Reardon said he often thinks that Harvard is doing a lot more for people if it takes them from an underpriviledged background and really improves their life than if it takes someone who's already pretty well along academically. Leaving the topic of minority admissions to take a general view of the process, Reardon said "What we are guessing in admissions it seems anyway is what people are going to be like in 25 years...I don't think we're Gods, we're just trying to put together a class of people for which Harvard will make a difference in their lives and helping them along to make a difference in society."

Special Groups: Alumni Kids Get the Nod

All things being equal, the son or daughter of an alumnus has a better chance of getting into Harvard or Radcliffe than any other candidate. The child of a Faculty member has an even greater advantage. Admission officials don't deny these preferences; they are University policy.

The figures show that while 19 per cent of all applicants are admitted, 34 per cent of alumni children get in. But the advantages have decreased over the last two decades, when-90 per cent of all Harvard sons were admitted. Most alumni children are strong candidates but, Reardon said, for 35-40 applicants this year, "the fact of being a Harvard son helped."

Schwalbe also said that some students enter each year as "political admits." These are candidates "who come from a strong Harvard-Radcliffe family; strong in that they support the school by working in alumni organizations or helping with the interviewing, and not necessarily financially."

Both Reardon and Schwalbe expressed concern over the faculty policy giving their children so much preference in the admissions process. There are some faculty children, they said, who would have better off somewhere else.

"Faculty members have some pretty strong feelings about getting their children to come." Reardon said. "Some people are pretty objective in other ways, but not so when it comes to their children."

The admissions officers are often under a lot of pressure, especially at Harvard, to admit alumni sons and daughters and often compare their job to that of congressmen who have to balance the interests of a great many constituencies: the alumni, faculty, and administration.

Sometimes the actions of Yale and Princeton will put Harvard at a disadvantage. Two years ago, a tenth generation Harvard son who was a good athlete but an academic disaster received a rejection letter from the College. The boy got into Yale and Princeton and admission officials were unable to explain to the persistent grandfather that his alma mater had not deserted him, and was working in the best interests of his grandson. The boy, however, has dropped out of Princeton and the grandfather now understands the position of the Harvard admission officials.

After the Letters of Acceptance Go Out

The work of admissions officers doesn't end when the decisions are made and the answers mailed out. "The toughest part of the business," according to Reardon, "is dealing with the people who are disappointed. For some rejection is water off the back. For others it's the end of the world."

Some of those who receive rejection letters make the staff at admissions office acutely aware of their disappointment. The mother of one applicant turned down by the committee arrived at the office without an appointment. As Reardon described the incident. "She told my secretary that she was sure I wouldn't see her, but that she was going to sit all summer or until they admitted her son." As a matter of policy, the admissions offices never reconsider a case unless information in the file is proved false. The woman kept her promise for a while, and the admissions office kept theirs.

Radcliffe took Caroline Kennedy this year, but turned down kin of Katherine Hepburn. Harvard also turned a cold shoulder to the lights of show biz when it turned down Gregory Peck's son. Peck, following in a long line of disappointed fathers, called the admissions office to find out why. "My answer to these people," Reardon said, "is this is a fallible committee. We're not like the Pope. It could be wrong, but this is the decision of the committee."

A SAMPLE CASE

It Could Have Gone Either Way

Arvin had lineage from a Harvard President reading in his favor, among outstanding character references. His application reveals a person of high motivation and incredible industriousness. His father died while he was in Junior High School, and he had to work hard to help support his family. He received no grades below an A, except for one B in Chemistry. His teachers and all those who met him were impressed with his achievements and said so emphatically.

But the admissions committee had reservations about his ability to do the work here and keep up his involvement in athletics. As he admitted in the interview. "I'm not too bright. I was kind of doubtful if I should go to Harvard."

The interviewer gave him a strong recommendation--except he "wished he was a little quicker mentally." Described as "not a scholar" and with low verbal board scores, the committee finally decided, after considerable haggling, to send a special letter of rejection. "Everyone on the committee thought he was a terrific kid. But we had doubts if could do the work here and still be active athletically."

The admissions office conducted a follow up on "Arvin" to see what had happened to him after getting turned down. They found he had gone to a state university and was doing well. He managed to continue to be active in athletics and get good grades. They were happy with their decision, but it could've easily have gone the other way.