Harvard Newstalk

Harvard released its admissions demographic data for the Class of 2028 last week. This year more so than many years past, those numbers were a big deal.

Few things at Harvard are as tightly kept a secret as its admissions process. Every year, tens of thousands of applicants around the world hit submit, hope for the best. And then… it’s sort of a black box. The applications get sent off through the portal. Harvard’s admissions officers do their thing. And then on decision day, people get a yes, a maybe, or a no. 

At least, that’s how it used to be. For the past decade, Harvard’s admissions processes have been under the microscope. Its details scrutinized again, and again, and again — in the public eye, in a public controversy that made its way all the way up to the Supreme Court. 

It hinged on how Harvard thinks about race in its admission process, and whether its practices give preference to some racial groups more than others. On one end, we had SFFA: Students for Fair Admissions, led by a man named Ed Blum, alleging that Harvard’s admissions affirmative action practices did unfairly advantage some racial groups more than others. That they did break the law. On the other, we had Harvard insisting that affirmative action was absolutely essential to creating a more diverse Harvard. That there’d be no way to maintain its diversity without it. 

In June of last year, after nearly a decade of lawsuits, the Supreme Court weighed in. 

In a decision that made waves around the world, the Supreme Court ruled SFFA’s way. It said that Harvard would have to end all of its racial preferences in admissions. And Harvard said it would comply.

So all eyes turned to Harvard’s demographic numbers for the Class of 2028: the first class applied and admitted after the ruling. The first chance to see the ruling’s true impact on the University. 

Last week, after being delayed for months, those numbers came out. 

If people thought those numbers would tell the whole story, they were disappointed. Because they didn’t. But, if you looked closely, there was still a lot to see. And that’s exactly what our reporters did. This week on Newstalk, Harvard’s demographics for the class of 2028.

Newstalk is co-hosted and co-produced by Frank S. Zhou and Yael S. Goldstein.

Creators & Guests

Host
Frank S. Zhou
Founding Host and Co-Producer, Newstalk at The Harvard Crimson (heard in 40+ states, 100+ countries, 2023 ACP National Podcast of the Year 2nd Place)
Guest
Elyse Goncalves
Admissions and Financial Aid Reporter, The Harvard Crimson
Guest
Matan Josephy
Admissions and Financial Aid Reporter, The Harvard Crimson

What is Harvard Newstalk?

Newstalk is The Harvard Crimson's flagship news podcast series. Join our reporters each week to hear the most important stories from the Harvard community and beyond. Streamed in all 50 states. Heard in 100+ countries. 2024 Associated Collegiate Press National Podcast of the Year.

Frank S. Zhou:

[This transcript was generated automatically by Transistor. Its accuracy may vary.]

Frank S. Zhou:

So last week, Harvard released its demographic data for the class of 2028. And this year, more so than many other years in the past, those numbers were a big deal. To understand why, you have to know this. There are few things at Harvard that are as tightly kept a secret as its admissions process. Every year, tens of thousands of applicants around the world hit submit and hope for the best, and then it's sort of a black box.

Frank S. Zhou:

The applications get sent off through the portal. Harvard's admissions officers do their thing. And then on decision day, people get a yes, a maybe, or a no. Or at least that's how it used to be. Because for the past decade, Harvard's admissions processes have been under the microscope.

Frank S. Zhou:

Its details scrutinized again and again and again in the public eye, in a public controversy that made its way all the way up to the Supreme Court. It all hinged on how Harvard thinks about race in its admissions process and whether its admissions practices give preferences to some racial groups more than others. On the one end, we had a group called SFFA, Students For Fair Admissions, led by a man named Ed Bloom, alleging that Harvard's affirmative action processes and its admissions did unfairly advantage some racial groups more than others. That they did break the law. On the other, we had Harvard insisting that affirmative action was absolutely essential to creating a more diverse Harvard, that there'd be no way to maintain its diversity without it.

Frank S. Zhou:

So in June of last year, after nearly a decade of lawsuits, the Supreme Court weighed in. In a decision that made waves around the world, the Supreme Court ruled SFFA's way. It said that Harvard would have to end all of its racial preferences and admissions, and Harvard said that it would comply. So all eyes turned to Harvard's demographic numbers for the class of 2028. The 1st class to apply and be admitted after the ruling, the 1st chance to see the ruling's true impact on the university.

Frank S. Zhou:

And last week, after being delayed for months, those numbers came out. And if people thought those numbers would tell the whole story, they were disappointed because they didn't. But if you looked closely, there was still a lot to see. And that's exactly what our reporters did. This week on News Talk, Harvard's demographics for the class of 2028.

Frank S. Zhou:

From 14 Plympton Street, I'm Frank Zhou. This is News Talk. After the break. Ever since high school, we've loved reading The Economist, Not only because it helps us broaden our perspective on everything that's going on in the world, but also because it helps us and our friends stay on top of expert analysis.

Yael S. Goldstein:

That's why we're so excited to share that free student plans are now available for Harvard Newstalk listeners. Get independent journalism for independent thinkers. Explore videos, audio, articles, podcasts, and more. And be the wiz the world needs.

Frank S. Zhou:

Just to give you an idea of what I'm talking about, I've pulled out something that caught my eye this week. How Boston became the safest big city in America, and geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power. The Economist's deeply researched analysis allows me to hone in on what matters the most.

Yael S. Goldstein:

And if you're not a student, The Economist offers monthly, annual, and multiyear plans, some with a free trial.

Frank S. Zhou:

Go to economist.com/harvardnewstock and sign up today. That's economist.com/harvardnewstock.

Matan H. Josephy:

My name is Matan Josephy.

Elyse C. Goncalves:

And I'm Elyse Goncalves. And we cover admissions and financial aid for the Harvard Crimson.

Frank S. Zhou:

Thank you so much. So Harvard released its demographic data for the class of 2028 last week. And there's quite a bit to talk about. Elise and Matan, both of you have been covering admissions for a very long time and did a deep dive into all of this as it came out. So tell us what the data actually shows this year.

Elyse C. Goncalves:

Yeah. So this year, Harvard saw the number of black students enrolled in the class of 2028 drop by 4% from last year. They reported that last year's numbers were, 18% black students. This year, that's 14. They also saw that Asian American enrollment stayed at 37% from this year and last year, and that Hispanic or Latino enrollment rose 2% from 14% last year to 16% in the class of 20 28.

Elyse C. Goncalves:

And they shared again that 1% of students identified as Native American, which was a decrease of 1% from last year, and then fewer than 1% of students identified as native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, which was the same as what they reported last year.

Frank S. Zhou:

Yeah. So the top line coming out of these demographic numbers was, oh, you know, the percentage of black students has dropped 4% from last year. You know, in some ways, Harvard was in a really tough position before these numbers came out because it'd be really hard to satisfy anyone fully. Tell us a little bit about just what position they were in.

Matan H. Josephy:

Yeah. I mean, well, Lisa and I spoke to a pretty substantial number of experts, stakeholders, people involved in in all these kinds of deliberations or conversations around demographic data both before and after the release. And the sense that we got from a lot of people who we spoke to was that off the bat, I think as you mentioned, there really is no winning for the university. Right. Heading into this release, which was so wildly anticipated and delayed.

Matan H. Josephy:

Right. This came up months later than it usually does. There was really no circumstance where Harvard emerges without substantial criticism. If it revealed data that showed a steep decline in black or Hispanic enrollment, and that maybe be a more expected result given the Supreme Court's ruling summer before last summer. But at the same time, you know, that would that would bring in an honest thought of criticism around the fact that there was an enormous drop in black enrollment immediately, right, which is, you know, for advocates and alumni and around the world in the country who, who have been supportive of Harvard's racial diversity, that is a huge loss.

Matan H. Josephy:

Conversely, little to no decline or even an increase in black or Hispanic enrollment would also do far from save the university in any sense. Might be a victory to advocates of diversity, but at the same time could invite questions of compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling and even lead to speculation about whether Harvard will get sued again. But I think at the same time, this is an admissions process that sees tens of thousands of applicants every year that is held to an incredibly high standard academically by people around the country in the world and that now is at stake. And so that kind of process that works best and really has only ever really worked under such secrecy, there is something pretty incompatible about that with the enormous amount of scrutiny and anticipation that now goes into it, given the rulings result in 2023. This is the first time that that release has ever been so, so anticipated and so scrutinized.

Matan H. Josephy:

And that's going to keep going. Right. Because compliance is so difficult to measure. I don't know if we're ever going to go back to the days when Harvard's admissions process is just kind of swept away and not really looked at like it was maybe in 2013 before SFA suit Harvard. You know, we've we've had 10 years of scrutiny, and that's that's not going to go away.

Frank S. Zhou:

Yeah. I mean, 10 years of scrutiny, not just on Harvard, but also huge questions about black box admissions processes for these colleges and universities. So other schools also had to release demographic data in the wake of the Supreme Court decision. You know, tell us about the numbers of other schools and what those showed.

Elyse C. Goncalves:

Yeah. So other schools kind of saw a myriad of different responses, which I think is really, really crucial to emphasize when we're talking about admissions as a whole. The expectation that Harvard put forward and a lot of other schools put forward during the Supreme Court case was that they would see a drop in diversity, specifically a drop in black enrollment without using practices used in affirmative action. That wasn't the case at some schools. Yale and Princeton are 2 really good examples of this.

Elyse C. Goncalves:

Yale and Princeton both saw a decrease in Asian American enrollment, and saw very little change in their numbers as a whole. They're obviously going to face some criticism for that and already have faced criticism for the fact that their numbers did not change as drastically as they, you know, submitted amicus briefs about. But they were pretty stable. MIT and Brown on the other hand were not. Both saw really major drops in the number of black enrolled students in their incoming freshman class.

Elyse C. Goncalves:

And that's also a really crucial thing to notice, because Harvard falls somewhat in the middle of that. Yale and Princeton with very little change and MIT and Brown with a lot of change. Harvard kind of should fall in between the cracks, but I think that's something that, like, isn't quite accurate to claim because all of these numbers will be scrutinized in very different ways. Harvard as a whole has different admissions practices than other schools, and so you can't quite compare the numbers in the same way. Harvard also changed the way in which they report their data this year, which makes it a lot harder to compare to other schools.

Elyse C. Goncalves:

In past years, what Harvard has done is they've submitted their data as a percentage of the entire class. So the percentage of black enrolled students would be a percent of the entire freshman class. This year, they changed that, and they only submitted it as a percent of the entire domestic freshman class and the entire freshman class that reported their race data.

Frank S. Zhou:

Which, I mean, is good to highlight here because a huge part of the Supreme Court trial was about eliminating racial preferences and admissions practices, which also means that students who don't want their race to be impacting their admissions decision are probably more likely to indicate that they don't want to disclose their racial preferences. So I mean, it's not like you're just controlling for something. In some ways, it almost feels like a pretty meaningful change. Right?

Matan H. Josephy:

Yeah. And and the initial release just say that it was recalculated to account for the people who didn't submit their race when applying. Or they didn't take much of a an analysis on the Crimson's part, which then was corroborated by several experts that we spoke to, to realize that it was likely a bigger difference than just that. Harvard went back and redid results, for the class of 2027, ostensibly in an effort to make the comparison between those two easier. And even as we've tried to piece together what their math was, which I will say they haven't really specified, we've noticed that the college's response has been to very much kind of close ranks and not really release much information about their actual methodology in doing this right.

Matan H. Josephy:

It's not our job to speculate where numbers are exactly coming from. But our assumption, our working assumption here is that this is a university that in the wake of the trial has really kind of pulled together and tightened its lips and has become it has become much less willing to share information about exactly what it's doing, how it's getting to these numbers and even really where these numbers are coming from, which is not necessarily a marker of dishonesty. That's not our job to say. But it's a deliberate response to the trial and to scrutiny around the trial that, for better or for worse, from the experts and the people who we've spoken to, has led some decline in confidence in Harvard post SFA.

Frank S. Zhou:

So it's not necessarily dishonesty, but it can read as being tight lipped and being closed off. I mean, students can see that. The world can see that. So how did Harvard students react to the release of these numbers?

Elyse C. Goncalves:

Yeah. So our colleagues, Michelle Lamposa, Katie Tian, and Samantha Wu, released a piece gauging student reactions on campus after the data came out. And some students were pretty disappointed. A lot of people voiced that this was an example of diversity at Harvard declining,

Frank S. Zhou:

and it

Elyse C. Goncalves:

was something that people were frustrated with or nervous about for the future given that this is only the 1st year post affirmative action. Representatives from a few alumni groups at Harvard shared that they were also really nervous about what this data means for black applicants. They voiced that, you know, any decrease in the number of black students on campus is still a decrease. And, you know, it's an example of diversity decreasing at Harvard, which to them really matters.

Frank S. Zhou:

For sure. This also goes back to what we were talking about in terms of Harvard being in a very difficult position and not really being able to satisfy either side coming into this. And a huge part of putting themselves in a pickle was some of the things that they said during the trial, right, in trying to defend what they were currently doing, saying, like, here's the negative impact of what would happen if we took this way. Tell us about what they said during the trial and how it's basically come back to bite them in a certain way.

Matan H. Josephy:

Yeah. I mean, this trial, which was really a series of trials right at several levels of court, was nearly a decade of Harvard saying in no uncertain terms that a world without affirmative action, without race conscious admissions practices, as the college had been using them in the past, would be a world with a Harvard that is fundamentally less diverse racially, ethnically than one with it. And that was made clear during the trial in any number of ways. Right? Whether it be, you know, and amicus brief filed by over a dozen separate universities saying clearly that, you know, race neutral alternatives that SFA had proposed or that were on the table during the trial would just not be enough to replicate the diversity of their campuses and their student bodies, whether it be, you know, Harvard stating in a brief filed filed with the Supreme Court, you know, several months before oral arguments began that it had assembled a committee to analyze race neutral proposals.

Matan H. Josephy:

And and that committee found, again, in no uncertain terms, that there is no real race neutral alternative that can replicate the diversity of Harvard with consideration of race. The rhetoric Harvard was engaged in for the entire period of the trial hinged on this idea that

Frank S. Zhou:

a It was affirmative action or nothing.

Matan H. Josephy:

Yes. That a student body as diverse as the one that Harvard had fostered over years years years years was fundamentally incompatible with a race neutral admissions policy, like the one that SFA had proposed. Which means that all of a sudden, right, if I am Edward Blum, if I am Students For Fair Admissions, if I'm anyone involved in trial who knew this rhetoric and I'm waiting for this release to come out, it's not just about, oh, what are the impacts of the ruling? Like, it isn't just like a curiosity thing. It's a much more deep rooted question of was this rhetoric that was so prolific and so profound and echoed by the entirety of higher education in America on behalf of Harvard?

Matan H. Josephy:

This demographic release is really a question of was that rhetoric in some ways, legitimate? Again, the methodology has changed. Comparison is much more difficult now than it was in the past. But the fact that these results are quite far from what Harvard had predicted during during the trial, what Harvard's economists had predicted, what Harvard's rhetoric predicted, what it what it what it's allies as amicus briefs predicted. Like, we are not seeing, at least initially, the catastrophic results that we were promised, which for some could be great, for some could not be.

Matan H. Josephy:

But it does raise very potent questions for many that we've spoken to about what Harvard is doing. There there is an enormous burden of proof now on the university to show not just that it that it's following the law, but that everything that it said in the last 9 years might not be accurate. And, you know, we don't know that. We we no one really knows that. They haven't said much in the last, like, couple days.

Frank S. Zhou:

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, so then there's the huge question, which is, like, if Harvard was convinced, if higher education was convinced for years that this was impossible and they just did it, does anybody know how they did it?

Matan H. Josephy:

I mean, they do. Like like, I you know, Dean Dean Fitzsimmons certainly does. And

Frank S. Zhou:

and Harvard's director of admissions and financial aid.

Matan H. Josephy:

Yeah. But the question of of of what did Harvard do is one that we cannot answer. I don't know many people who are not in that admissions office who can answer. Like, really, no one knows. We don't know.

Matan H. Josephy:

I don't I don't know even know if university knows, which again goes back to the to the fact that, like, I think in in the wake of the trial, the response from Harvard has very much been to kind of close-up and to not release as much information as maybe they they otherwise would. But the information that's been released so far has not really said anything.

Frank S. Zhou:

So magic recipe or not, right, whether or not Harvard was is able to replicate this for years into the future, there's still the question of, are people still gonna be paying attention, putting Harvard under high scrutiny? Where is Harvard going next, and what's it gonna have to face?

Elyse C. Goncalves:

I mean, to be completely honest right now, we don't know if Harvard's gonna be sued again or not. We have information that people are already criticizing Harvard, already very very curious about what these admissions results mean. They're under a magnifying glass and they will continue to be under a magnifying glass for a long period of time. We'll need multiple years of information about Harvard's admissions process and multiple years of demographic data to really paint a clearer picture of what the post affirmative action world of college admissions looks like as a whole.

Frank S. Zhou:

Thank you so much, Elyse, Matan, for joining us to break all of this down as we look into the future.

Elyse C. Goncalves:

Thanks for having us.

Matan H. Josephy:

Yeah. Thank you.

Frank S. Zhou:

News Talk is co hosted by Frank S Zhou and Yael S Goldstein. This episode was produced by Frank S Zhou. Our multimedia chairs are Julian J Giordano and Addison Y Liu. Our associate managing editors are Elias J Schisgall and Claire Yuan. Our managing editor is Miles Herszenhorn.

Frank S. Zhou:

Our president is J. Sellers Hill. From 14 Plympton Street, this is News Talk.