellows to the Cor- poration, which took eff ect on July 1. Two had strong local ties: Lawrence S. Bacow, MIT S.B 1972 and Harvard J.D., M.P.P. and Ph.D. in public policy in 1976, who completed a decade as president of Tufts University in 2011; and Joseph J. O’Donnell, Harvard A.B. 1967 and MBA 1971, a former director of the Harvard Business School’s Program for Management Development and the founder of the Boston Culinary Group, which merged in 2009 with Centerplate, of which he is now chairman, the largest foodservice opera- tor for professional sports teams, convention centers, movie theatres, and ski resorts. Th e third was Susan L. Graham, a graduate of Radcliff e with a Harvard A.B. in 1964 and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in computer science from Stanford University, who is Pehong Chen Distinguished Professor Emerita of

35 Student Diversity at the Big Th ree

Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the University of California at Berkeley. Harvard planned to appoint another three fellows at a later time, thereby doubling the Corporation’s size to twelve members; the thirteenth member is the president. Fellows will be subject to term limits to bring a fresh perspective to the Corporation.99 Although other universities, even those with a larger governing board, experienced similar fi nancial losses in 2009, Harvard’s prominence as the nation’s top-ranked university made it a target of criticism by editors and pundits. On June 4, the Boston Globe accorded a degree of editorial approval to these changes in the Harvard Corporation, but erroneously alleged that it had failed to monitor the University’s “risky investments” during Larry Summers’s presidency, thereby costing 275 employees their jobs in 2009. While complimenting President Faust “for taking on a centuries-old challenge that has eluded past reformers,” the Globe emphasized that Treasurer James Rothenberg and Robert Rubin, “who shepherded Summers’s appointment to the presidency behind the scenes,” remained on the Corporation. Con- sequently, given how the Corporation “conducts business behind the walls of Loeb House,” it was “not clear the reforms will be suffi cient.” An example of the Corporation’s secrecy was its land purchases “in Allston that have left that neighborhood in limbo.” Th e Globe wanted Harvard to go beyond releasing more information, giving more interviews, and seeking community comments. It apparently wanted Harvard to adopt “formal rules requiring the release of minutes and agendas, which would do much more to bolster the confi dence of the broader community.” Th e Globe ’s allegations led James R. Houghton, senior fellow of the Harvard Corporation from 2002 to 2010, to write a letter to the editor: “Skill, stability have helped Harvard navigate way through recession.” Houghton also exonerated Summers for Harvard’s “risky investments,” which predated his presidency. For a decade prior to the economic reverses of 2008–2009, Harvard reaped benefi ts from its investment strategy, allowing the University to build graduate student housing, fi nance aff ordable housing in the metropolitan area, and increase fi nancial aid to more students from Massachusetts. He blamed “the global fi nancial crisis” for causing losses at Harvard, at other universities and nonprofi t organizations. Indeed, it was their ability to weather the downturn that helped shield Boston from even deeper cutbacks.100 On June 10, Harvard students and employees expressed their support of a bill before the State House Joint Revenue Committee that would obligate universities having over $10 million in endowment to disclose their fi nancial expenditures, investments, and salaries in excess of $250,000 paid to administrators. Two Crimson editorial board members, Sandra Y. L. Korn ‘14 and William Poff -Webster ‘14, spoke respectively, on behalf of the Student Labor Action Movement and the Harvard Democrats, while Serena Y. Zhao ‘12 spoke for the Environmental Action Committee. Among others favoring the

36 Introduction bill were Wayne M. Langley, higher education director for Service Employees International Union Local 615, whose members included Harvard’s custodial workforce. But he thought the University, with substantial lobbying funds and political power, would probably win its argument that more extensive fi nancial disclosure would hinder its activities unnecessarily, since it already followed rigorous state and federal reporting requirements.101 Student criticisms of Harvard’s investments in its endowment funds would resurface again in the fall of 2011 with the “Occupy Harvard,” an off shoot of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, which encamped for sixty-six days in Th e Yard. Meanwhile, in the summer of 2011, Yale, like Harvard, could enjoy the fruits of weathering the severe fi nancial downturn. On June 30, 2011, it suc- cessfully concluded ahead of schedule Yale Tomorrow, the largest fundraising campaign ever, by exceeding its fi ve-year goal of $3.5 billion with a total of $3.881 billion. Also ambitiously raising funds, Princeton had launched, in November 2007, its fi ve-year Aspire comprehensive campaign, including annual giving, to raise $1.75 billion by June 30, 2012. As of 2011, its Class of 1986 had given over $9 million, surpassing all other classes, and more than 36,000 graduates had made donations.102 Ever More Competitive Admissions at the “Big Th ree”: Selectivity, Diversity, and Meritocracy in the Classes of 2014–2016 In March 2011, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 30.4 percent of American adults, sixty-one million people, aged twenty-fi ve and older, had attained a bachelor’s or higher degree, in contrast to less than one-fourth in 1998. Of this total, women numbered thirty-one million, a 37 percent increase in a decade, and men numbered thirty million, a 23 percent increase. Whereas 50 percent of Asian Americans had earned a bachelor’s degree or higher in 2011, 34 percent of those identifi ed as white had, followed by 20 percent of African Americans, and 14 percent of Hispanic Americans. In terms of doctorate degrees awarded to those twenty-fi ve years and older, men earned 1.9 million, a 24 percent increase from 1.5 million; women increased the number of doctorate degrees they earned from about 600,000 to 1.2 million, a 90 percent increase.103 Th e numbers enrolling in college and earning degrees in 2011 were dramatically higher than what they had been half a century earlier. From 1955, when college enrollment had totaled about 2.6 million students, it swelled, by 2005, to 17.5 million, a fi gure that included millions of older students. Whereas in 1955, admissions offi cers selected their students from the 45 percent of high school graduates who applied to college; by 2005, they had the daunting task of selecting a student body from among the 70 percent of high school graduates seeking postsecondary higher education. By October 2008, nearly 40 percent of Americans aged eighteen to twenty-four, about 11.5 million, were enrolled in college. Because the demand for post-secondary

37 Student Diversity at the Big Th ree education exceeded the available seats at four-year institutions, colleges and universities increasingly required applicants to take SAT tests as a way of determining the “best” students, causing the number of test takers to rise seventy-fold. But since high SAT scores correlated with a family’s socioeconomic status, including the means to pay for tutors and preparatory courses, standardized testing favored middle- and upper-class children, while students from lower-income families did not benefi t in proportion to their numbers in the national population. For these students, two-year colleges, rather than four-year institutions, off ered more potential for educational mobility. Th eir enrollment of eighteen- to twenty-four-year olds increased to 12 percent, or 3.4 million students. Based on her study of three extensive national surveys of students graduating in the classes of 1972, 1982, and 1992, Sigal Alon, a sociologist at Tel Aviv University, concluded that in the 1970s more lower- income students gained admission when overall applicant numbers dropped following the expansion of colleges, but that ended in the 1980s as colleges turned to standardized tests. Even if some institutions now make the SAT an optional test for applicants, that change would not close the socioeconomic class divide in higher education, because institutions would use other means of screening. Alon recommended “class-based affi rmative action” to balance the socioeconomic advantages that enable wealthy families to adapt to the keen competition for places “by an admissions edge given to those without the means to match those advantages.” Such a policy aimed at “talented underprivileged seniors” would cultivate their “dreams, aspirations, and ambitions for a type of education that is beyond reach without preferential treatment.”104 Although the Big Th ree have greatly increased their fi nancial aid packages for students from families earning less than $60,000 a year, along with signifi cantly diversifying their undergraduate college populations in terms of ethnicity, race, and gender, the competition for admission is exceedingly keen. In almost every year from 2007 to 2011, the number of applicants increased and the number admitted as freshmen decreased—to 10 percent or less—at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Th e Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Stanford also became increasingly selective. 105 In contrast, it had been relatively easy for a man, especially a white man, to be admitted to Harvard in 1931, when the college had accepted 964, 79 percent of the 1,217 male applicants to the Class of 1935. 106 P r o fi les of the Class of 2014 at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton Harvard touted 2010 as “a historic year” for admissions. Out of 30,489 applicants, it invited 2,205 (7.23 percent) to join the Class of 2014. In September, 1,666 freshmen matriculated, including 94 from the waiting list, a 75.5 percent yield. Th e Middle Atlantic states sent 23.3 percent, followed by 17.5 percent from the south, and 17.1 percent from the Pacifi c states. New England’s

38 Introduction

16.8 percent represented a signifi cant decrease since the 1930s, when 45.21 percent (1,662 out of 3,676) undergraduates came from Massachusetts. In 2010, international students from seventy-nine countries comprised 10.1 percent of freshman, double the percentage in 1993; and far more than the less than one percent in 1937–1938 (only 37 students in the college enrollment of 3,713 came from United States’ possessions and foreign countries). University wide, perhaps as many as 15–20 percent of degree candidates were international students, noted President Drew Faust, the fi rst Harvard president to visit Africa. She actively encouraged undergraduates to engage in a “unique international experience” during their Harvard years. In 2010, scholarships totaling $145,433,000 were awarded to 60 percent of freshmen; and loans totaled $5,522,000. About two-thirds of freshmen received some combination of scholarships, loans and/or employment. Of the admitted freshmen, 52.4 percent were men (from an applicant pool that was 50.9 percent men). Among the 1,666 who enrolled, the number of men rose slightly from the previous year’s 829 (49.59 percent) to 838 (50.30 percent), while the number of women dropped from 843 (50.41 percent) to 828 (49.70 percent). Of the minorities off ered admission, 18.2 percent were Asian American; 11.3 percent were African American; 10.3 percent were Latino; 2.7 percent were Native American, an increase due to the Harvard University Native American Program; and 0.4 percent were Native Hawaiian (In 2009, Asian-American students were 17.5 percent, African Americans were 10.4 percent, Latinos were 10.6 percent, Native Americans were 1.1 percent, and Native Hawaiians were 0.2 percent.).107 Out of 25,869 fi nal applicants, a slight drop from 2009, Yale had admitted 1,940, or 7.5 percent, and waitlisted 932. In New Haven, on Friday, August 27, 2010, Yale welcomed 1,344 freshmen, 37 more than in 2009, including more from the waiting list. Yale off ered fi nancial aid to 59 percent of the freshmen, admitted “need blind,” about the same percentage as the previous year. Finan- cial aid averaged $35,700, $1,389 more than in 2009, and “about 75% of the cost of attendance.” Of the matriculants, 11.9 percent qualifi ed for Pell grants. In the Class of 2014, 490 students (37.3 percent) self-identifi ed as American “people of color,” an increase from the previous year’s 34.8 percent: 17.4 percent were Asian or Asian American; 8.4 percent were African American; 8.6 percent were Hispanic; and 1.5 percent were Native American. Forty-one years after undergraduate coeducation began, women, who constituted 54.5 percent of the applicants, outnumbered men among the matriculants, with 697–647. Th ough all fi fty states were represented, the northeast sent the most freshmen—35.3 percent; and the West sent 17.7 percent. International students from forty-seven foreign countries comprised 10.7 percent of the entering class, which was about the same percentage as in 2009.108 Princeton could also boast that its Class of 2014 was the third “to be evenly balanced in terms of gender.” History Professor Nancy Weiss Malkiel, who

39 Student Diversity at the Big Th ree completed twenty-four years in June 2010 as dean of the College, second in longevity as a dean only to Graduate School Dean Andrew Fleming West,109 emphasized the university’s commitment to the “core values” of “access and aff ordability,” and its tremendous success “in attaining our goal of making Princeton aff ordable for any student regardless of family fi nancial circumstances.” From among 26,247 applicants, a 19.5 percent increase from 2009, Princeton admitted 2,311, only 8.8 percent, compared to 10.1 percent in 2009. Th e matriculation of 1,313 was the second year during which Princeton enrolled around 1,300 freshmen as part of its “planned gradual expansion of the size of the undergraduate student body” that began in 2005, to 5,200 students by 2012–2013. Th e additional 125–150 freshmen admitted each year would be selected for reasons other than athletic talent. To help defray the $52,180 cost of attendance, Princeton provided $27 million in scholarships, and awarded aid averaging $35,157 to 768 (58 percent) freshmen, down from the 60 percent who received on average $35,309 in 2009. Despite recent endowment declines, the percentage of freshmen who were aided exceeded the 38 percent in the Class of 2001 who received an average award of $15,064. In the Class of 2014, 208 or almost 16 percent came from low-income families compared to only 8 percent in the Class of 2001. Signifi cantly, given Princeton’s early twentieth-century reputation as a WASP country club, freshmen admitted in 2010 included 490 students (37.3 percent) from American minorities, compared to about 430 in the Class of 2009. Also enlivening the mix of incoming freshman class were 141 international students from 47 countries (10.7 percent).110 P r o fi les of the Class of 2015 at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton With the opportunity to apply online, the number of applicants to Har- vard increased by more than 50 percent over a four-year period, especially from outside the northeast and Middle Atlantic states—from the south, the Midwest, the Mountain states, the Pacifi c region, and overseas. To the class of 2015, Harvard admitted 2,158 students, 6.2 percent, its lowest admission rate ever, out of 34, 950 applicants, a pool that was almost 15 percent larger than in 2010. Yale and Princeton admitted, respectively, 7.4 percent and 8.39 percent. Princeton was the only Ivy League school not to post its lowest acceptance rate ever in the spring 2011 admissions round (in 2010 it had admitted 8.18 percent), possibly due both to increasing its freshman class size and its small town, rather than urban, location. Second to Harvard in selectivity was Columbia at 6.9 percent, which also had adopted the online Common Application. Columbia’s combined applications to the undergraduate college and the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences jumped 33 percent to 34,929. Stanford was next in selectivity at 7.1 percent, with Yale and Princeton fourth and fi fth, respectively, followed by Brown (8.7 percent), Dartmouth (9.7 percent), Penn (12.3 percent), and Cornell (18 percent).111

40 Introduction

Almost 77 percent of those admitted to Harvard accepted by the May 1 deadline, exceeding the previous year’s yield of 75.5 percent. No more than ten to fi fteen were accepted from the waiting list. Harvard wooed students by its programs and fi nancial aid. During the past ten years, Harvard had increased its small freshmen seminars; off ered over forty secondary fi elds of study; doubled the number of freshman advisers to over 400, supplemented by 200 peer-advisers and 60 resident proctors; off ered more opportunities for students to collaborate with faculty; and expanded choices for foreign study funded by $100 million donated by David Rockefeller. Admitted students were invited—1,300 accepted—to experience Harvard during the April “Visitas” program. After a welcome by President Drew Faust, they attended classes, faculty panels, concerts, receptions, departmental open houses, and a wide range of extracurricular events. In addition, during April, faculty and staff , students and alumni contacted and met with admitted students. Staff members were also available to discuss with students and their families the various fi nancial aid and payment options. Harvard’s announced tuition increase of 3.8 percent for 2011–2012 boosted the package price for undergraduates to $52,650, but its fi nancial aid budget had risen from 96.6 million in 2007 to more than $160 million in 2011, thereby enabling the college to award need-based scholarships of over $40,000 to some 60 percent of the incoming freshmen. No contribution was required from families earning less than $60,000, and those earning up to $180,000 would pay only 10 percent of income; most families would contribute $11,500 annually. 112 Men constituted 50.8 percent of the Class of 2015. Th e percentages of racial minorities who accepted were about the same as in past years: African Americans were 9.8 percent; Asian Americans, the largest minority group, 18.9 percent; Latinos were 10.3 percent, and Native Americans were 1.6 percent. Encouragement by alumni interviewers abroad and personal contacts by admissions offi cers boosted the yield of accepted international students to 90.4 percent; they constituted 11.9 percent of the Class of 2015, making it “the most international in Harvard’s history.” To ensure the enrollment of students whose family incomes were under $60,000 and $80,000, Harvard relied on the Undergraduate Minority Recruitment Program, and then on the Harvard Financial Aid Initiative. Th e Undergraduate Admissions Council visited high schools, led tours, and hosted prospective students visiting campus. Th e twenty-six faculty members who evaluated fi les for the Admissions Committee spoke, as did other faculty, with prospective and admitted students, answered letters, and replied to e-mails. Harvard’s Admissions Offi ce extended its reach globally by using web-based message (bulletin) boards and undergraduate student blogs. Such means of interactive communication, largely developed since the 1990s, would be a technological revelation to admissions directors of fi fty years ago. 113

41 Student Diversity at the Big Th ree

In regard to legacy admissions, William R. Fitzsimmons, ‘67, dean of admissions and fi nancial aid, defended them during a discussion of that perennially hot-button issue at New York University. On the panel were Yale Dean of Undergraduate Admissions Jeff rey Brenzel and two Harvard alumni, the Century Foundation Senior Fellow Richard D. Kahlenberg ’85 and Bloomberg News Editor at Large Daniel L. Golden ’78. Kahlenberg, Golden, and Princeton Sociologist Th omas J. Espenshade, who generally supported the goals of affi rmative action, criticized legacy admissions, because they conferred what they—and many others—considered an unfair advantage. In an interview with Th e Crimson , Fitzsimmons said that legacies, the children of either Harvard College alumni or Radcliff e College alumnae, constituted 12–13 percent of Harvard undergraduates, which was the result of a very favorable legacy acceptance rate. At about 30 percent, it was over four times higher than for non-legacies. He indicated there was “no formal mechanism of communication” between the Admissions and development offi ces.114 According to Brenzel, Yale admitted 20 percent of its legacy applicants, and rejected some children of major donors, although they were crucial to fundraising eff orts. Legacies constituted under 10 percent of the freshman class. In his book, Affi rmative Action for the Rich: Legacy Preferences in College Admissions (2010), editor Kahlenberg described the admissions boost given to legacies as “a relic of European-style aristocracy that has no place in American higher education.” In response, Fitzsimmons said that the children of alumni/ae were “better candidates on average,” because the weaker ones know better than to apply. Th e legacy “tip” served as a tiebreaker when their credentials were compared to non-legacies with similar credentials. However, Fitzsimmons has acknowledged that legacies who attended private preparatory or suburban high schools had the opportunity to participate in athletics, helping them gain admission to Harvard, which off ered forty-one sports and over four hundred extracurricular activities.115 Th e Crimson article on the controversial issue of legacy admissions pro- voked a number of comments from readers. Because legacies were often admitted, benefi ting from having educated and affl uent parents, one reader questioned the value of having such a preference and whether the university really needed to worry about alumni giving. Th ough little offi cial data has been released on admissions by family income levels, another reader thought that applicants from wealthy families had a greater chance of being admitted than those from low-income families. Another commented on the unchang- ing percentages of the ethnic or racial groups admitted. After some debate over calculating percentages, it was perhaps agreed by several readers that, with legacies constituting 12–13 percent of the entering freshmen, the real percentage rate for the others admitted was lower than the 6.2 percent of the pool of 34, 950 applicants. Finally, someone noted that a strong Harvard

42 Introduction legacy applying regular admission to Yale and Princeton would probably be rejected by both on the assumption that if admitted, he/she would choose the parental alma mater.116 Within a week of completing the spring admissions process for the incoming freshman class, Harvard admissions offi cers began to send letters to thousands of rising high school seniors and to launch the recruitment process for the Class of 2016 as they traveled to sixty cities with other college repre- sentatives. Every year, “nearly 70 percent of all of our students and 90 percent of our minority students have received such letters,” said Fitzsimmons. “In every way possible, we continue our year-round search for the next generation of Harvard students.” 117 Moreover, Harvard and other elite universities can use the background information they purchase for thirty-three cents per student from the nonprofi t College Board and ACT Inc. on the millions taking the Preliminary SAT (PSAT)/ National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test (NMSQT). Th ese universities have been criticized for sending e-mails, letters, and information packets to rising seniors, who then spend hundreds of dollars on applications when they probably have almost no chance of admission. Application costs for those who do not receive low-income waivers range from $75 for Harvard to $90 for Stanford. “Total application count is taken as some kind of proxy for school popularity,” commented Dean of Admissions Brenzel, who said that since 2005, Yale has reduced its mailings by one-third to 80,000.118 Since 2007, Princeton has admitted less than 10 percent of its applicants. From a pool of 27,189, it admitted 2,282 to its Class of 2015, 134 more than in 2010. Including a few from the waiting list of 1,248, Princeton anticipated a yield rate of 56.9 percent, as it aimed to enroll 1,300 fi rst-year students for the third consecutive year under its goal of adding 500 undergraduates by 2012–2013. Th ough seemingly sensitive that Princeton’s admission rate was higher than some of its competitors, Dean of Admission Janet Rapelye emphasized that since 2004, its applications had increased by 98.5 percent: “It would be hard to declare that as anything but a victory.”119 Like its peers, Princeton also announced a tuition increase, but it was just $360; the one percent was the lowest since 1966. In addition to $37,000 in tuition, room charges increased by $129, 2 percent, to $6,596. Having adopted a balanced operating budget of $1.45 billion, Princeton set total charges of $49,069 for undergraduates in 2011–2012. Th e university took into account, said Provost Christopher Eisgruber, the challenging economic environment of high unemployment, the low infl ation rate, the encouraging investment returns of 14.7 percent, and the $48,582,819 raised through annual giving for “Aspire: A Plan for Princeton.” Committed to a “no loan” policy, Princeton disbursed from its fi nancial aid budget of $110 million an average need-based grant of over $35,000 to 60 percent of freshmen, up from 38 percent in 2001.120

43 Student Diversity at the Big Th ree

Yale was also among the private colleges who planned to expand their fi nancial aid packages in 2008–2009, even outdoing Harvard in the amount it planned to off er. Families earning less than $60,000 would pay nothing, while those earning as much as $200,000 ($20,000 more than at Harvard) would pay on average about 10 percent of their income. After the stock market dropped precipitously and its endowment fell, Yale increased tuition charges for undergraduates—to $38,300. While extending the no-fi nancial contribution exemption to families earning up to $65,000, Yale asked, in 2011, for 12 percent from families earning from $130,000 to $200,000. Students would not be forced to borrow since they could meet their share by an on-campus job, although for their portion parents might decide to combine their savings and income with loans. By way of comparison, Stanford asked for more than 50 percent of the computed parental portion from families with incomes from $130,000 to $200,000, as it phased in a reduction in asset allowances for those with several children in college. In 2010, Dartmouth and Williams ended their pledges that newly admitted freshmen would not have to supplement their aid packages by borrowing, but did not readjust the packages of those who had already enrolled. 121 On the whole, Yale and other well-endowed universities continued to be quite generous in their fi nancial aid packages as they competitively bid for the most promising freshmen. Reinstatement of Early Admission at Harvard and Princeton and Profi les of the Class of 2016 at the Big Th ree On February 24, 2011, Harvard, fi rst, and then Princeton announced that after four years they were reinstating their early action or admission program, which was eff ective for the Class of 2016. Harvard had eliminated nonbinding early action in 2007, partly because “of particular concern for students at under-resourced high schools who might not be able to access the early admissions process,” explained Harvard President Drew Faust. After realizing since then that increasing numbers of applicants wanted “certainty about college choices and fi nancing,” Harvard announced that it was reinstating nonbinding, single-choice early action in the fall of 2012. Th e reconceptualized program would be, Faust said, “consistent with our bedrock commitment to access, aff ordability, and excellence.” To promote “equity and transparency reported the Harvard Gazette, greater assistance would be available to applicants from lower-income families. In addition to staff visiting schools in which a few students have applied early, Harvard utilized undergraduates in recruitment through the Harvard Financial Aid Initiative, the Undergraduate Minority Recruitment Program, and the Undergraduate Admissions Council’s Return to High School Program. By ac- cessing a new, one-page Net-Price Calculator, families could estimate what it would cost them to educate a child at Harvard. Home equity and retirement were excluded from the calculations. Harvard was committed, said Evelynn

44 Introduction

Hammonds, dean of the College, “to including fi rst-generation, low-income, and historically disadvantaged minority students in the full spectrum of admissions options.” Dean Fitzsimmons added that “everything possible” would be done “to level the playing fi eld in admissions and encourage all students to make thoughtful choices about how they can best contribute to society.” Early action applicants, who must apply by November 1 (extended because of an early snowstorm to November 4), were notifi ed by December 15 whether they were admitted and what fi nancial aid they would receive. Th ose applying for regular decision for applications submitted by January 1, would be notifi ed no later than April 1. All accepted applicants must notify Harvard of their decision by May 1, 2012, the National Common Notifi cation Date. Harvard, which was providing more than $40,000 to more than 60 percent of undergraduates, planned to increase its fi nancial aid resources to more than $160 million to keep pace with a 3.8 percent rise in tuition to $52,650. Families earning less than $65,000 contributed nothing; those earning from $65,000 to $150,000 paid up the 10 percent; and even those earning more than $150,000 could apply for need-based aid.122 For almost three decades, Princeton had some type of an early program, including early decision, adopted in 1996, requiring student commitment. Th at was eliminated in 2007, when Princeton, like Harvard, adopted a single, regular admission program beginning with the Class of 2011, largely to encourage applicants from a wide range of family, minority, and socioeconomic backgrounds. However, only the University of Virginia (UVA) followed suit, and then reversed itself in 2010. As applications soared over four years from under 19,000 from seniors at 6,881 high schools to over 27,000 from 8,658 schools, Princeton believed its goal had been achieved. Concerned that promising high school seniors were applying elsewhere, Princeton Presi- dent Shirley Tilghman, Dean of Admission Janet Lavin Rapelye, and Dean of the College Nancy Weiss Malkiel decided to reinstate early action, which was adopted after a lengthy discussion with the Board of Trustees’ Execu- tive Committee. While applicants to Princeton must make its early action program their only choice, they would have, if admitted, until completion of the regular admissions cycle to accept the off er. It was a way, said President Tilghman, of achieving “two goals: provide opportunities for early application for students who know that Princeton is their fi rst choice, while at the same time sustaining and even enhancing the progress we have made in recent years in diversifying our applicant pool and admitting the strongest possible class.” Dean of Admission Rapelye expressed confi dence that Princeton could achieve both goals. Th ose admitted could still apply elsewhere through regular admission and then compare their options. 123 To those applying to the Class of 2016, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton all off ered, for the fi rst time since 2007, both options—early and regular admissions. Interestingly enough, applications to the Class of 2016 at Harvard and

45 Student Diversity at the Big Th ree

Princeton, their fi rst class open to both early action and regular admission, showed a slight decline in volume. Harvard, which had admitted by early action 774 students, 18.2 percent, out of an ethnically and socioeconomi- cally diverse pool of 4,245 applicants, acknowledged that it received a total of 34,285 applications, a decrease of 665, which was about 1.9 percent fewer than the 34,950 applications to the Class of 2015. Th ough welcoming “a period of greater stability and less frenzy in college admissions” after fi ve years of rising applications spurred by the widespread adoption of the Common Application Form, Dean Fitzsimmons cited two reasons for the decline. First, the reinstatement of early action at Harvard, Princeton, and UVA may have infl uenced more seniors to apply early and then to cut back on their application in the Regular Action cycle. Second, the population of graduating seniors was declining in the northeast. Deferred early applicants and regular applicants would be notifi ed on March 29, 2012. In explaining why applications from international students increased by only 5 percent when they had risen 20 percent (to 6,014) in 2011, Director of Admissions Marlyn McGrath suggested that they might be applying to other colleges as the idea of studying in the United States was becoming the norm. Harvard, of course, would have little diffi culty fi lling its next freshman class with 1,660 highly capable students.124 Princeton admitted 726, 20.1 percent, out of its pool of 3,476 early-action applicants. Filling 31–36 percent of all those admitted to the freshman class, they were equally divided between men and women; 37 percent who represented diverse backgrounds came from forty-two states and the District of Columbia; and 10 percent were international, from thirty countries. While 10 percent were the fi rst of their families to seek a college education, 13 percent were Princeton alumni children. Almost two-thirds, 64 percent, applied for fi nancial aid. Th e committee, reported Dean of Admission Janet Rapelye, was “thrilled with the academic quality of the accepted students and the range of talents they presented.” Princeton was also pleased, said Martin Mbugua, that the 26,663 total applications to Class of 2016 was “the second-largest applicant pool in the University’s history,” about 526 (about 01.93 percent) below the 27,189 applicants to the Class of 2015. For both classes, most students used the online Common Application Form with the Princeton supplement. Indeed, since 2005, applications to Princeton had increased by 95 percent, even as the number of seniors graduating from high school had been dropping. Princeton anticipated a freshman enrollment of around 1,300, and a total undergraduate enrollment of 5,200, thereby completing expansion that had begun in 2005. 125 When Harvard completed its regular admissions cycle to the Class of 2016 in late March, it sent acceptance letters and e-mail notifi cations to 2,032 applicants, just 5.9 percent of the pool of 34,302 applicants. From its available $172 million in funds, an increase of 78 percent since 2007, Harvard also

46 Introduction

off ered need-based fi nancial aid and grants worth over $40,000 to more than 60 percent of families; so, on average, they would have to contribute only $12,000 toward the tuition ($37, 576), fees ($3,290), and room ($8,366) and board ($5,264) costs that totaled $54,496. Included in fi nancial aid packages was a standard allowance for travel expenses. No contribution was required from the 20 percent of families earning $65,000 or less. Families without substantial assets who earned up to $150,000 would pay no more than 10 percent of their income. Depending on fi nancial circumstances, even families earning more than $150,000 might still be eligible for aid. Th e Net Price Calculator on the fi nancial aid web site assisted families in determining their costs, which could be paid by several plans: monthly payments; tuition prepay- ment at existing rates; and various parent loan programs extending as long as fi fteen years. No students were asked to take out loans, though they also contributed a share of college costs by working for many hours during the academic year and in the summer. Among the opportunities on campus were paid student partnerships with faculty through the Faculty Aide Program, the Harvard College Research Program, and the Dean’s Summer Research Program.126 Uncertain about the number of students who would accept its off er of admission, given the impact of early action, Harvard wanted to avoid the possibility of overcrowding, as almost 98 percent of those admitted stayed to graduate. If fewer than expected accepted, then Harvard would go to the waiting list, from which in some previous years it had admitted more than two hundred students in May and June. Th e applicant pool for the Class of 2016 “was remarkable by any standard in its academic and extracurricular excellence,” observed Dean Fitzsimmons, citing the thousands scoring 700 or higher on the SATs tests: 14,000 on the critical reading test, 17,000 on the math test, and 15,000 on the writing test. Moreover, 3,800 graduated fi rst in their high school class. Also impressive were students’ extracurricular activities and interests: 57 percent considered participation in athletics, rec- reational, intramural, or intercollegiate; and 41 percent mentioned music and performing arts. Using the College Board Search List to contact promising students, Harvard admitted a racially diverse class: 20.7 percent were Asian American, 10.2 percent were African American, 11.2 percent were Latino, 1.7 percent were Native American, and 0.5 percent were Native Hawai- ian. Because more men were in the applicant pool, they outnumbered the women, 53–47 percent. As in previous years, the Middle Atlantic states and the Western and Mountain states were represented, respectively, by about 22 and 21 percent of those admitted. Th e south edged New England by 19–17 percent. Th e Midwest was home to 10 percent, and 11 percent came from U.S. territories and overseas. More than 19 percent of the admitted class represented eighty-six countries: 10 percent were foreign nationals, and 9 percent were either U.S. dual citizens (122) or U.S. permanent residents (57). Some

47 Student Diversity at the Big Th ree

15,000 alumni/ae interviewers were instrumental in helping the recruitment of talented students from across the globe. Harvard faculty members also made themselves accessible to students interested in applying to Harvard by meeting and talking with them or by answering questions sent by mail or e-mail. Two dozen teaching faculty served on the Admissions Committee. Over 1,400 of those admitted visited the campus during April 2012, with 1,200 participating in the Visitas program. During that time, the admissions staff began planning for the Class of 2017. 127 On May 10, Harvard College announced with satisfaction that almost 81 percent of those admitted accepted its off er, marking the fi rst time since 1971 that the “yield” had topped 80 percent, compared to 75.9 percent yield for the Class of 2015. Taking into account that early-action applicants were probably already committed if accepted, given that Harvard also included fi nancial aid off ers, the admissions offi ce lowered to 5.9 percent the number it admitted during the regular cycle. It anticipated admitting no more than twenty-fi ve from the waiting list. In terms of composition, the Class of 2016 will be 52.5 percent men. Asian Americans will be the largest minority group at 22.6 percent, up by 5 percent since the Class of 2013 (17.5 percent), followed by African Americans at 9.4 percent, Latinos at 9.3 percent, and Native Americans and Hawaiians each at 1.7 percent. International students were approximately 11.3 percent. More than half (52.8 percent) the incoming class expressed interest in the sciences, including engineering and mathematics, compared to 29.1 percent in the social sciences and 17.5 percent in the humanities, although students may change their concentrations after being exposed to a wide range of classes.128 Princeton presented a similar class profi le. After completing its regular admissions cycle to the Class of 2016 in late March, Princeton admitted another 1,269 applicants for a total of 2,095 students, 7.86 percent of its total pool. Applying from 8,738 high schools and 151 nations, they were, said Dean Rapelye, “enormously gifted intellectually and also very well rounded in their interests.” Indeed, 10,225 presented a 4.0 grade point average, and 13,945 scored 700 or higher on all three SAT tests. Th ose admitted from the United States and its territories represented the fi fty states, Washington D.C., and the insular commonwealths of the Northern Marianas Islands and Puerto Rico. International students from seventy-three nations constituted 12.2 percent of those admitted. Princeton’s gender balance was almost even, in contrast to Harvard’s, with the admission of 50.6 percent men and 49.4 percent women. Counting biracial and multiracial students, 47 percent “self-identifi ed as people of color.” In terms of educational preparation, 58 percent attended public schools. While alumni children were 9.5 percent of those admitted, 12.5 percent were the fi rst of their families to seek a college education. Th e 60 percent of students receiving fi nancial aid did not have to repay their grants, which was projected to average more than $37,000 in 2012–2013. 129

48 Introduction

Like Harvard, Princeton was also pleased with the number of students accepting early-action off ers, although it complicated enrollment projections. In contrast to previous years, none of those placed on Princeton’s waiting list—1,472—would be admitted, because, as of early May, acceptances had exceeded by 50–65 the anticipated enrollment of 1,308 students. Princeton’s yield for the Class of 2016 was 66.7 percent of the 2,095 it admitted, compared to 56.7 percent for the Class of 2015. Its Princeton-only choice brought in 86 percent, 624, of the 726 admitted by early action.130 Yale could take satisfaction that its total applications increased in number from 27, 283 to 28,974, whereas those received by Harvard and Princeton decreased. Of those applying for early action, Yale accepted 675 out of 4,304 applicants, only 15.7 percent, the lowest rate in the Ivy League. At the end of March, Yale completed its regular admission cycle, admitting another 1,300 for a total of 1,975 students (about 6.8 percent overall) and waitlisted 1,001. It anticipated that 1,350–1,360 students would matriculate, about the same number as the previous year. In 2011, it had admitted 2,006 students and waitlisted 996, later accepting 103 of them for a total of 2,109 (about 7.7 percent overall). Of this number, 1,351 enrolled in August with another 36 postponing their admission by a year. 131 Of the other elite universities reporting admissions data, Stanford Univer- sity posted a 7 percent increase in applications and MIT posted one percent, its lowest in seven years, partly because it had reduced marketing outreach to less academically competitive students. A year after admissions to Columbia had spiked 33 percent following its acceptance of the Common Application Form, they declined by 8.9 percent (to 31,818). Applications to the University of Pennsylvania declined by 1.7 percent, which Th e Daily Pennsylvanian at- tributed to Harvard and Princeton’s reinstatement of early action, though it may have just been a leveling off from increases generated by more colleges adopting the Common Application Form. In admitting applicants, Pennsyl- vania dropped its rate from 12.4 to 12.3 percent. Others posting a drop in their rates were Cornell, from 18 to 16.2 percent, and Johns Hopkins, from 18.3 to 17.7. As San Francisco University High School guidance counselor, Jon Reider, a former admissions offi cer at Stanford, told the Yale Daily News : “Th e power of the dream is so strong that the numbers don’t convince them to not apply. And that’s the human story behind these numbers.” Th e applicants’ “‘dream’ of attending a top-tier university,” the continual marketing by the most competitive colleges, together with “the ‘self-reinforcing frenzy’ of the admissions process,” made “application growth at prestigious universities ‘sustainable.’” 132 Th ough the number of Americans graduating from high school reached its peak in 2009 and had declined since then, the College Board projected it to rise by 2015. Contributing to the applicant pools are international students, whose numbers have increased by 32 percent during the past ten years to

49 Student Diversity at the Big Th ree

723,277 in 2010–2011. International students are eligible for need-based fi nancial aid at Yale and other Ivy League colleges. Another factor boosting numbers has been the adoption of the Common Application by 456 colleges and universities, which made it quite easy for a student to apply to many diff erent institutions. During the three-day Bulldog Days in April when the fortunate 6.8 percent admitted to the Class of 2016 came as “prefrosh” to New Haven to sample what Yale has to off er them, Andrew Giambrone of the Yale Daily News interviewed guidance counselors and admissions personnel about whether elite universities, which now admitted 50 percent fewer applicants than ten years ago, would continue to admit even smaller percentages. Yale had exercised, said Dean of Undergraduate Admissions Jeff rey Brenzel, “ethi- cal restraint in conducting outreach to students of all backgrounds who are very unlikely to be off ered admission here, while at the same time being very aggressive in our targeted outreach eff orts.” Th e fact that from the Class of 2006 to the Class of 2016 Yale’s applications had risen from 15,466 to 28,974, an increase of 13,508, meant that the percentages admitted must decrease. But Brenzel did not think “the overall Yale pool” was stronger than in the past, even though there was “increased strength within the subgroups on which we have focused hardest: underrepresented minorities and the science and engineering candidates.” James Ouwuachi, a college guidance counselor at Atlanta’s Westminster Schools, thought that even if the acceptance rate to Yale or Harvard fell to 1 percent of applicants and discouraged some talented students from applying, then others would just see it as buying “lottery tickets.” Sarah Beyreis, Yale ’85. GRD ’94, guidance counseling director at Cincinnati Country Day School, thought that the increasing competition might persuade seniors to apply to other less well-known, but academically strong institutions. According to fi ve experts Giambrone interviewed, “low acceptance rates” would not deter applications by “students who prioritize the ‘Yale brand’ and Yale’s ‘elite image.’” But Guidance Counselor Jon Reider thought “it might scare off some of the more interesting, intellectual kids or the kids with genuine kindness, because that usually gets lost in the admission process.” When that happens, “somehow the soul of the place will have begun to drain away.”133 Giambrone found that “the majority of 20 high school students and college freshmen interviewed said the admission fi gures were not determining factors in their college decisions, though they said they used the rates to measure the relative quality of universities.” Seventeen of the twenty admitted looking at the rankings in U.S. News and World Report’s issue on the “Best Col- leges.” Yale came in third behind Harvard and Princeton, which shared fi rst place, based in part on “student selectivity.” Yet high school seniors felt they were constantly in a “pressure cooker” of intense competition with other applicants, a process that may have begun when they were in middle school and their parents, if they had the fi nancial means, hired consultants to advise

50 Introduction them on developing the right kind of resume. After spending “exorbitant amounts of time and money” preparing their applications, they had to accept the reality, as one Scarsdale high school senior bound for Yale described it: “that the college admissions process has an element of ‘arbitrariness.’ ” Even so, the college admissions “lottery” does pay off for a few participants, as a Hunter College high school senior acknowledged; she was accepted by Yale in December. Yet many thousands aspiring to Yale, Harvard, or Princeton hedged their bets by applying to at least half a dozen other colleges and waited anxiously to hear in March before accepting their best off er, even if not their fi rst choice.134 Notes 1 . Stephen Hopewell, “Th e Th ree Pillars of American Civilization,” Th e Heri- tage American, December 22, 2008, http://heritageamerican.wordpress. com/2008/12/22/ the-three-pillars-of-american-civilization/ (accessed June 30, 2011). Henry F. May, Th e End of American Innocence: A Study of the First Years of Our Own Time: 1912–1917 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1959; there is also a 1994 edition). 2 . A. Lawrence Lowell to George F. Moore, October 3, 1922, Abbott Lawrence Lowell Papers (ALL), folder #8 Jews, Harvard University Archives (HUA), Cam- bridge, Massachusetts. See Marcia Graham Synnott, Th e Half-Opened Door: Discrimination and Admissions at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, 1900–1970 , foreword by Arthur S. Link, Contributions in American History, no. 80 (Westport, CT, London, England: Greenwood Press, 1979); republished with a new introduction by author (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Pub- lishers, 2010), 68, 48. May, End of American Innocence , 86–87, 122–23. 3 . A. Lawrence Lowell to Roscoe Conkling Bruce, December 14, 1922 and January 6, 1923; Bruce to Lowell, January 4, 1923; clippings from the Boston Transcript , January 11, 1923; and New York World , January 12, 1923, ALL, folder #42, HUA. Synnott, Half-Opened Door , 49–50. 4 . “Coming Out at Harvard,” John Harvard’s Journal , November–December 2008, http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/11/coming-out-at-harvard?sms_ ss=email&at_xt=4cfbf9b9b16b0162,0 (accessed October 15, 2011). 5. Harvard University News release to the Sunday Papers of October 2, 1955, UAI 5. 169, Records of President Nathan Marsh Pusey, Offi cial Correspon- dence, 1953–1971, folder Memorial Church 1955–1956, Box 78, HUA. 6 . “Admission to Harvard College: A Report by the Special Committee on College Admission Policy, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University,” February 1960, 30–32, Records of President Pusey, box 166, HUA. Excerpts from the fi rst and fourth verses of “Fair Harvard,” Original Words by Samuel Gilman, 1811 (1836; revised 1997), Lyrics to “Fair Harvard,” http://www. hcs.harvard.edu/~class2k/lyrics.html (accessed October 15, 2011). 7 . Synnott, Half-Opened Door , 4; May, End of American Innocence, 56, 298–301. 8. “Hasty Pudding Club Members Vote to Admit Women , Faculty,”February 15, 1973, http://www.thecrimson.com/article/.../hasty-pudding-club- members-vote-to/ (accessed June 2, 2011); Hasty Pudding Th eatricals, http://www.hastypudding.org/ (accessed June 2, 2011).

51 Student Diversity at the Big Th ree

9. Final club —Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Final_club (accessed June 2, 2011); Th e Seneca , September 13, 2010 . . . Co-sponsored by Th e Seneca , Inc. and the Harvard College Women’s Center, http://www.theseneca.org/ (accessed June 2, 2011). See Monika L. S. Robbins and Hana N. Rouse, Crimson Staff Writers, “Off Campus, Harvard Goes Greek,” May 26, 2011, Year In Review, Harvard Crimson, Commencement 2011 , 18–19; “ Off Campus, Harvard Goes Greek,” | News | Commencement 2011 |, http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/5/26/ sorority-greek-sororities-life/ (accessed June 2, 2011). 10. Monica M. Dodge, Crimson Staff Writer, “Th e Evolution of Activism: Students Balance Fighting for Causes with Following the Rules,” 46; Stephanie B. Garlock and Hana N. Rouse, Crimson Staff Writers, “Shot after Shot: Harvard’s Drinking Problem, Th e College’s Troubled Relationship with Alcohol,” front page and 28–31, Year In Review, Harvard Crimson, Commencement 2011 . http://www.thecrimson.com/feature/commence- ment2011/, May 26, 2011 (accessed May 28, 2011). 11. Marcia Graham Synnott, “A Social History of Admissions Policies at Har- vard, Yale, Princeton, 1900–1930” (Ph.D. diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1974), 3; Synnott, Half-Opened Door , 4; F. Scott Fitzgerald, Th is Side of Paradise (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970), 36; and Ken- neth S. Davis, A Prophet in His Own Country: Th e Triumphs and Defeats of Adlai E. Stevenson (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1957), 108–9, 117. 12. Marcia G. Synnott, “Th e Half-Opened Door: Researching Admissions Discrimination at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton,” American Archivist 45, no. 2 (Spring 1982): 175–87. 13. Synnott, Half-Opened Door, in particular, chap. 3, “Harvard: Debate on Restriction, 1922” and chap. 4, “Harvard: Methods of Sifting Candidates for Admission, 1920s to 1950s,” 58–124; Jerome Karabel, Th e Chosen: Th e Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton (Boston and New York: Houghton Miffl in, 2005); Dan A. Oren, Joining the Club: A History of Jews and Yale (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985); and Harold Wechsler, Th e Qualifi ed Student: A History of Selective College Admissions in America (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1977). 14. Marcia G. Synnott, “Anti-Semitism and American Universities: Did Quo- tas Follow the Jews?” in Anti-Semitism and American History, ed. David A. Gerber (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1986), 259; 233–71. 15. Marcia G. Synnott, “Student Diversity at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton Universities, 1920s to 2010,” presented at a session on Elite Universities: Getting Th ere, Staying Th ere, History of Education Society, November 5, 2010, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 16. Laurence Veysey, “Th e History of University Admissions,” Reviews in American History 8, no. 1 (1980): 116, 115–21, commenting on Synnott’s, Half-Opened Door and Allan P. Sindler, Bakke, DeFunis, and Minority Ad- missions: Th e Quest for Equal Opportunity (New York: Longman’s, 1978), 116, 115–21. Marcia G. Synnott, Review of Jerome Karabel, Th e Chosen , American Journal of Education 113, no. 4 (August 2007): 663–70. 17. Synnott, “Student Diversity at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton Universities, 1920s to 2010.”

52 Introduction

18. Paul H. Buck to President James Bryant Conant, November 20, 1952, UAI 5. 168, Records of President James Bryant Conant, Offi cial Correspon- dence, 1933–1953, Box 448, folder Administrative V.P. to Annual Report, 1952–1953, HUA. On July 1, 1953, Buck stepped down as provost and dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. On September 1, 1953, Conant became president of emeritus. 19. Synnott, “Student Diversity at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton Univer- sities, 1920s to 2010.” Disability Services in the Ivy League , http:// disabilityfriendlycolleges.com/index.php?...disability...ivy-league (accessed December 2, 2011). 20. Synnott, “Student Diversity at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton Universities, 1920s to 2010.” 21. Buck to President Conant, November 20, 1952. 22. Ibid. After a year’s sabbatical, Buck resumed his professorship in American history, and then, from 1955 to 1964, he served as director of the Univer- sity Library. See also Synnott, Review of Jerome Karabel, 666–67. Morton Keller and Phyllis Keller, Making Harvard Modern: Th e Rise of America’s University (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 22–31, 146–47. See updated paperback edition (2007) with a new chapter on Lawrence Summers’s presidency. 23. Synnott, Half-Opened Door , 201–2. 24. Henry James, copy to JBC, March 14, 1947, Box 302, 1946–1947, I-Law School Dean, folder James, Henry, Records of President Conant. 25. E. Digby Baltzell, Th e Protestant Establishment: Aristocracy & Caste in America (New York: Vintage Books, 1964), 338. Tracy Jan, “Harvard Re- vamps Its Corporation, Expansion, Term Limits for Governors,” Harvard revamps its Corporation—Th e Boston Globe, December 7, 2010, http:// www.boston.com / news / education / higher / articles / 2010 / 12 / 07 / harvard_revamps_its_corp / (accessed December 8, 2010). 26 . Samuel D. Warren, William Gray to Dr. James B. Conant, October 6, 1946, Records of President Conant, Box 312, folder “Waa-War.” Warren, from Essex, MA, belonged to the Porcellian Club. In his November 4, 1946 reply to Warren, David W. Bailey said three of the seven members of the Committee on Admissions had not attended Harvard; of the four who had, three were private school graduates, and one belonged to Porcellian. 27 . University News Offi ce, Morning Papers, November 28, 1950, on the new advising system proposed for the seven Harvard Houses by a special faculty committee, headed by Wilbur J. Bender, at the request of Provost Paul Buck, Records of President Conant, Box 302, I-Law School Dean, folder Houses 1950–1951; Harvard University News Offi ce, Morning Papers, Tuesday, April 15, 1952, Box 431, Harvard Clubs Associated—Housing (Misc. “Hea-Hr”), folder Houses 1951–1952. For Harvard’s social engineering in the residential houses, see Christopher S. Jencks and David Riesman, “Pat- terns of Residential Education: A Case Study of Harvard,” in Th e American College: A Psychological and Social Interpretation of the Higher Learning , ed. Nevitt Sanford Prepared for the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (New York: John Wiley, 1962), 762; 731–73. 28 . David B. Rochelson, “Focus on Athletics, after Dismal Football Seasons, Harvard Gets in the Game,” Harvard Crimson, June 2, 2003, Focus on

53 Student Diversity at the Big Th ree

Athletics | News | Th e Harvard Crimson, http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/6/2/focus-on-athletics-the-football-team/ (accessed December 10, 2011); Paul H. Buck, “Balance in the College,” Harvard Alumni Bulletin 48, no. 10 (February 16, 1946): 404–6; and See Synnott, Half-Opened Door , 205–6. 29 . Rochelson, “Focus on Athletics,” Harvard Crimson, June 2, 2003. Presi- dent Conant, as quoted by Rochelson. See Synnott, Half-Opened Door , 205–6. 30 . Rochelson, “Focus on Athletics.” After graduating from Harvard in 2005, Rochelson worked as a media writer and producer and also entered the University of Pennsylvania Law School. 31. Wilbur J. Bender, “A Comprehensive Formal Statement of Harvard Col- lege Admission Policy,” September 18, 1952, Dean of Harvard College Correspondence File (DHCCF), folder Committee on Admission Policy 1952–1957, HUA. See Synnott, Half-Opened Door , 205–7. Rochelson, “Focus on Athletics.” 32 . Wilbur J. Bender to James B. Conant, November 21, 1951, folder “Kane, R Keith,” Box 432 Admissions, 1951–1952; Wilbur J. Bender to Paul Buck, May 27, 1953, “Aa-Alk”, Admission, Box 447, 1952–1953, Records of President Conant. 33. McGeorge Bundy, dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, “A Report to the Class of 1930 on the State of Harvard College,” Cambridge, 1955, HUA. 34 . Frederick W. Byron, Jr., “CEP to Conduct Study of Admissions Policies,” Harvard Crimson, March 5, 1959, CEP to Conduct Study of Admissions Policies, http://www.thecrimson.harvard.edu/article/1959/3/5 (accessed December 10, 2011). See also Karabel, Th e Chosen , 274–79. 35 . Byron, “CEP to Conduct Study Of Admissions Policies.” “Admission to Harvard College: A Report by the Special Committee on College Admis- sion Policy,” Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University, February 1960, 5–6, 7, 8–9, 11, 14–15, Records of President Pusey, Box 166, HUA. Its nonvoting executive secretary was Richard Gordon King, associate director of Admissions and Financial Aids in Harvard College. Lisa Stampnitzky, “How Does ‘Culture’ Become ‘Capital’? Cultural and Institutional Struggles Over ‘Character and Personality’ at Harvard,” Sociological Perspectives 49, no. 4 (2006): 470–71, 461–81, How Does “Culture” Become “Capital?” Cultural and Institutional . . ., http://cisac.stanford.edu / publications / how_does_culture_become_ (accessed June 10, 2011). 36. Special Committee, “Admission to Harvard College,” 16, 19, 17–18. 37. Ibid., 20, 22, 27, 26–29. 38 . Ibid., 29–54. “Picking a College Class. Harvard Takes a Look at its Admis- sion Policy: Stresses Diffi cult Job of Spotting ‘Intellectual Promise,’” Uni- versity News Offi ce, Release to Afternoon Papers, Th ursday, February 25, 1960, Records of President Pusey, Box 166. Th e Committee recommended considering, even welcoming, highly qualifi ed students who wished to be transferred to Harvard. 39. Special Committee, “Admission to Harvard College,” 31, 34, 30–35. 40. Ibid., 35, 36. 41. Ibid., 39, 40, 37–38. 42. Ibid., 44, 43, 41–44.

54 Introduction

43. Ibid., 44, 45, 46. In the Graduate Schools of Public Health and Public A dministration, foreign students constituted, respectively, about one-half and one-fourth of the enrollments. 44. Special Committee, “Admission to Harvard College,” 46, 47, 48, 49, 50. 45. Ibid., 50, 51–52. 46. Ibid., 52, 53, 54. 47. Ibid., 55, 54. 48. “Picking a College Class,” University News Oﬃ ce, February 25, 1960, Records of President Pusey, Box 166. 49. Special Committee, “Admission to Harvard College,” 55, 56. 50. Wilbur J. Bender, Final Report of W. J. Bender Chairman of the Admission and Scholarship Committee and Dean of Admissions and Financial Aids, 1952–1960 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1960), HUA, 8, 6–8, 18. Karabel, Th e Chosen , 278–85; Stampnitzky, “How Does ‘Culture’ Become ‘Capital’?,” 468–71. 51. Stephen F. Jencks, “Dean Bender’s Report,” Harvard Crimson , September 30, 1961, Dean Bender’s Report | Th e Harvard Crimson, http://www. thecrimson.com/.../1961/.../dean-benders-report-pex-dean-wilbur-j/ (accessed June 12, 2011). Jencks, Harvard MPH and MD, later served as assistant surgeon general of the U.S. Public Health Services. 52. Dean Bender’s Comments | News | Th e Harvard Crimson, http://www. thecrimson.harvard.edu/.../dean-bender-comments-pto-the-editors/ (accessed June 12, 2011). 53 . “Alumni Children – Yale, Harvard, Princeton [Class of 1967-Class of 1976],” Elga Wasserman Papers, RU #821, ACCN 19 N D-A—086, Box 1, folder 14, Manuscripts and Archives (MSSA), Yale University Library (YUL). 54. Joseph A. Soares, Th e Power of Privilege: Yale and America’s Elite Colleges (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007), 33, 36, 30, 34–35. 55. Synnott, Half-Opened Door, Table 5.8 “Sons of Yale Men in the Classes of 1924-36,” 157. 56. Percy T. Walden, letter of advice to parents, Yale Alumni Weekly , October 16, 1931, quoted under “Conspicuous Consumption,” by Gaddis Smith ‘54, ‘61 Ph.D., Learned Professor Emeritus of History, in “Life at Yale During the Great Depression,” Yale Alumni Magazine 73, no. 2 (November/December 2009), Yale during the Great Depression—Yale Alumni Magazine http:// www.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/2009_11/depression3645.html (accessed June 20, 2011). In 1944, President Charles Seymour (1937–1950) rationalized Yale’s Jewish quota as a way of maintaining “some reasonable balance with those of other elements in the student body” (Synnott, Half- Opened Door , 212). 57 . Smith, “Life at Yale during the Great Depression.” After years of turning a deaf ear to repeated requests from the City of New Haven for ﬁ nancial assistance, Yale eventually began making voluntary payments. In 2010, Yale increased its voluntary annual payment to the city from $5 million to $7.5 million. 58. Soares, Power of Privilege , 36, 37. 59. Ibid., 43, 41–47. 60. Ibid., 51. 61. Ibid., 54, 55–56.

55 Student Diversity at the Big Th ree

62. Ibid., 62–65. 63. James Tobin to Th omas C. Mendenhall, April 30, 1956, Records of Presi- dent A. Whitney Griswold, RU 22, ACCN 1963-A-002, Box 202, folder 1837, MSSA, YUL. In 1981, Tobin was awarded the prize for Economic Science established by the Bank of Sweden in memory of Alfred Nobel. Oliver Staley and Michael McKee, “Yale’s Tobin Guides Obama From Grave as Friedman is Eclipsed,” February 27, 2009, http://www.bloomberg. com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ajz1hV_afuSQ (accessed June 20, 2011). 64 . “Financing College Students,” Education Information Service, Division of Educational Research and Services, Th e College Life Insurance Company of America, July, 1960, 19–20, 4, 5 (“America’s Most Expensive Colleges”), 7–8 (“Budget For Typical Undergraduate in a Private Institution in 1960” and “Budget For Typical Undergraduate in a Public Institution in 1960”), 13 (“Average Cost of Attending a Private College or University” and “Average Cost of Attending a Public College or University”), 14, 18, 22, in the Records of President Griswold, ACCN 1963-A-002, Box 201, folder 1834. 65. Soares, Power of Privilege , 67, 60–61, 65–68. 66. Ibid., 69, 70. 67 . Ibid., 36–41. Requiring higher verbal SAT scores, which peaked in 1970, did not cause a decline in Yale’s legacy admissions. 68. Nicholas Lemann, Th e Big Test (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1999). Soares, Power of Privilege , 72, 92. Synnott, Half-Opened Door , 210–18. 69 . Gregory Kabaservice, “Kingman Brewster and the Rise and Fall of the Progressive Establishment” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1999), quoted in Soares, Power of Privilege, 73. See also Kabaservice’s revised dissertation published as Th e Guardians: Kingman Brewster, His Circle, and the Rise of the Liberal Establishment (New York: Henry Holt, 2004). 70. Soares, Power of Privilege , 80, 82, 77–82, and 217, n. 26 citing William Borders, “Ivy League Shifts Admission Goals,” New York Times , April 17, 1967, I, 31. 71. Soares, Power of Privilege , 87, 85–87, 92, Table 4.1. Percent of Legacies in Freshman Class at Harvard, Princeton, and Yale, Selected Years, 1950–1965, 89, and Table 4.2. Percent of Legacies in the First-Year Class at Yale College, Entering in September, 1920–2000, 91. 72. Soares, Power of Privilege , 95, 90–96. 73. Ibid., 92, 97–99, 101. 74. Ibid., 119, 120. 75. Ibid., 124, 126, 223, n. 16, 121–26. Th omas D. Tabor and Judith D. Hackman authored OIR’s November 15, 1972, “College Criteria Study: A proposal for further study of operational criteria used to distinguish successful college undergraduates from other undergraduates.” 76. Soares, Power of Privilege , 127, 128. 77. Ibid., 161. 78 . “Answers to Your Questions about Admission of Princeton Sons,” distributed by the Alumni Council of Princeton, June 1, 1958; John D. Rockefeller to Robert F. Goheen, June 10, 1958; and Goheen to Rockefeller, July 8, 1958, Robert F. Goheen, Records, Oﬃ ce of the President, AC #193, Box 97, series 2.3, folder 5 Admissions—Princeton Sons Rejected and Accepted,

56 Introduction

1957–1961, Princeton University Archives (PUA), Department of Rare Books and Special Collections, Princeton University Library (PUL). 79 . Goheen to Rockefeller, July 8, 1958; “Answers to Your Questions about Admission of Princeton Sons,” June 1, 1958, Records of President Goheen, folder 5 Admissions—Princeton Sons. In 1958, 70 percent of the applicants were from public schools. 80 . James I. Baker, Typed copy of a letter, July 8, 1958, Records of President Goheen, folder 5 Admissions—Princeton Sons. 81 . C. William Edwards, Reports of the Director of Admission to the University Faculty, September 1959 and September 1960, Box 98, series 2.3, folder 2, Princeton University Archives (PUA). 82 . Committee on Admission, Minutes, September 17, 1959, Box 97, folder 2, Admissions—Committee on Admission, 1953, 1957–1961; Report of the Director of Admission to the University Faculty, September 1959; the Report of the Director of Admission, September 1960 included the Report to the President of the Subcommittee on Admission Policy and Criteria, September 1960, Records of President Goheen, Box 98, series 2.3, folder 2. For the controversy over Father Hugh Halton, see “Education: God & Man at Princeton,” October 7, 1957, –Time , http://www.time.com/time/ magazine/article/0,9171,809974,00.html (accessed June 25, 2011). 83. Bill Edwards, June 8, 1960, Records of President Goheen, Box 98, folder 2. 84. Minutes of the Committee on Admission Meeting, October 8, 1957, September 19, 1959, and April 4, 1961, Box 97, folder 2, Admissions— Committee on Admission, 1953, 1957–1961; Bill Edwards, Capsule Report—Undergraduate Admissions—Class of 1964, May 13, 1961; and Alumni Council on Alumni Sons on Campus for the Fall Term 1961, Offi ce of the President, Box 98, folder 2 Reports and Statistics 1959–1964. 85. W. W. Barber, Jr., Headmaster, St. Mark’s School, to Robert F. Goheen, June 20, 1963; Dean J. Merrill Knapp to President Robert F. Goheen, “St. Mark’s admission problems,” June 28, 1963, Offi ce of the President, Box 93, series 2.3, folder 1 Admissions—Applicants—T-V (by Name), 1962–1972. Princeton’s directors of admission: Radcliff e Heermance, 1922–1950; C. William Edwards ‘36, 1950–1962; E. Alden Dunham III ‘53, 1962–1966; John T. Osander ‘57, 1966–1971; Timothy C. Callard ‘63, 1971–1978; and James W. Wickenden, Jr. ’61, 1978–1983, from Alexander Leitch, A Princeton Companion (Princeton University Press, 1978): “Admis- sion,” http://etcweb.princeton.edu/CampusWWW/Companion/admission. html (accessed June 25, 2011). 86 . “Education: How to Get into Princeton,” Time, April 24, 1964, http://www. time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,870918,00.html (accessed June 25, 2011). 87 . E. Alden Dunham to Th eodore G. Kane, March 30, 1965; Kane to Robert F. Goheen, April 6, 1965; Dunham memorandum to Goheen, April 7, 1965, Offi ce of the President, Box 97, folder 6, Admissions—Princeton Sons Rejected and Accepted, 1964–1965. 88. J. S. Finch to Robert F. Goheen, April 1, 1966, Admitted Princeton Sons— Class of 1970; John T. Osander to Robert F. Goheen, May 26, 1967, Admit- ted Princeton Sons—Class of 1971; V. B. Sailliez to Messrs. S. McVay and

57 Student Diversity at the Big Th ree

D. Th ompson, June 19, 1968, Princeton Son Applicants—Class of 1972, Offi ce of the President, Box 97, folder 7. 89 . Tara Th ean, “Th e Trodden Path: Applying as a Legacy,” Daily Princetonian , May 12, 2010, http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2010/05/12/26151/ (accessed June 26, 2011). 90 . “Alumni Children – Yale, Harvard, Princeton [Class of 1967-Class of 1976],” Wasserman Papers, Box 1, folder 14. With regard to the gender quota, see Quantifi able Elements of Coeducation, President Kingman Brewster, Jr. Records, RU 11, ACCN II, Box 257, folder 7, MSSA, YUL. Faye Kessin, “A History of Women at Princeton,” Weekly Nassau, November 9, 1979, 8, folder Coeducation 1974–1987; and “O Pioneers,” Princeton Living , September 1994, folder Coeducation 1988, Historical Subject File (H.S.F.), Coeducation 1977, Clippings, Box 125, Princeton University Archives (PUA). Lisa Outar, “On the vanguard,” Daily Princetonian, CXVII, No. 29 (March 10, 1993): 1–3. 91. Th ean, “Trodden Path” ; Tatiana Lau, “Legacy Study Raises Questions about Policy,” Daily Princetonian , March 29, 2007, http://www.dailyprincetonian. com/2007/03/29/17854/ (accessed June 26, 2011); Douglas S. Massey and Margarita Mooney, “Th e Eff ects of America’s Th ree Affi rmative Action Programs on Academic Performance,” Social Problems 54, no. 1 (February 2007): 99–117. 92 . Elizabeth C. Bloom, “Privileging the Privileged” [ Opinion ] Th e Harvard Crimson, December 9, 2011, http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/12/9/ bloom-legacy-admissions/; and “Privileging the Privileged,” Occupy Harvard, http://occupyharvard.net/2011/12/09/privileging-the-privileged/ (accessed December 9, 2011). 93. Bloom, “Privileging the Privileged .” 94 . Keller and Keller, Making Harvard Modern (2001), 147–51. Geraldine Fabrikan, “Harvard and Yale Report Losses in Endowments,” New York Times, September 11, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/business/ 11harvard.html? (accessed September 12, 2009); “Finding a New Footing” and “Still Harvard,” Harvard Magazine 112, no. 1 (September–October 2009), 44–45; Th e Harvard Crimson , “Budget Cuts,” September 2, 2009, 8; Tracy Jan, “Harvard Offi cially Halts Construction on Allston Science Com- plex,” Boston Globe , December 10, 2009, http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/12/harvard_offi cia.html?s_camp; Jan, “Harvard School will end salary freeze,” Boston Sunday Globe , December 13, 2009, http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/12/13/ harvard_school_will_end_salary_freeze/?s_campaign=8315 (accessed De- cember 13, 2009). Fred Abernathy and Harry Lewis, “Op-Ed,” Boston Globe , December 12, 2009, “Shrouded in Secrecy, Decision Makers Gambled and Harvard Lost,” http://www.boston.com / bostonglobe / editorial_opinion / oped / articles / 2009 / 12 / 12 / shrouded_in_secrecy_deci / (accessed December 13, 2009). 95. “Yale’s Endowment Performance Edges Harvard’s,” Harvard Magazine , S eptember 22, 2009, http://harvardmagazine.com/breaking-news/yale- endowment-losses-versusharvards (accessed September 23, 2009). See “Tilghman Letter Updating the University Community on Economic Climate,” Letter sent by President Shirley M. Tilghman on September 29,

58 Introduction

2009, Princeton University, http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/ S25/41/94G77/ (accessed October 15, 2010); “Princeton Records Strong Endowment Investment Gains,” Harvard Magazine , October 15, 2010. 96. Hiawatha Bray, Globe Staff / October 15, 2010, $50m gift helps Harvard resume expansion— Th e Boston Globe, http://www.boston.com / business / articles / 2010 / 10 / 15 / 50m_gift_helps_harvard_r / (accessed October 17, 2010). 97 . Abernathy and Lewis, “Op-Ed.” Lewis was a former dean of Harvard College. From: Drew Gilpin Faust To: Members of the Harvard Community; Subject: Harvard Corporation—governance review, December 6, 2010; Q&A on Harvard’s changing Corporation | Harvard Gazette, December 6, 2010, http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/.../qa-on- harvard’s-changing-corporation/; and Tracy Jan, “Harvard Revamps Its Corporation,” Th e Boston Globe , December 7, 2010. 98 . Jan, “Harvard Revamps Its Corporation,” Boston Globe, cites Morton Keller, Phyllis Keller, Hannah Gray, and Harry Lewis. 99. “Th ree to join Harvard Corporation,” Harvard Gazette CVI, no. 16, May 26–September 1, 2011, 28, http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/05/ three-to-join-harvard-corporation/, May 25, 2011 (accessed May 26, 2011). 100 . Editorial Opinion, “Harvard improves governance, but full accountabil- ity still lags,” http://www.boston.com / bostonglobe / editorial_opinion / editorials / articles / 2011 / 06 / 04 / harvard_improves_governa /, June 4, 2011 (accessed June 5, 2011); James R. Houghton, “Boston, Letter to the Editor,” Boston Globe , June 11, 2011, A10. 101. Mercer R. Cook, Crimson Staff Writer, Students Lobby for Univer- sity Financial Disclosure | News | June 12, 2011, http://www.thecrimson. com/ article/2011/.../bill-fi nancial-disclosure-harvard/ (accessed June 13, 2011). 102 . “Yale Tomorrow Campaign Raises $3.881 Billion,” http://www.opac.yale. edu/news/article.aspx?id=8716 and http://www.opac.yale.edu results July 5, 2011 (accessed December 1, 2011). Cass Cliatt, November 9, 2007, Princ- eton Offi cially Launches Comprehensive Campaign to Raise , http://www. princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S19/43/58M62/; Joshua Rosenau/Times of Trenton, July 8, 2011, Princeton Fundraising Campaign Tops $50 Million | NJ.com , http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2011/07/princeton_fund- raising_campaign.html; Staff , Princeton University—Ruth Stevens Named Director of Development, October 11, 2011, http://www.princeton.edu/ main/news/archive/S31/80/24K65/index.xml (accessed May 3, 2012). 103. “Bachelor’s Degree Attainment Tops 30 Percent for the First Time, Census Bureau Reports,” Inside Higher Education, February 24, 2012, “Bachelor’s Attainment Tops 30% for First Time,” http://www.insidehighered.com/ quick-takes/2012/02/24/ (accessed February 24, 2012). 104 . Sigal Alon, “Class Advantage,” Inside Higher Education, October 2, 2009, based on her American Sociological Review article, as reported by Scott Jaschik; Pew Research Center study on Census data, “College Enrollment Up, Mostly at 2-year Schools,” October 29, 2009, http://my.earthlink.net/channel/news/print?guid=20091029/4ae92150_3421_1334520091(accessed April 1, 2010).

59 Student Diversity at the Big Th ree

105 . Carmen Lu, “Admissions Game Getting Riskier.” Graph, Yale Daily News , April 5, 2010 (accessed April 10, 2010); Jacques Sternberg, April 2, 2010, “Applications to Selective Colleges Rise as Admission Rates Fall,” Th e New York Times , “Th e Choice” blog (accessed April 10, 2010). 106. Program of the Harvard College Freshman Convocation Class of 2013, Tercentenary Th eatre, September 1, 2009, 4:30 p.m. For the profi les of the Class of 2013 at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, see Synnott, Half-Opened Door , xxxii–xxxiv, xxxix–xl. 107. “A Historic Year for Harvard Admissions,” Harvard Gazette Online , http:// news.harvard.edu / gazette / story / 2010 / 04 / a-historic-year-for-harv / (accessed April 1, 2010); Julie M. Zauzmer, “Acceptance Rate Falls to New Low,” Th e Harvard Crimson, March 31, 2010, http://www.thecrimson. harvard.edu/article/2010/3/31/fi nancia; “Harvard College Admissions § Applying: Statistics,” http://www.admissions.college.harviard.edu/apply/ statistics.html (accessed April 2, 2010). Students in Harvard University from the United States—1937–1938 and Students in Harvard University from the United States’ Possessions and Foreign Countries—1937–1938 (UAV 688.275 Phillips Brooks House, Box 3, Religious Census 1937–1938, HUA). Program of the Harvard College Freshman Convocation, Class of 2013, September 1, 2009. “Meet the Harvard Class of 2009,” Th e Yard (Fall 2009 issue), 4–9. According to the Program of the Harvard College Freshman Convocation Class of 2014, August 31, 2010, there were 838 men and 828 women for a total of 1,666 fi rst-year students. However, Harvard Magazine , September 8, 2010, reported a freshman enrollment of 1,671 (“2014 Settles In,” Opening days for Harvard College class of 2014 | Harvard Magazine harvardmagazine.com › News › Harvard College) (accessed September 8, 2010). President Drew Gilpin Faust, Remarks at the Harvard College Fund Assembly, Cambridge, Massachusetts, October 16, 2010 (attended by author). 108. Th e Yale Herald, Blog Archive, Yale Class of 2014 Admissions , http://yaleherald.com, Th e Bullblog, April 1, 2010 (accessed April 2, 2010). Yale Wel- comes the Class of 2014 , August 26, 2010, http://opa.yale.edu/news/article. aspx?id=7706; Carmen Lu, “By the Numbers: Class of 2014,” Yale Daily News, September 1, 2010; and “Admission Rate Rises for Class of 2014,” Yale Daily News , http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2010/sep/01/admission- rate-rises-class-2014/ (accessed September 2, 2010). 109. Ruth Stevens, “Malkiel to Step Down as Dean of the College,” September 8, 2010, Princeton University, http://www.princeton.edu / main / news / archive / S28 / 38 / 88092 / index.xml?section=topstories (accessed September 10, 2010). 110. Karin Dienst, “Freshman Class Reflects Commitment to Access and Aff ordability,” September 20, 2010, Princeton University, http://www. princeton.edu / main / news / archive / S28 / 50 / 00O59 / index. xml?section=topstories; Henry Rome, Staff Writer, “Class of 2014 Con- tains Greatest Number of Minority Students Ever,” Daily Princetonian , September 21, 2010, with graph created by Paolo Esquivel, http://www. dailyprincetonian.com/2010/09/21/26282/ (accessed September 23, 2010). Twenty students, who participated each year in the Bridge Year Program—in 2009–2010 and in 2010–2011, spending a year abroad on

60 Introduction

service projects, deferred their matriculation until the next class. A special Ad Hoc Trustee Committee, chaired by Trustee Paul M. Wythes ‘55, recommended expanding undergraduate enrollment in 2000, http://www. princeton.edu/pr/reports/wythes/02.htm (accessed April 5, 2009). 111 . Justin C. Worland, “Harvard Accepts Record Low 6.2 Percent of Applicants to the Class of 2015,” Harvard Crimson, March 31, 2011, and http://news. harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/01/record-applications-to-harvard-college/, January 14, 2011 (accessed April 2, 2011); Andrew Sartorius, senior writer, with a contribution by staff writer Luc Cohen, “Yield Growth not Expected with Change in Admit Rate,” Th e Daily Princetonian , April 1, 2011, http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2011/04/01/28095/; and “Ivy League Admission Statistics for Class of 2015,” Hernandez, http://www.her- nandezcollegeconsulting.com/ivy-league-admissions-statistics/ (accessed April 5, 2011). 112. “Harvard University Gazette on Record Applications to Harvard College,” January 14, 2011, http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/01/record- applications-to-harvard-college/ ( accessed January 15, 2011); “Harvard Financial Aid Program Tops $160M for First Time,” Harvard Gazette , February 24, 2011, http://news.harvard.edu / gazette / story / 2011 / 02 / harvard-fi nancial-aid-program (accessed December 1, 2012); “An Un- precedented Admissions Year,” Harvard Gazette, March 30, 2011, http:// news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/.../an-unprecedented-admissions-year/ (accessed April 6, 2011); “High Yield for Class of ‘15,” Harvard Gazette , May 12, 2011, http://news.harvard.edu / gazette / story / 2011 / 05 / high- yield-for-class-of- / (accessed May 14, 2011). 113 . “High Yield for Class of ‘15,” Harvard Gazette. Harvard also admitted 15 of the 1,486 who had applied as transfer students; 13 enrolled. 114. Justin C. Worland, “Legacy Admit Rate at 30 Percent,” News, Th e Harvard Crimson , May 11, 2011, http://www.thecrimson.com/. . ./5/. . ./admissions- fi tzsimmons-legacy-legacies/ (accessed May 15, 2012). See Daniel Golden, Th e Price of Admission: How America’s Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges – and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates (New York: Crown Pub- lishers, 2006); Richard Kahlenberg, Op-Ed Contributor, “Elite Colleges, or Colleges for the Elite?,” New York Times , September 29, 2010, http://www. nytimes.com/2010/09/30/opinion/30kahlenberg.html?th=&emc=th&pag ewante (accessed October 15, 2011); and also Th omas J. Espenshade and Alexandria Walton Radford, No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009). 115 . Worland, “Legacy Admit Rate at 30 Percent.” Richard D. Kahlenberg, Af- fi rmative Action for the Rich: Legacy Preferences in College Admissions (New York and Washington, DC: Published by Century Foundation Press, and distributed by Brookings Institution Press, 2010); “Harvard Admissions Profi le-Class of 2015,” hand-out at Symposium E. “Back to the Future in Changing Times: Why Harvard Eliminated and Th en Restored Early A dmission,” William R. Fitzsimmons, Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid; Sally Clark Donahue, Director of Financial Aid for Harvard College; and Marlyn E. McGrath, Director of Admissions for Harvard College, Harvard College Fund Assembly, Cambridge, Massachusetts, October 15, 2011.

61 Student Diversity at the Big Th ree

116. Worland, “Legacy Admit Rate at 30 Percent.” 117. “High Yield for Class of ‘15.” 118. Janet Lorin, Bloomberg News, “Many Called, Few Chosen by Top Univer- sities,” Th e Boston Globe, May 22, 2011, http://www.boston.com / news / education / higher / articles / 2011 / 05 / 22 / (accessed May 23, 2011). 119. Sartorius, “Yield Growth Not Expected with Change in Admit Rate.” 120. Alison Griswold, “Princeton Tuition Increases by One Percent,” Yale Daily News, January 27, 2011, http://www.yaledailynews.com / news / 2011 / jan / 27 / princeton-tuition-increases(accessed January 28, 2011); and Eric Quinones, “Princeton Trustees Approve Lowest Fee Package Increase in 45 Years,” Princeton University , January 24, 2011, http://www.princeton.edu / main / news / archive / S29 / 58 / 80S71 / index.xml?section=topstories (accessed January 28, 2011). 121. Scott Jaschik, “News: Generous, but Not So Generous - Inside Higher Ed,” February 21, 2011, http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/02/21/ yale_scales_back_fi nancial_commitment_to_upper_income_aid_recipients (accessed February 22, 2011). 122. “Early Action Returns,” Harvard Gazette, February 24, 2011, http://news. harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/02/early-action-returns/(accessed De- cember 1,2012), citing Drew Faust, Evelynn Hammonds, and William Fitzsimmons; Tracy Jan, “Harvard Restores Early Admissions for Fall 2012 Class,” February 24, 2011, http://www.boston.com/news/local/break- ing_news/2011/02/harvard_restore.html (accessed February 25, 2011); “Early Action – Harvard University Public Aff airs and Communications,” November 21, 2011, http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/11/early- action-returns-2/ (accessed December 17, 2011). 123 . “Princeton University - Princeton to Reinstate Early Admission Program,” February 24, 2011, http://www.princeton.edu / main / news / archive / S29 / 85 / 15K32 / index.xml?section=topstories (accessed February 27, 2011). 124 . “Harvard College Applications Decline 2 Percent,” Harvard Magazine , January 26, 2012, http://harvardmagazine.com › News › Harvard College (accessed February 1, 2012), citing William Fitzsimmons and Marlyn Mc- Grath; Elizabeth S. Auritt, “Applications to Harvard Drop for First Time in Five Years,” News , January 26 and updated January 27, 2012, http://www. thecrimson.com/article/.../admissions-applications-decline-2016 (accessed February 1, 2012); Janet Lorin, “Harvard Freshman Applications Drop 1.9% Amid Early Program,” January 26, 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/.../harvard-s-freshman-applications-drop-1-9- (accessed February 1, 2012); and Mary Carmichael, “Harvard Applications Dip Slightly,” Metro Desk , Local news updates, January 26, 2012, http://www.boston.com/Boston/.../2012/.../ harvard-applications.../index.ht (accessed February 1, 2012). 125. “Princeton University—Princeton Off ers Early Action Admission to 726,” December 15, 2011, http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S32/ 39/75S56/index.xml ? (accessed December 1, 2012), citing Janet Rapelye ; Martin Mbugua, “Princeton University—Princeton Receives Near-Record Applications,” January 30, 2012, http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S32/77/23O34/index.xml ? (accessed December 1, 2012). 126. “2032 Admitted to Class of ‘16,” Harvard Gazette , March 29, 2012, http:// news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/.../2032-admitted-to-class-of-16...

62 Introduction

(accessed April 1, 2012). “Cost of Attendance for 2012–2013,” Harvard College Admissions, http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/fi nan- cial_aid/cost.html (accessed July 9, 2012). 127. “2032 Admitted to Class of ‘16,” Harvard Gazette , March 29, 2012. 128. “Harvard College Admission Yield Rises to 81,” Harvard Magazine , May 10, 2012, http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/05/harvard-college-admissions-yield-81-percent (accessed May 11, 2012). 129 . “Princeton University Accepts 2095 Students to Class of 2016,” March 30, 2012, http://princeton.patch.com/.../princeton-university-accepts-2-095- students-t... (accessed December 1, 2012). 130. Staff , “Updated: U. Overshoots Class of 2016 by More than 50 Students,” May 14, 2012, http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2012/05/14/30977/ (accessed May 20, 2012). 131. Andrew Giambrone, “Yale Sees Jump in Applications,” Yale Daily News , January 20, 2012, http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2012/jan/20/number-of-applications-jumps/ (accessed February 1, 2012); Giambrone, “Admit Rate Hits All-time low,” Yale Daily News , March 30, 2012, http://www. yaledailynews.com / news / 2012 / mar / 30 / like-much-of-ivy-league- / (accessed April 1, 2012); YaleNews , “Yale College Off ers Admission to 1975 Students,” March 29, 2012, http://news.yale.edu/2012/03/.../yale-college- off ers-admission-1975-studen... (accessed April 1, 2012). 132. Giambrone, “Yale Sees Jump in Applications,” Yale Daily News. Kyle Hardgrave, “Harvard, Princeton Early Action Aff ects Penn,” Th e Daily Pennsylvanian, January 10, updated January 12, 2012, http://thedp. com/.../2012/.../penn_ivies_see_decrease_in_early_admission_ (accessed February 1, 2012). “Elite Colleges Report Admissions Records (Again),” March 30, 2012, http://www.insidehighered.com/quick-takes#ixzz1qdFftYj6 (accessed April 1, 2012). Th e Class of 2016 yielded 68.4 percent of the 2,043 admitted, ending a decline since 2007: 1,356 matriculated, and 61 post- poned admission for a year (Andrew Giambone, “Yield Rate Up, Reversing Decline,” Yale Daily News , http://www.yaledailynews.com / news / 2012 / aug / 29 / yield-rate-up-after-year / (accessed August 29, 2012). 133. Andrew Giambrone, “UP CLOSE | Eliteness infl ated?” Yale Daily News , April 16, 2012, http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2012/apr/16/close- eliteness-infl ated/?print (accessed December 1, 2012). 134. Ibid.

63 References Brown University: âBrown University.â http://www.brown.edu/ Columbia University: âColumbia University in the City of New York.â http://www.columbia.edu/ Cornell University: âCornell University.â http://www.cornell.edu/ Dartmouth College: âDartmouth College.â http://www.dartmouth.edu/ Harvard University: âHarvard University.â http://www.harvard.edu/ Princeton University: âPrinceton UniversityâWelcome.â http://www.princeton.edu/ University of Pennsylvania: âPenn: University of Pennsylvania.â http://www.upenn.edu/ Yale University: âYale University.â http://www.yale.edu/ Daily Princetonian: âThe Daily Princetonian.â http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/ Harvard Crimson: âHarvard News. The Harvard Crimson.â http://www.thecrimson.com/ Harvard Magazine: âHarvard Magazine, Your Independent Source for Harvard News â¦â http://harvardmagazine.com/ Harvard University Gazette: âHarvard Gazette.â http://news.harvard.edu/gazette Princeton Alumni Magazine: âPrinceton Alumni Weekly: An Editorially Independent Magazine by.â¦â http://paw.princeton.edu/ Radcliffe Quarterly and Radcliffe Yearbooks, Radcliffe College Archives (1879â1999), Arthur and Elizabeth Schlesinger Library on the History of Women in America, Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Yale Alumni Magazine: âYale Alumni Magazine: Editorially Independent since 1891.â http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/ Yale Daily News: âYale Daily NewsâThe Nationâs Oldest College Daily.â http://www.yaledailynews.com/ Yale Weekly Herald: âThe Yale HeraldâYaleâs Most Daring Publication since 1986.â http://yaleherald.com/ Accessible Education Office, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University; AEOâAbout Our ServicesâAccessible Education Office. http://aeo.fas.harvard.edu/services.html (accessed September 20, 2011 ). âHarvard Admissions Profile-Class of 2015â, hand-out at Symposium E. âBack to the Future in Changing Times: Why Harvard Eliminated and Then Restored Early Admission,â William R. Fitzsimmons, Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid; Sally Clark Donahue, Director of Financial Aid for Harvard College; Marlyn E. McGrath , Director of Admissions for Harvard College, Harvard College Fund Assembly, Cambridge, Massachusetts, October 15, 2011. âHarvard-Radcliffe Admission and Scholarship Newsletter.â 26, no. 1 (September 1977); âHarvard-Radcliffe Admission and Scholarship Newsletter.â 33, no. 1 (October 1984); âHarvard- Radcliffe Admission and Scholarship Newsletter.â 40, no. 1 (October 1991); âHarvard Radcliffe Admission and Scholarship Newsletter.â 44, no. 2 (June 1996); âHarvard-Radcliffe Admission and Scholarship Newsletter.â 45, no. 1 (December 1996). âHarvard University Announces Groundbreaking Professorship in LGBT.â June 4, 2009. http://www.fas.harvard.edu/home/news-and-notices/news/press-releases/lgbt- 06042009.shtml (accessed October 30, 2011 ). Harvard University Archives: âHoldings.â http://hul.harvard.edu/huarc/holdings.shtml, Nathan Marsh Pusey Library, Printed versions of Harvard Presidentsâ Reports, 1825â1995, accessible online through Harvard University Archives: President Neil Rudenstine, The Presidentâs Report 1993â1995 (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1996). âOffice of the Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid: Contact the Admissions OfficeâHarvard College Admissionsâ¦â http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/contact/index.html Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality. http://static.fas.harvard.edu/registrar/ugrad_handbook/current/chapter4/womens_studies.html . LGBT Studies at Yale University. What was once Yaleâs Womenâs Studies program is now Womenâs, Gender, and Sexuality Studies: WGSS at Yale | Womenâs, Gender, and Sexuality Studies. http://wgss.yale.edu/ (accessed August 29, 2012 ). Resource Office on Disabilities, Resource Office on DisabilitiesâYale CollegeâYale University. http://yalecollege.yale.edu/content/resource-of-fice-disabilities-0; and Download the PDF version of this guide (accessed September 21, 2011 ). WISER Yale University Women Sports Endowment. http://www.yale.edu/athletics/WISER/celeb06.htm (accessed August 30, 2012 ). Yale University Library, Manuscripts and Archives. Collections overview. http://www.library.yale.edu/mssa/about_collections.html. 333 Yale University: Yale University. http://www.yale.edu/; and FactsheetâStatistical Summary of Yale University. A Yale Book of Numbers 1976â2000, edited by Beverly Waters, Office of Institutional Research, October, 2001. Factsheets produced by the Office of Institutional Research (OIR). Yale âFactsheet,â Office of Institutional Research, http://oir.yale.edu/yale-fact- sheetâOIR home Yale Data; Quick Factsâ¦ This summary addresses some frequently asked statistical questions about Yale: 2011â2012 Factsheet and All past yearsâ Factsheets. Fields CenterâHome. âThe Carl A. Fields Center for Equality and Cultural Understanding provides Princeton University students with ample opportunities to connect their chosen â¦ of.â http://www.princeton.edu/fieldscenter/ (accessed January 10, 2011 ). Office of Disability ServicesâPrinceton University. http://www.princeton.edu/ods/ (accessed September 21, 2011 ). Princeton, Program in Gender and Sexuality Studies, Program in the Study of Women and GenderâPrinceton University. http://www.princeton.edu/~gss/contact_us/contact.html (accessed August 29, 2012 ). Princeton in Asia. http://piaweb.princeton.edu/ (accessed July 15, 2012 ). A Princeton Profile 2001â2002, Seniors and Alumni. http://www.princeton.edu/pr/facts/profile/01/17.htm; Finances, http://www.princeton.edu/pr/facts/profile/01/08.htm (accessed March 15, 2003 ). A PrincetonâProfile 2001â2002âAdmission and Enrollment. http://www.princeton.edu/pr/facts/profile/01/08.htm; The Graduate School. http://www.princeton.edu/pr/facts/profile/01/18.htm (accessed March 15, 2003 ). âPrinceton UniversityââKaleidoscopeâ conference remarks by President Emeritus William G. Bowen.â¦â http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S16/31/90A28/, November 10, 2006; and Ruth Stevens , âKaleidoscope conference focuses on diversity, issues,â updated after the conference and posted November 10, 2006, http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S16/31/78I92/index.xml?section=. âComing Back and Looking Forward,â November 9â11, 2006, in partnership with the Association of Black Princeton Alumni, the Asian American Alumni Association of Princeton, the Association of Latino Princeton Alumni and Native Americans at Princeton (accessed November 10, 2009 ). Princeton University: Seeley G. Mudd Library: University ArchivesâPrinceton University. http://www.princeton.edu/~mudd/finding_aids/archives.html; and Archives DatabaseâPrinceton University. http://www.princeton.edu/~mudd/databases/arch, http://www.princeton.edu/~mudd/databases/archives.html. Report on the Status of Latino/as at Princeton University. http://www.princeton.edu/~caucus/Coalition_Report.pdf[September 2007] (accessed June 1, 2012 ). Undergraduate Admission and EnrollmentâPrinceton University. http://www.princeton.edu/profile/admission/undergraduate/ (accessed August 20, 2012 ). Boston Globe: âThe Boston Globe.â http://bostonglobe.com/ Census 2010 News. â2010 Census Shows Nationâs Hispanicâ¦â May 26, 2011, http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn146.html (accessed September 10, 2011 ). Common Application. https://www.commonapp.org/(accessed June 15, 2011 ). Disability Friendly Colleges. http://www.disabilityfriendlycolleges.com/ (accessed December 2, 2011 ). Disability Services in the Ivy League. http://www.disabilityfriendlycolleges.com/index.php?option=com_conâ¦ (accessed December 2, 2011 ). Final clubâWikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_club; The Seneca, September 13, 2010. http://www.theseneca.org/ (accessed October 15, 2010 ). Inside Higher Ed: Sign up for Inside Higher Edâs Newsletters. http://www.insidehighered.com/newsletter/signup New York Times: The New York TimesâBreaking News, World News & Multimedia. http://www.nytimes.com/ Pew Research Center report, âThe Rise of Asian Americans.â June 19, 2012. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org\2012\06\19\the-rise-of-asian-americans\ (accessed June 20, 2012 ); Pew Research Center study on Census data, âCollege Enrollment Up, Mostly at 2-year Schools.â October 29, 2009. http://my.earthlink.net/channel/news/print?guid=20091029/4ae92150_3421_1334520091 (accessed April 1, 2010 ). Uniform Code of Military Justice (UJMJ)âMain Menu. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/l/blucmj.htm; Solomon Amendment. http://www.yalerotc.org/Solomon.html. This law was amended, effective FY2005. Current law is available at this page. DADT. http://www.dodfedglobe.com/DADT.html (accessed December 1, 2010 ). Washington Post: Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ Alger, Jonathan . University of Michigan Assistant General Counsel. âSummary of Supreme Court Decisions in Admissions Cases.â U.S. Supreme CourtâJune 23, 2003. http://www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/overview/cases-summary.html and http://www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/research/expert/intro.html (accessed December 10, 2003 ). Brief of Columbia University, Harvard University, Stanford University and the University of Pennsylvania as Amici Curiae, June 7, 1977, (in the Supreme Court of the United States, October Term, 1976, no. 76â811, Regents of the University of California, Petitioner v. Allan Bakke, Respondent. âFinancing College Students,â Education Information Service, Division of Educational Research and Services, The College Life Insurance Company of America, July, 1960, in the Records of President A. Whitney Griswold, 335RU 22, ACCN 1963-A-002, folder 1834, Box 201, Yale Manuscripts and Archives (MSSA), Yale University Library (YUL). Fisher v. University of Texas, No. 11â345 (oral arguments October 2012). Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), 288 F.3d 732 (6th Cir. 2002), affirmed. Hopwood v. Tex., 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996). PBS Democracy Project: Affirmative Action: The History of an Idea (Public Broadcasting Station, September 6, 1996). Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb, 481 U.S. 615 (1987). Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb. The Oyez Project at IIT.â¦ http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980â1989/1986/1986_85_2156 (accessed September 18, 2011 ). Slip Opinion, Syllabus, and Majority Opinion-Justice Powell. Allan Bakke versus Regents of the University of California. The Supreme Court of the United States, vol. VI, edited by Alfred A. Slocum for the Council on Legal Education Opportunity (CLEO) (Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications, 1978). U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Office for Civil Rights. Racial, Ethnic and Sex Enrollment Data from Institutions of Higher Education. Vol. I of II (Washington, DC, April 1978), Table 1âBachelorâs Degrees Conferred in Institutions of Higher Education by Race, Ethnicity, and Sex: Institution, State and Nation 1975â1976. Harvard University Archives (HUA), Nathan Marsh Pusey Library (NMPL). Dean of Harvard College Correspondence File. Folder Committee on Admission Policy 1952â1957, HUA. Harvard University. Report of the Committee to Consider Aspects of the Harvard-Radcliffe Relationship that Affect Administrative Arrangements, Admissions, Financial Aid and Educational Policy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, February 26, 1975, HUA). Jerome Davis Greene Papers, HUA. McGeorge Bundy , Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. âA Report to the Class of 1930 on the State of Harvard College.â Cambridge, 1955, HUA. Office of Race Relations and Minority Affairs, Harvard College. âFive-Year Overview of the Office of Race Relations and Minority Affairs.â December 1992, HUA. Phillips Brooks House. UAV 688.275, Boxes 1â3 of 4, Religious Census 1920-1939/40; and T. L. Harris , Reports and Recommendations. Enrollment and Chapel Attendance 1886â87â1930â31, UAV 710.10, HUA. Records of the Harvard Black Students Association. HUD 3222.5000, HUA. A detailed inventory of the Records of the Harvard Black Students Association, 1977â2005 and undated, is available electronically: 336 http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.ARCH:hua12008 (accessed August 15, 2010 ). See also Records of the Harvard-Radcliffe Afro-American Cultural Center; and Records of the Association of African and Afro-American Students at Harvard and Radcliffe. Records of the President of Harvard University, Official Correspondence. Abbott Lawrence Lowell, 1909â1933, UAI 5.160, HUA. Records of the President of Harvard University, Official Correspondence, James Bryant Conant, 1933â1953, UAI 5.168, HUA. Records of President of Harvard University, Official Correspondence, Nathan Marsh Pusey, 1953â1971, UAI 5.169, HUA. Selected files. Wilbur J. Bender . Final Report of W. J. Bender Chairman of the Admission and Scholarship Committee and Dean of Admissions and Financial Aids, 1952â1960 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1960), HUA. The Committee for the Equality of Women at Harvard Brochure. See Web site: http://world.std.com/~cewh/CEWH (accessed June 15, 202012 ). Mary Ingraham Bunting, [subsequently Bunting-Smith] Oral Memoir, SeptemberâOctober 1978, conducted by Jeannette Bailey Cheek. Sponsored by the Schlesinger Library on the History of Women in America, Radcliffe College in Cooperation with the Columbia University Oral History Research Office. Session VI, Weston, Massachusetts, October 3, 1978; Session VII, Weston, Massachusetts, October 5, 1978; Session VIII, Weston, Massachusetts, October 5, 1978; and Session IX, Weston, Massachusetts, October 25, 1978. Records of the President of Radcliffe College, 1960â1972 Mary Ingraham Bunting, RG II, Radcliffe College Archives, Arthur and Elizabeth Schlesinger Library on the History of Women in America, Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Alvin Johnson Papers (615), Manuscripts and Archives (MSSA), Yale University Library YUL. Elga Wasserman Papers, RU #821, MSSA, YUL. Julie M. Heller . âThe Impact of Coeducation on Yaleâs Alumnae, 1973â1983â [research material and senior essay] by Julie M. Heller, Class of 1988, Yale College, 1967â1988 (inclusive), RU 96, Manuscripts and Archives (MSSA), Yale University Archives (YUA), Yale University Library (YUL). New Haven, Connecticut. Office of the Secretary. 1948â1949. YRG 4âA [9â12], MSSA, YUA. Records of President A. Whitney Griswold, 1950â1963, RU 22, MSSA, YUA. Records of President Kingman Brewster, Jr., 1963â1977, RU 11, MSSA, YUA. Records of the Dean of Medicine. YRG 27âA (5â9), 1931, MSSA, YUA. Arthur J. Horton Collection on Coeducation 1967â1980, Official Papers, PUA, PUL. Historical Subject File (HSF) Coeducation Clippings. Box 125, folder Coeducation 1974â1987; and folder Coeducation 1988-, PUA, PUL. Robert F. Goheen . 16th President of Princeton, Princeton Class of 1940, Interview by Daniel J. Linke , University Archivist. Princeton Presidents Oral History Collection, PUA, Department of Rare Books and Special Collections, PUL. Interviews: October 26, 2004, November 4, 2004, and January 6, 2005, available online as a pdf file. See also âStudent, Scholar, and President: Four Hours with Robert Goheenâ¦â http://blogs.princeton.edu/reelmudd/2010/12/ student-scholar-and-presidentâ¦ All four hours are on this link as YouTube interviews (accessed January 11, 2011 ). Records of the Office of the President, Robert F. Goheen (1957â1972). AC 193, PUA, PUL. Axtell, James . The Making of Princeton University: From Woodrow Wilson to the Present. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2006. Baker, Liva . âIâm Radcliffe! Fly Me!â: The Seven Sisters and the Failure of Womenâs Education. New York: Macmillan Publishing; London: Collier Macmillan Publishers, 1976. Baltzell, E. Digby . The Protestant Establishment: Aristocracy & Caste in America. New York: Vintage Books, 1964. Baltzell, E. Digby . The Protestant Establishment Revisited. Edited and with a new Introduction by Howard G. Schneiderman . New Brunswick, NJ and London, UK: Transaction Publishers, 1991. Bergmann, Barbara R. In Defense of Affirmative Action. New York: A New Republic Book, Basic Books, 1996. Bibbins, Kirsten , Anne Chiang , and Heather Stephenson , eds. Women Reflect About Princeton. Princeton, NJ: Office of Communications/Publications, Princeton University, 1989. Borsch, Frederick Houk . Keeping Faith at Princeton: A Brief History of Religious Pluralism at Princeton and Other Universities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012. Bowen, William G. Lessons Learned: Reflections of a University President. Princeton, NJ and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2010. Bowen, William G. and Derek Bok . The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998; reprinted with a new introduction by the authors and a foreword by Glenn C. Loury, 2002. Conant, James B. My Several Lives: Memoirs of a Social Inventor. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1970. Donadio, Rachel , â96, ed. Different Voices: A Journal Commemorating 25 Years of Coeducation at Yale. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1995. 338 Eisenmann, Linda . Higher Education for Women in Postwar America, 1945â1965. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006. Epstein, Benjamin R. and Arnold Forster . âSome of My Best Friendsâ¦â New York: Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, 1962. Espenshade, Thomas J. and Alexandria Walton Radford . No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009. Freeland, Richard M. Academiaâs Golden Age: Universities in Massachusetts. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. Furniss, W. Todd , and Patricia Albjerg Graham , eds. Women in Higher Education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, 1974. Golden, Daniel . The Price of Admission: How Americaâs Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges â and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates. New York: Crown Publishers, 2006. Greene, Daniel . The Jewish Origins of Cultural Pluralism: The Menorah Association and American Diversity. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2011. Hollinger, David A. ed. The Humanities and the Dynamics of Inclusion since World War II. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006. Howells, Dorothy Elia . A Century to Celebrate: Radcliffe College, 1879â1979. Cambridge, MA: Radcliffe College, 1978. Kabaservice, Gregory . The Guardians: Kingman Brewster, His Circle, and the Rise of the Liberal Establishment. New York: Henry Holt, 2004. Kahlenberg, Richard D. , ed. Affirmative Action for the Rich: Legacy Preferences in College Admissions. New York and Washington, DC: Published by Century Foundation Press, and distributed by Brookings Institution Press, 2010. Kalman, Laura . Yale Law School and the Sixties: Revolt and Reverberations. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2005. Karabel, Jerome . The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Boston, MA and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2005. Keller, Morton and Phyllis Keller . Making Harvard Modern: The Rise of Americaâs University. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001; updated paperback edition 2007. Kelly, Brooks Mather . Yale; A History. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press, 1974. Lemann, Nicholas . The Big Test. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1999. Lever, Janet and Pepper Schwartz . Women at Yale: Liberating a College Campus. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1971. Levine, David O. The American College and the Culture of Aspiration, 1915â1940. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986. May, Henry F. [Farnham]. The End of American Innocence: A Study of the First Years of Our Own Time: 1912â1917, New York: Alfred A. Knopf , 1959; paperback edition, New York: Columbia University Press, 1994. 339 Miller-Bernal, Leslie , and Susan L. Poulson , eds. Going Coed: Womenâs Experiences in Formerly Menâs Colleges and Universities, 1950â2000. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2004. Miller-Bernal and Poulson , eds. Challenged by Coeducation: Womenâs Colleges Since the 1960s. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2006. Mooney, Jonathan , and David Cole . Learning Outside The Lines: Two Ivy League Students with Learning Disabilities and ADHD Give You the Tools for Academic Success and Educational Revolution. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000. Norwood, Stephen H. The Third Reich in the Ivory Tower: Complicity and Conflict on American Campuses. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Oberdorfer, Don . Princeton University: The First 250 Years, Published under the auspices of the Steering Committee for Princetonâs 250th Anniversary. The Trustees of Princeton University, 1995. Oren, Dan A. Joining the Club: A History of Jews and Yale. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985. Second Edition (A Yale Tercentennial Book), 2001. Pollack, Eunice G. ed. Antisemitism on the Campus: Past & Present. Boston, MA: Academic Studies Press, 2011. Pusey, Nathan Marsh . American Higher Education, 1945â1970: A Personal Report. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978. Rosenblatt, Roger . Coming Apart: A Memoir of the Harvard Wars of 1969. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1997. Rosovsky, Nitza , ed. The Jewish Experience at Harvard and Radcliffe, introduction to an exhibition presented by the Harvard Semitic Museum on the occasion of Harvardâs 350th anniversary, September, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986. Sacks, Peter . Tearing Down the Gates: Confronting the Class Divide in American Education. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2009. Selden, William K. Women of Princeton 1746â1969. Princeton University: Office of Printing and Mailing Services, 2000. Shand-Tucci, Douglass . The Crimson Letter: Harvard, Homosexuality, and the Shaping of American Culture. New York: St Martinâs Press, 2003. Shulman, James L. and William G. Bowen . The Game of Life: College Sports and Educational Values, In Collaboration with Lauren A. Meserve and Roger C. Schonfeld . Princeton, NJ and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2001. Sindler, Allen . Bakke, DeFunis, and Minority Admissions: The Quest for Equal Opportunity. New York: Longmanâs, 1978. Soares, Joseph A. The Power of Privilege: Yale and Americaâs Elite Colleges. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007. Sollors, Werner , Caldwell Titcomb , and Thomas Underwood , eds. Blacks at Harvard: A Documentary History of the African-American Experience at Harvard and Radcliffe, with an Introduction by Randall Kennedy . New York and London: New York University Press, 1993. 340 Strauss, Herbert A. , ed. Hostages of Modernization: Studies on Modern AntiSemitism 1870â1933/39, Germany - Great Britain - France, Vol. 3/1; and Austria â Hungary â Poland â Russia, Vol. 3/2. Berlin: New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1993. Strong, Donald S. Organized Anti-Semitism in America. The Rise of Group Prejudice during the Decade 1930â40. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: American Council on Public Affairs, 1941. Synnott, Marcia Graham . The Half-Opened Door: Discrimination and Admissions at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, 1900â1970; Foreword by Arthur S. Link . Contributions in American History, no. 80. Westport, CT, London, England: Greenwood Press, 1979; republished with a new introduction by author. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2010. Thermes, Julie . Essor et declin de lâaffirmative action: Les etudiants noirs a Harvard, Yale et Princeton; preface de Andre Kaspi . Paris: CNRS, c1999. Wechsler, Harold . The Qualified Student: A History of Selective College Admissions in America. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1977. Wills, Jeffrey , ed. The Catholics of Harvard Square. Petersham, MA: Saint Bedeâs, 1993. Wright, William , Harvardâs Secret Court: The Savage 1920 Purge of Campus Homosexuals. New York: St. Martinâs Press, 2005. â2012 Fall Course Catalog Supplement.â Occupy Harvard. http://occupy- harvard.net/2012/01/26/2012-fall-course-catalog-supplement/ (accessed January 28, 2012 ). Abernathy, Fred , and Harry Lewis . Op-Ed, Boston Globe, December 12, 2009, âShrouded in Secrecy, Decision Makers Gambled and Harvard Lostâ¦â http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/12/12/shrouded_in_ secrecy_deci/ (accessed December 13, 2009 ). âAfter Suit, a Princeton Club Admits Its First 27 Women.â NYTimes.com, February 11, 1991, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?resâ¦ (accessed May 15, 2002 ). Alderman, Jesse Harlan . Associated Press Writer. âIvy Leagueâs Female Presidents Gather.â May 3, 2007, Boston.com. http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/05/03/ivy_leagues_female_presi/ (accessed May 20, 2007 ). Alon, Sigal . âClass Advantage.â Inside Higher Education, October 2, 2009, based on her American Sociological Review article, as reported by Scott Jaschik , Class Advantage | Inside Higher Ed, www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/10/02/inequality (accessed April 1, 2010 ). Alexander, Edward . âAntiSemitism-Denial: The Berkeley School.â In Antisemitism on the Campus: Past & Present, edited by Eunice G. Pollock , 38â52. Boston, MA: Academic Studies Press, 2011. Alexander, Edward . âBlushing Professors: Jews Who Hate Israel.â In Antisemitism on the Campus: Past & Present, edited by Eunice G. Pollock , 234â252. Boston, MA: Academic Studies Press, 2011. 341 Altschuler, Glenn C. and Robert O. Summers . âBad Rap: Public Enemy and Jewish Enmity.â In Antisemitism on the Campus: Past & Present, edited by Eunice G. Pollock , 317â329, Boston, MA: Academic Studies Press, 2011. Arenson, Karen W. âPrinceton Puzzle: Where Have Jewish Students Gone?â New York Times, June 2, 1999, sec. B, 9. http://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/02/nyregion/princeton-puzzle- where-hâ¦ (accessed September 15, 2011 ). Baena, Victoria A. A Decade Ago, Another Occupation | FM | The Harvard Crimsonâ, December 1, 2011, http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/12/1/2001-occupy (accessed December 2, 2011 ). Balestri, Carlo H. and Dorina Yessios . âBridging the Gap through Pressure, Activism.â In a series on â25 Years of Coeducation.â Daily Princetonian CXVIII, no. 100 (October 14, 1994): 1, 8. Bartholomew, Andrew . âAffirmative Action Bans May Boost Yaleâs Diversity, Experiencing Race at Yale.â Part 3 of 3. Yale Daily News, February 26, 2007. http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2007/feb/26/affirmative-action-bans-/(accessed October 12, 2011 ). Beck, Howard . âFrom Ivy Halls to the Garden, Surprise Star Joltsâ¦â New York Times. February 8, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/sports/basketball/jeremy-lin-has-burst-from-nba- novelty-act-to-knicks-star.html (accessed February 9, 2012 ). Print version appeared February 8, 2012, A1 of the New York edition. Berrett, Dan . âNews: Goodbye DADT, Hello ROTC.â Inside Higher Ed. December 21, 2010. http://www.insidehighered.com/â¦/end_of_don_t_ask_don_t_tell_to_mean_rebirth_of_rotc (accessed December 23, 2010 ). Bollinger, Lee C. âCollege Diversity at Risk.â The Washington Post. January 15, 2012. http://www.washingtonpost.com/â¦/college-diversity-at-risk/â¦/gIQACxpn1 (accessed January 17, 2012 ). Borden, Sam and Keith Bradsher . âTight-Knit Family Shares Linâs Achievement, Jeremy Linâs Parents Navigated a Winding Path from Taiwan to Virginia, from Purdue University to Palo Alto, on Their Way to Raising a Global Icon.â February 25, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/sports/basketball/tight-knit-family-shares-lins- achievement.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha27 (accessed February 26, 2011 ). Print version appeared February 26, 2012, on SP1 of the New York edition. Brest, Paul and Miranda Oshige . âAffirmative Action for Whom.â Stanford Law Review 47 (May 1995): 855â900. Brittain, John , and Eric Bloom . âAdmitting the Truth: The Effect of Affirmative Action, Legacy Preferences, and the Meritocratic Ideal on Students of Color in College Admissions.â In Affirmative Action for the Rich: Legacy Preferences in College Admissions, edited by Richard D. Kahlenberg , chap. 6, 123â142. New York and Washington, DC: Published by Century Foundation Press, and distributed by Brookings Institution Press, 2010. Buck, Paul H. âBalance in the College: A Chance to Restore an Old Ideal and Point a New Way.â Harvard Alumni Bulletin 48, no. 10 (February 16, 1946): 404â406. 342 Buck, Paul H. âHarvard Attitudes Toward Radcliffe in the Early Years.â Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society LXXIV (JanuaryâDecember 1962): 42â50. âCan Yale Accommodate Itself to Women? Excerpts from the Vassar-Yale Study Committee Report.â Yale Alumni Magazine 31, no. 4 (January 1968): 20â23. Carmichael, Mary . âOccupy Harvard Looks Ahead, Custodian Strike Averted, Protest Turns to Other Demands.â November 27, 2011. The Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/11/27/occupy_harvard_looks _ahead/(accessed November 28, 2011 ). Carmichael, Mary . âROTC Back at Harvard after 40 Years.â Boston.com. September 21, 2011. http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2011/09/21/after_40_year_standoff_h/ (accessed September 22, 2011 ). Chen, Sarah . âDADT Repeal Does not Change Universityâs ROTC Policy.â The Daily Princetonian, May 9, 2011. http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2011/05/09/28528/ (accessed May 12, 2011 ). Chong, Joanne . âU. Reports Lower Number of Disabled Students than Peerâ¦â February 24, 2009. http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/02/24/22872/ (accessed September 21, 2011 ). âCoeducation at Yale College: A Brief Chronology.â In Different Voices: A Journal Commemorating 25 Years of Coeducation at Yale, edited by Rachel Donadio , â96, 66â71. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1995. Coffman, Chad , Tara OâNeil , and Brian Starr . âAn Empirical Analysis of the Impact of Legacy Preferences on Alumni Giving at Top Universities.â In Affirmative Action for the Rich: Legacy Preferences in College Admissions, edited by Richard D. Kahlenberg , chap. 5, 101â121. New York and Washington, DC: Published by Century Foundation Press, and distributed by Brookings Institution Press, 2010. Coleman, Earle E. âEnrollment.â http://etcweb.princeton.edu/CampusWWW/Companion/enrollment.html (accessed August 30, 2012 ). âComing Out at Harvard.â John Harvardâs Journal. NovemberâDecember 2008. http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/11/coming-out-at-harvard (accessed September 30, 2010 ). Cook, Mercer R. and Zoe A. Y. Weinberg . âHarvard Officially Welcomes ROTCâ News, The Harvard Crimson. September 20, 2011. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/9/20/harvard-rotc-office-opens/ (accessed December 11, 2012 ). Cross, Theodore , and Robert Bruce Slater . âAlumni Children Admissions Preferences at Risk: The Strange Irony of How the Academic Achievements of Asians May Rescue Affirmative Action for Blacks.â Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, no. 6 (Winter 1994/1995): 87â90. Czuchlewski, David . âCourt Rulings Prompt University to Assess Affirmative Action Policy.â Last in a series on âAffirmative Action at Princeton: The Challenge of Achieving Diversity.â Daily Princetonian CXX, no. 46 (April 16, 1996): 1, 4â5, 7; chart (Provost Office), âNumber of Undergraduates, Fall 1995, 5; and Editorial, âMinority Enrollment, Affirmative Action,â 2. 343 Djagalov, Rossen . âReflections on Occupy Harvard,â Possible Futures. January 11, 2012. http://www.possible-futures.org/2012/01/11/reflections-on-occupy-harvard/ (accessed January 15, 2012 ). Dahl, Robert A. âThe Dahl Report.â Yale Alumni Magazine 35, no. 8 (May 1972): 20â26; and âPresident Brewsterâs Statement.â YAM (May 1972): 26â27. Debenedetti, Gabriel , Kevin Whitaker , and Andrew Sartorius . âGetting in: Athletesâ Road to Admission.â The Daily Princetonian. December 1, 2010. http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2010/12/01/27054 (accessed October 16, 2011 ). The second in a four-part series on the lives of student athletes. Defiesta, Nick . âOccupy Departs the New Haven Green.â Cross Campus, Yale Daily News, April 18, 2012. http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2012/apr/18/occupy-departs-new-haven- green/ (accessed May 18, 2012 ). Defiesta, Nick . âOccupy Princeton Crashes JP Morgan Info Session.â Cross Campus, Yale Daily News, December 9, 2011, http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2011/dec/09/occupy- princeton-crashes-jp-morgan-info-session/ (accessed May 22, 2012 ). DelReal, Jose A. âOccupy Protest Shuts Down Harvard Yard.â News, The Harvard Crimson. November 9, 2011. http://www.thecrimson.com/â¦/9/occupy-protest-shuts-down-harvard-yard/ (accessed November 10, 2011 ). Denizet-Lewis, Benoit . âThe Secret Court.â The Good Men Project, June 1, 2010. http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/the-secret-court/ (accessed October 30, 2011 ). Dershowitz Alan . âPowellâs Beau Ideal, Could Harvard Itself Pass the Harvard Test?â New Republic 179, no. 4, issue 3314 (July 22, 1978): 14â17. Dinnerstein, Leonard . âAntisemitism in the United States Today.â Patterns of Prejudice 22, no. 3 (Autumn 1988): 3â14. Donadio, Rachel, â96. âInterview with Elga Wasserman.â In Different Voices: A Journal Commemorating 25 Years of Coeducation at Yale, edited by Donadio, 22â24. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1995. Dong, Selena . âToo Many AsiansâThe Challenge of Fighting Discrimination Against Asian- Americans and Preserving Affirmative Action.â Stanford Law Review 47 (May 1995): 1027â1057. âEqual Access Admissions.â In Harvard Almanac 1975: A Report to Alumni and Friends of Harvard and Radcliffe. I, no. 1. Cambridge: Harvard University, December 1975. âFacts on Women.â Yale Alumni Magazine 33, no. 1 (October 1969): 23. Feldman, Noah . Op-Ed Contributor. âThe Triumphant Decline of the WASP,â New York Times, June 28, 2010, A19. June 27, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/opinion/28feldman.html (accessed October 20, 2010 ). Fetter, Henry D. âMeritocracy and Its Limits: Harvard, Yale and Columbia Law Schools before the Second World War.â In Antisemitism on the Campus: Past & Present, edited by Eunice G. Pollock , 121â137. Boston, MA: Academic Studies Press, 2011. 344âFirst Women at Princetonâ and âThe Coming of Coeducation.â Gender in the Academy: Women and Learning from Plato to Princeton. An Exhibition Celebrating the Twentieth Anniversary of Undergraduate Coeducation at Princeton University, organized by Natalie Zemon Davis, Anthony T. Grafton, Corinne Black, and Frances P. Healy, Princeton University Library Chronicle LXX (Autumn 1990â1991): 126â145, [PDF] LIIâPrinceton University Library.http://libweb.princeton.edu/libraries/firestone/rbsc/aids/libchron/LII-index.pdf (accessed August 30, 2012 ). Fish, Rachel . âStanding Up for Academic Integrity on Campus.â In Antisemitism on the Campus: Past & Present, edited by Eunice G. Pollock , 369â383. Boston, MA: Academic Studies Press, 2011. Fletcher, Owen . âRapelye: No Formula for Admissions.â Daily Princetonian. September 22, 2011. http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/frontpage/2007/02/21/ (accessed September 25, 2011 ). Folk, Elyssa âIt Was Thirty Years Ago Today: Yale Picks Up Its First Women.â Yale Daily News, May 19, 2000 (YUA). Foxhall, Emily . âGetting There: Disabled Students Adjust.â Yale Daily News. December 3, 2009. http://www.yaledailynews.com/â¦/getting-there-disabled-students-adjust/ (accessed September 21, 2011 ). Garlock, Stephanie B. , and Julie M. Zauzmer . âHarvard Houses Grapple with Accessibility.â News, The Harvard Crimson. March 11, 2011. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/â¦/3/â¦/accessible-students-house-harvar (accessed September 20, 2011 ). George, Michael C. and Alyza J. Sebenius . âBetween Harvard and Yale, a World of Difference,â Commencement 2012/ Year in Review Between Harvard and Yale, a World of Difference. News, May 24, 2012. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/5/24/international- harvard-ya/ (accessed May 30, 2012 ). Gertler, Howard and Steven Piccirillo . âStruggling against Misunderstanding.â In a series on â25 Years of Coeducation.â Daily Princetonian CXVIII, no. 110 (November 4, 1994): 1, 3. Gewertz, Ken . âHarvard News Office.â Harvard Gazette: History of the Japanese at Harvard, February 22, 2004, http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/02.26/11-japan.html (accessed November 23, 2010 ). Gideon, Gavan , and Caroline Tan . âDepartment of Education Ends Title IX Investigation.â Yale Daily News, June 15, 2012. http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2012/jun/15/department-education-ends-title-ix- investigation/ (accessed August 23, 2012 ). Ginsberg, Benjamin . âWhy University Administrators Tolerate Antisemitism.â In Antisemitism on the Campus: Past & Present, edited by Eunice G. Pollock , 3â22. Boston, MA: Academic Studies Press, 2011. Globe Staff. âTimeline of the Occupy Boston Movement.â Metro DeskâLocal News. December 10, 2011. http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2011/12 (accessed December 12, 2011 ). Golden, Daniel . âAn Analytic Survey of Legacy Preference.â In Affirmative Action for the Rich: Legacy Preferences in College Admissions, edited by. 345 Richard D. Kahlenberg , 71â99. New York and Washington, DC: Published by Century Foundation Press, and distributed by Brookings Institution Press, 2010. Richard D. Kahlenberg . âHarvard, Princeton in Discrimination Probe.â February 2, 2012. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012â02-02/harvard-targeted-in-u-s-asianamerican- discrimination-probe.html (accessed February 4, 2012 ). Gordon, Jeffrey . âInkyâs Era.â Yale Alumni Magazine 33, no. 6 (March 1970): 32â37. Graham, Hugh Davis. âCivil Rights Policy in the Carter Presidency.â In The Carter Presidency: Policy Choices in the Post New Deal Era, edited by Gary M. Fink and Hugh Davis Graham , 292â314. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1998. Grandoni, Dino . âFewer Yale Grads Are Going into FinanceâBusiness.â The Atlantic. December 21, 2011. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2011/12/chart-fewer-yale-grads-a/46521/ (accessed December 22, 2011 ). Grasgreen, Allie . âInclusive Athletics,â News: Inclusive AthleticsâInside Higher Ed, September 16, 2011, http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/09/16/ncaa_clarifies_policies (accessed September 18, 2011 ). Grasgreen, Allie . âNews: Tougher Climate for Test Givers.â Inside Higher Ed. March 1,2011. http://www.insidehighered.com/â¦/federal_settlement_with_medical_examiners_reinforces_ada regulations_for_testing_accommodations_for_students_with-disabilities (accessed March 3, 2011 ). Grater, Franci Levine . âHas Princetonâs Investment in Jewish Life Fallen on Deaf Ears?â JSPS.Com, The Jewish Student Press Service, New Voices: Campus Report. âIvy League Makeover.â Jewish Student Press ServiceâIvy League Makeover. http://www.shmoozenet.com/jsps/stories/princeton.shtml (accessed September 15, 2011 ). Groll, Elias J. , William N. White , and Justin C. Worland . âDrew Faust Endorses Return of ROTC.â Harvard Crimson. November 18, 2010, 1, 3. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/11/18/dont-harvard-military-rotc/ (accessed November 19, 2010 ). âHarvard Clinches 14th Ivy League Football Championship.â November 12, 2011. http://www.ivyleaguesports.com/â¦/2011â¦/Harvard_Clinches_14th_Ivy_L (accessed November 15, 2011 ). âHarvard Forms Army ROTC Relationship.â Harvard Magazine. March 21, 2012. http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/03/harvard-forms-army-rotcrelationship (accessed March 23, 2012 ). âHarvard Makes the Case for Diversity.â Harvard Magazine. JulyâAugust 2012, http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/08/harvard-files-amicus-brief (accessed August 15, 2012 ). Hechinger, Fred M. âMore Negroes Accepted by Ivy League Colleges.â New York Times, April 14, 1968, clipping, Arthur J. Horton Collection on Coeducation 1967â1980, Official Papers, Box 2, folder 11, PUA. Heldeman, Rosalind S. and Alan A. Sofen . âWith Merger Sealed, Task Turns to Dean Search.â Harvard Crimson. Monday, October 1, 1999. http://www.thecrimson.com\news\article.asp?ref=6692 (accessed June 10, 2010 ). 346 Henry, Don III. âPrivilege, Diversity Meet.â In a series on âPrinceton University Celebrates 250 Years.â Trenton Times, March 10, 1996, A1, A14. Hines, Woody â12. âOccupy Princeton Protests Create a Stir on Campus.â Princeton Alumni Weekly 112, no. 7 (February 8, 2012). http://paw.princeton.edu/issues/2012/02/08/pages/0539/index.xml (accessed May 22, 2012 ). Hopewell, Stephen . âThe Three Pillars of American Civilization.â The Heritage American. December 22, 2008. http://heritageamerican.wordpress.com/2008/12/22/the-three-pillars-of- american-civilization (accessed June 30, 2011 ). Jan, Tracy . âAfter 4 Decades, Harvard Opens Door to ROTC.â The Boston Globe. December 21, 2010. http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2010/12/21/after_4_decades_harvard _/ (accessed December 23, 2010 ). Jan, Tracy . âHarvard Links ROTC Return to End of âDonât Ask.ââ The Boston Globe. September 23, 2010. http://www.boston.com/news/â¦/harvard_links_rotc_return_to_end_of_dont_ask/ (accessed September 30, 2010 ). Jan, Tracy , âHarvard Revamps Its Corporation, Expansion, Term Limits for Governors.â The Boston Globe. December 7, 2010. http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2010/12/07/harvard_revamps_its_corp / (accessed December 8, 2010 ). Jan, Tracy . âHarvard, Navy to Sign ROTC Pact.â The Boston Globe, March 4, 2011. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/03/04/harvard_navy_to_sign _rotc_pact/ (accessed March 5, 2011 ). Jaschik, Scott . âHow They Really Get In.â New research on how elite colleges make admissions decisions.â¦ April 9, 2012. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/04/09/new- research-how-elite-colleges-make-admissions-decisionsâ¦ (accessed April 12, 2012 ). âJBHEâs 2003 Measure of the Progress of Black Student Enrollments at the Nationâs Highest- Ranked Colleges and Universities.â JBHE, no. 41 (Autumn 2003): 7, 6â14. Jen, Gish . âTao of Tough Love.â Review of Amy Chua. Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. New York: Penguin, 2011. In Boston Sunday Globe, January 16, 2011, K6. Jencks, Stephen F. âDean Benderâs Report.â Harvard Crimson. September 30, 1961. http://www.thecrimson.com/â¦/1961/â¦/dean-benders-reportpex-dean-wilbur-j/ (accessed June 12, 2011 ). Johnson, Alvin . âThe Rising Tide of Anti-Semitism.â Survey Graphic 28, no. 2 (February 1939): 113â116. http://newdeal.feri.org/survey/39a01.htm (August 30, 2012) Jones, Bessie Zaban . âTo the Rescue of the Learned: The Asylum Fellowship Plan at Harvard, 1938â1940.â Harvard Library Bulletin XXXII, no. 3 (Summer 1984): 205â238 (read in Harvard College Library, June 10, 1995). Jones, Frank S. âA Half-Century of Change: Race, Admissions, and the Harvard Community.â In Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: The Harvard Class 347of 1950 Reflects on the Past and Looks to the Future, edited by George S. Mumford , 126â148. Privately Published by the Harvard Class of 1950 at the Time of Their Fiftieth Reunion, Travers Press, 2000. Kim, Caroline , â96. âThrough Womenâs Eyesâ (previously published in January 1994 >The New Journal). In Different Voices: A Journal Commemorating 25 Years of Coeducation at Yale, edited by Rachel Donadio , â96, 18â21. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1995. Kolowich, Steve . âHow Much Extra Time?â Inside Higher Ed. May 18, 2010. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/05/18/princeton (accessed September 22, 2011 ). Kotschnig, Walter M. âLimiting Student Enrollments.â Reprinted from The Educational Record (July 1937): 3â16. Lamb, John D. âThe Real Affirmative Action Babies: Legacy Preferences at Harvard and Yale.â Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 26, no.3 (Spring 1993): 491â521. Lasson, Kenneth . âAntisemitism in the Academic Voice.â In Antisemitism on the Campus: Past & Present, edited by Eunice G. Pollock , 292â314. Boston, MA: Academic Studies Press, 2011. Lau, Tatiana . âLegacy Study Raises Questions about Policy.â Daily Princetonian. March 29, 2007. http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2007/03/29/17854/ (accessed June 26, 2011 ). Lear, Jonathan . âHow Yale Selected Her First Coeds.â New York Times Magazine, April 13, 1969, 52â75. Leitch, Alexander . A Princeton Companion. Princeton University Press, 1978: âAdmission,â http://etcweb.princeton.edu/CampusWWW/Companion/admission.html; âWomen.â http://etcweb.princeton.edu/CampusWWW/Companion/women.html (accessed August 30, 2012 ). Lewin, Tamar , and Anemona Hartocollis . âColleges Rethink R.O.T.C. After âDonât Askâ Repeal.â December 21, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/education/22colleges.html (accessed December 22, 2010 ). Print version appeared December 22, 2010, A18 of the New York edition. Lewin, Tamar . âFaculty Gives Yale a Dose of Dissent Over Singapore.â Singapore Partnership Creates Dissension at YaleâNYTimes.com, April 4, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/â¦/singapore- partnership-creates-dissensionyale (accessed May 30, 2012 ). Lewin, Tamar âUniversities Reshaping Education on the Web.â The New York Times. July 17, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/â¦/education/consortium-of-colleges-takes-online (accessed July 18, 2012 ). Ligato, Lorenzo . âElis start to Occupy.â November 16, 2011. http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2011/nov16/elis-start-to-occupy (accessed May 29, 2012 ). Liptak, Adam . âCollege Diversity Nears Its Last Stand.â New York Times, October 16, 2011, SR4 (accessed October 20, 2011 ). Liu, Goodwin . âAffirmative Action in Higher Education: The Diversity Rationale and the Compelling Interest Test.â Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 33 (1998): 381â423. 348 Lu, Carmen . âAdmissions Game Getting Riskier.â Graph, Yale Daily News. April 5, 2010 (accessed April 10, 2010 ). Mandeville, Linda . âWomen and the Ivies, a Report on the Integration of Women into the Mainstream of Ivy League Academic and Extracurricular Life.â Columbia: The Magazine of Columbia University 8, no. 2 (October 1982): 12â19. Massey, Douglas S. , Margarita Mooney , Kimberly C. Torres , and Camille Z. Charles . âBlack Immigrants and Black Natives Attending Selective Colleges and Universities in the United States.â American Journal of Education 113, no. 2 (February 2007): 243â271. Mazur, Diane H. Op-Ed Contributor. âThe R.O.T.C. Myth.â The Myth of the R.O.T.C. Ban, NYTimes.com. October 24, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/opinion/25Mazur.html (accessed December 1, 2010 ). Print version appeared October 25, 2010, A27 of the New York edition. McCain, Nina. âMatina Horner Moves On Now, Which Way Will Radcliffe Move?â Boston Globe. March 6, 1989. http://DIALOG@CARL (accessed June 10, 2010 ). MacCracken, Henry N. âA University Problem.â Menorah Journal IX, no. 4 (October 1923): 285â288. Mcauley, James K. âThe Menâs Final Clubs.â Flyby, The Harvard Crimson. October 5, 2010. http://www.thecrimson.com/series/the-punch/article/2010/10/5/series-men-final-clubs/ (accessed October 15, 2010 ). McIntyre, Joyce K. âDean Faces Myriad Challenges.â April 3, 2000. News. The Harvard Crimson. http://www.thecrimson.com/â¦/2000/â¦/3/dean-faces-myriad-challenges-pwhen-mary/ (accessed August 25, 2012 ). McLeod, Heather R. âFrom the Double Bind to the Double Burden: Women and the âFear of Success.ââ Radcliffe Quarterly 75, no. 2 (June 1989): 7â8. McLeod, Heather R. , âMatina Hornerâs Presidency: The College That Refused to Disappear.â Radcliffe Quarterly 75, no. 2 (June 1989): 2â6. McLeod, Heather R. .âPresident Bok Reflects on How President Horner Made A Difference.â Radcliffe Quarterly 75, no. 2 (June 1989): 9â10. Merrigan, Tara W. âDue to Ban, Trans Man at Harvard Law School Cannot Serve in U.S.â¦.â Part I, May 9, 2011. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/5/9/military-jack-dont-ask/ (accessed May 20, 2011 ). McLeod, Heather R. , âSafe Restrooms: Basic for Some.â The Harvard Crimson. Part II, May 11, 2011. âA Luxury for Trans Men and Women on Campus.â http://www.thecrimson.com/â¦/2011/â¦/11/gender-bathrooms-neutral-bathroom/ (accessed December 12, 2012 ). McLeod, Heather R. âTolerance at Harvard: Students Lag Behind Administration.â Part III in Three Part Series, May 13, 2011. News. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/â¦/trans-morgan- students-name-harvard/ (accessed May 20, 2011 ). Miraval, Nathalie R. âOccupy Harvard Dome Violated City Codes.â News, The Harvard Crimson, January 23, 2012. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/1/23/occupy-harvard- dome (accessed January 26, 2012 ). 349 Munford, Luther. âCoeducation at Princeton: The Struggle of an Idea at a University in Transition.â Daily Princetonian (October 21, 1969): 5â14, Arthur J. Horton Collection on Coeducation 1967â1980, Official Papers, PUA. âNative American honored, Harvard Foundation unveils portrait of first Native American grad.â December 17, 2010, http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/12/native-american-honored/ (accessed December 20, 2010 ). Newcomer, Eric P. , and Anna M. Yeung . âAccommodate to Learn.â FM, The Harvard Crimson, October 21, 2010, http://www.thecrimson.com/article/â¦/students-time- accommodations-mary/ (accessed December 13, 2012 ). Norden, Merrell â78. âKeeping the Faith: In a Seat of Secular Learning, Religious Observance Thrives.â Princeton Alumni Weekly 109, no. 6 (December 17, 2008): 1, 18â22. OâConnor, Clare. âMark Zuckerbergâs Wife Priscilla Chan: A New Brand of Billionaireâ¦â http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2012/05/20/mark-zuckerbergs-wife-pr/ (accessed May 23, 2012 ). Paley, Amit R. âThe Secret Court of 1920â Part I, Harvard Crimsonâs Weekly Supplement, Fifteen Minutes, November 21, 2002; âSilenced Voices Finally Speak Out in âPerkins 28.ââ Harvard Crimson, November 13, 2008 (accessed October 30, 2011 ). Pannell, Courtney . ââForty Years of Women at Yale.â Yale Daily News. September 21, 2009. http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/features/2009/09/21/forty-years-women-yale/; updated: Thursday, December 3, 2009 (accessed September 10, 2011 ). Pennington, Bill . âFinancial Aid Changes Game as Ivy Sports Teams Flourish.â New York Times, December 22, 2011; print version, December 23, 2011, A1 of the New York edition, âFinancial Aid Changes Game as Sports Teams in Ivies Riseâ¦â http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/23/sports/financial-aid-changes-gaâ¦ (accessed December 23, 2011 ). Perkins, Linda . âThe African American Female Elite: The Early History of African American Women in the Seven Sister Colleges, 1880â1960.â Symposium: The History of Women in Education. Harvard Educational Review 67, no. 4 (Winter 1997): 726â729. Piccirillo, Steven and Howard Gertler. âFighting for a Place at the âStreet.â In a series on â25 Years of Coeducation,â Daily Princetonian CXVIII, no. 112 (November 8, 1994): 1, 7. Pollack, Eunice . âAfrican Americans and the Legitimization of Antisemitism on Campusâ In Antisemitism on the Campus: Past & Present, edited by Eunice G. Pollock , 216â233. Boston, MA: Academic Studies Press, 2011. Prawdzik, Ben . âSupreme Court to Rule on Race in College Admissions.â Yale Daily News, February 24, 2012. http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2012/feb/24/supreme-court-to-rule- on/ (accessed February 26, 2012 ). Sander quoted by Prawdzik. Press, Aida K. â Linda S. Wilson : Radcliffeâs Synergistic New President.â Radcliffe Quarterly 75, no. 3 (September 1989): 1â4. 350âPrinceton Celebrates Sir Gordon Wuâs Extraordinary Support.â May 2007. Aspire: A Plan for PrincetonâNews & Video. http://giving.princeton.edu/news/archive/wu.xml (accessed September 15, 2011 ). Promoting White Supremacy in Yaleâs Alumni Magazine, Inside Higher Education, http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/08/01/qt/promoting_white_supremacyâ¦, August 1, 2011 (accessed August 8, 2011 ). Ramirez, Deborah . âMulticultural Empowerment: Itâs Not Just Black and White Anymore.â Symposium on Race and Remedy in a Multicultural Society. Stanford Law Review 1995, 47, no.5 (May): 957â992. Rampell, Catherine . New York Timesâ Economix blog, âOut of Harvard, and Into Finance.â NYTimes.com, December 21, 2011, http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/out-of- harvard-and-into-finance/ (accessed December 22, 2011 ). Robbins, Monika L. S. and Hana N. Rouse. âGreeks Acquire Social Spaces.â Harvard Crimson. September 22, 2011, A1, A6. Robbins, Monika L. S. and Hana N. Rouse âOff Campus, Harvard Goes Greek.â Year In Review, Harvard Crimson, Commencement 2011, May 26, 2011, 18â19. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/5/26/sorority-greek-sororities-life/ (accessed June 2, 2011 ). Rosovsky, Henry . âFrom Periphery to Center.â In The Jewish Experience at Harvard and Radcliffe, introduction to an exhibition presented by the Harvard Semitic Museum on the occasion of Harvardâs 350th anniversary, edited by Nitza Rosovsky , September, 53â58. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986. Rouse, Hana N. âHarvard Looks to Yale as House Renewal Approaches.â News, The Harvard Crimson. March 2, 2011. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/3/2/yale-college-harvard- renovation/ (accessed September 21, 2011 ). Rouse, Hana N. âRush Figures Set New Record.â Harvard Crimson. February 7, 2011. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/2/7/women-rush-sorority-number/ (accessed February 15, 2011 ). Rouse, Hana N. and Justin C. Worland . âU.S. Department of Education Ends Inquiry into Harvard Admissions.â February 15, 2012. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/2/17/admissions-department-education-withdrawn/ (accessed February 20, 2012 ). Sacchetti, Maria . âCase Deepens Immigration Debate.â The Boston Globe. June 20, 2010. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/06/20/case_deepens_immigr ation/ (accessed September 20, 2010 ). Sacchetti, Maria âHarvard President, Student Team up for the Dream Act.â Boston Globe. September 16, 2010. http://www.boston.com/â¦/harvard_president_student_team_up_for_the_drâ¦ (accessed September 20, 2010 ). Sanua, Marianne . âStages in the Development of Jewish Life at Princeton University.â American Jewish History LXXVI, no. 4 (June 1987): 391â415. Saulny, Susan , and Jacques Steinberg . âRace Remixed, On College Forms, A Question of Race, or Races, Can Perplex.â New York Times. June 13, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/us/14admissions.html?pagewanted=all 351(accessed June 15, 2011 ). Print version appeared June 14, 2011, A1 of the New York edition. Schindler, Emma . âYalies with Learning Disabilities Find Support.â The Yale Herald. November 5, 2010. http://yaleherald.com/news/yalies-with-learning-disabilities-fâ¦(accessed September 21, 2011 ). Seager, Ilana . âSOM Announces Largest Alumni Gift to Date.â Yale Daily News. http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/university-news/2010/01/07 (accessed July 10, 2011 ). Seltzer, Anne-Marie. âSymposium II President Hornerâs Accomplishments: Opportunities for Education and New Scholarship.â Radcliffe Quarterly 75, no. 3 (September 1989): 25. Sloane, Wick . âVeterans Day 2011.â Essay: Annual count of veterans on elite college campuses. Inside Higher Ed. http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2011/11/11/essay-annual- count-veterans-elite-college-campuses (accessed November 12, 2011 ). Spence, Muriel Morisey. âChanging the Face of Higher Education: More Women, Minorities on Campus.â Radcliffe Quarterly 75, no. 2 (June 1989): 12â13. Springer, Ann . âAffirming Diversity at Michigan.â Academe 89, no. 5 (SeptemberâOctober 2003): 54â58. St. John, Warren. âFor Some Women at Harvard, Greek Is a Scream.â New York Times. February 20, 2005. http://www.nytimes.com âº Fashion & Style (accessed October 15, 2010 ). Stampnitzky, Lisa . âHow Does âCultureâ Become âCapitalâ? Cultural and Institutional Struggles Over âCharacter and Personalityâ at Harvard.â Sociological Perspectives 49, no. 4 (2006): 461â481. http://cisac.stanford.edu/publications/how_does_culture_become_ (accessed June 10, 2011 ). Steinberg, Jacques . âAfter 25 Years, a Road Map for Diversity on Campus.â New York Times. June 24, 2003. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/24/politics/24ASSE.html?th=&p (accessed June 26, 2003 ). Sternhell, Carol R. ââCliffe Finally Proposes Marriage to Ten Thousand Men of Harvard.â Harvard Crimson. February 23, 1969, 1. Stille, Alexander . Op-Ed. âThe Paradox of the New Elite.â New York Times. October 22, 2011; Print version, October 23, 2011, SR1 of the New York edition. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/â¦/social-inequality-and-the-new-elite.html? (accessed November 1, 2011 ). Synnott, Marcia G. âA Friendly Rivalry: Yale and Princeton Universities Pursue Parallel Paths to Coeducation.â In Going Coed: Womenâs Experiences in Formerly Menâs Colleges and Universities, 1950â2000, edited by Leslie Miller-Bernal and Susan L. Poulson , 111â150. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2004. Synnott, Marcia G. AntiâSemitism and American Universities: Did Quotas Follow the Jews?â In AntiâSemitism and American History, edited by David A. Gerber , 233â271. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1986. 352 Synnott, Marcia G. âThe Changing âHarvard Studentâ: Ethnicity, Race, and Gender.â In Yards and Gates: Gender in Harvard and Radcliffe History, edited by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich , 195â211. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, a division of St. Martinâs Press, LLC, 2004. For online version: 28synnottâwith changes. pages.pdf (215.4Kb; PDF). This article is made available under the terms and conditions as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn- 3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA St. Martinâs Press, LLC âThe Evolving Diversity Rationale in University Admissions: From Regents v. Bakke to the University of Michigan Cases.â Symposium issue on âRevisiting Brown v. Board of Education: Fifty Years of Legal and Social Debate.â Cornell Law Review 90, no. 2 (January 2005): 463â504. St. Martinâs Press, LLC âThe Half-Opened Door: Researching Admissions Discrimination at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton.â American Archivist 45, no. 2 (Spring 1982): 175â187. St. Martinâs Press, LLC âJerome Davis Greene.â In American National Biography, edited by John A. Garraty and Mark A. Carnes , Vol. 9, Gilbert-Hand., 527â28. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. St. Martinâs Press, LLC Review of Jerome Karabel. The Chosen. American Journal of Education 113, no. 4 (August 2007): 663â670. Tavernise, Sabrina . âIn Census, Young Americans Increasingly Diverse.â NYTimes.com. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/us/05census.html (accessed February 5, 2011 ). Thean, Tara . âThe Trodden Path: Applying as a Legacy.â Daily Princetonian. May 12, 2010. http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2010/05/12/26151/ (accessed June 26, 2011 ). Thelin, John R. âThe Diversity of College Diversity.â History News Network. June 19, 2011. http://hnn.us/node/140059 (accessed June 20, 2011 ). The Casebook on Coeducation at Amherst College. Final Report of the Amherst Visiting Committee on Coeducation, chaired by Theodore P. Greene, September 1974; Final Report by the Administration. Based on Inquiries about Coeducation of the Committee on Admission, August 24, 1974. Howell Chickering, Jr., Chairman; President John Ward Williams, ex officio, Schlesinger Library, Harvard University. âThe Coeducation White Paper: Everything You Need to Know.â Yale Daily News. November 7, 1968, YUA. âThe Education of Women at Princeton. A Special Report. A Report on the Desirability and Feasibility of Princeton Entering Significantly into the Education of Women at the Undergraduate Levelâ [completed on July 12]. Princeton Alumni Weekly LXIX, no. 1 (September 24, 1968): 3â56. âThe Progress of Admissions of Black Students at the Nationâs Highest-Ranked Colleges and Universities.â Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (JBHE), no. 13 (Autumn 1996): 6â11. Thernstrom, Stephan . âThe Black-White Student Mismatch Problem in University Admissions.â JBHE, no. 6 (Winter 1994/1995): 62â64. Toole, Brendan , and J. M. Colon . âOccupy Princeton Group Joins May Day Strike in New York City.â May 3, 2012. http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2012/05/03/30872/ (accessed May 22, 2012 ). Trower, Cathy and Richard P. Chait . âForum: Faculty Diversity. Why Women and Minorities are Underrepresented in the Professoriate, and Fresh Ideas 353to Induce Needed Reform.â Harvard Magazine 104, no. 4 (MarchâApril 2002): 33â37, 98. Ulrich, Laurel Thatcher . âHarvardâs Womanless History, Completing the Univerityâs self- portrait.â Harvard Magazine (NovemberâDecember 1999): 50â59. âUnited States Navy Announces New ROTC Unit at Yale, Returning Naval ROTC to Connecticut.â YaleNews, May 26, 2011. http://news.yale.edu/2011/05/26/united-states-navy- announces-nâ¦ (accessed May 29, 2011 ). Vanzis, James . âCostly Boarding Schools Offer More Aid: Competition for Students Grows.â Boston Globe. April 18, 2006. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/04/18/costly_boarding_schools_offer_more_ aid (accessed January 15, 2010 ). Veysey, Laurence . âThe History of University Admissions.â Reviews in American History 8, no. 1 (1980): 115â121. Waliany, Zoya . âChallenging Legacy Bias in Admissions.â The Daily Texan. February 9, 2012. http://www.dailytexanonline.com/â¦/challenging-legacy-bias-admissions (accessed February 24, 2012 ). Walsh, Colleen . âBusiness School Announces Tata Gift; Two Initiatives.â Harvard News, October 14, 2010. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/10/hbs_gift/ (accessed October 20, 2010 ). Wang, Judy . âUniv. Ranked 7th for Black Frosh.â Yale Daily News, November 9, 2006. http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/â¦/univ-ranked-7th-for-black-frosh/ (accessed August 2, 2012 ). Wells, Alexander J. B. âWe All Live Here Together: Coming Out at Harvard.â FM, The Crimson, February 24, 2011. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/2/24/out-people-mccarthy-one/ (accessed March 3, 2011 ). Whittlesey, Bob . âRoot of Ivy Coeducation: Yaleâs Put-Down by Vassar.â Daily Princetonian. February 1969, 9, 13, 15, clipping, Arthur J. Horton Collection on Coeducation 1967â1980, Official Papers, PUA. Winston, Andrew S. , ââObjectionable Traitsâ: Antisemitism and the Hiring of Jewish Psychologists.â In Antisemitism on the Campus: Past & Present, edited by Eunice G. Pollock , 94â120. Boston, MA: Academic Studies Press, 2011. Zimmerman, Jonathan . âColleges Resist Asian Americansâ Success.â Philadelphia Inquirer, April 2, 2012. http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/inquirer/146010045.html (accessed June 29, 2012 ). 10th Anniversary Symposium. âCelebrate 10 Years! Crossing Boundaries at the Radcliffe Institute,â held at The Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, October 8â9, 2009. Panel VI: âRadcliffe: Reflections 10 Years Later,â October 9, 2009. âRadcliffe Institute for Advanced Study Tenth Anniversary.â Harvard Magazine. http://harvardmagazine.com/2010/01/radcliffe-institute-for-advâ¦ (accessed August 30, 2012 ). 354 Synnott, Marcia G. âThe Changing âRadcliffe Studentâ: Coeducation âby degrees,â.â presented October 19, 2001, New Haven, CT, at the History of Education Society annual meeting, at the invitation of Yale University as part of its Tricentennial Celebration. Synnott, Marcia G. âStudent Diversity at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton Universities, 1920s to 2010,â presented November 5, 2010, Cambridge, MA, at the History of Education Society annual meeting. Carey, Jennifer Davis . âTradition and Transition: Achieving Diversity at Harvard and Radcliffe.â An Analytic Paper Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Education of Harvard University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education, 1995. Cowan, Dorrit Ann . âSingle-Sex to Coeducation at Princeton and Yale: Two Case Studies.â Ed.D. diss., Teachers College, Columbia University, 1982. Haynie, Aisha Cecilia . âNot Just Black: An Analysis of Ethnicity and Its Influence on Pathways to Academic Success Amongst Black Undergraduates at Harvard University.â Honors A.B. thesis in Social Relations, Harvard University, 2000. Kabaservice, Gregory . âKingman Brewster and the Rise and Fall of the Progressive Establishment.â Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1999. Karen, David . âWho Gets into Harvard? Selection and Exclusion at an Elite College.â Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1985. Richmond, Afrah Daaimah . âUnmasking the Boston Brahmin: Race and Liberalism in the Long Struggle for Reform at Harvard and Radcliffe, 1945â1990.â Ph.D. diss., New York University, 2011. Ruiz, Raul . âAlien Guests in a Strange House: Chicano Students at Harvard College.â Ed.D. thesis in Education, Harvard University, 1988. Synnott, Marcia Graham . âA Social History of Admissions Policies at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, 1900â1930.â Ph.D. diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1974.