There’s some Corleone in all of us. A Godfather analogy: “I don’t want my brother coming out of the bathroom with just his dick in his hands,” says Sonny Corleone. His brother Michael, the youngest of the Corleone children, decides to involve himself in the “family business” and prepares for a dangerous meeting, a step that invokes both pride and caution in his older brothers. Several of the Corleones have pressured Michael to join their mafioso life. Anticipating a bloodbath, Michael is ambivalent about his choice.
Harvard siblings share some of the dilemmas of their Corleone counterparts. When one student is admitted, the other may feel pressured to follow suit. FM wonders how easily the bambini are embraced by the “Harvard famiglia” and weighs the implications of existing in the shadows of their older siblings.There are two types of Harvard families. There is the figurative one, more a “community” than a “family”, which consists of the students, faculty and administrators who call Cambridge home. Then there is the literal one, comprised of current undergrads and alums eager to pass the torch to their blood brethren. Does Harvard grease the wheels for sibling applicants, and to what extent do parents and older siblings encourage the younguns to apply?
On favoritism for siblings, FM spoke to Marlyn McGrath Lewis ’70-’73, director of admissions and Don Vito Corleone, as the case may be. She explained that the business of sibling admissions is less clear cut than the system for legacies. “Since the admissions became competitive in the mid- 20th century, there has been a tip for Harvard-Radcliffe sons or daughters.” Lewis uses “tip” (as in “of the scale”) to describe the slight bias toward legacies; ceteris paribus, the committee will tend to accept the legacy over the non-legacy. An interesting side-note: the long-standing “tip” has only applied to women since 1975, as Radcliffe did not observe the practice before the admissions offices merged.
In the case of sibling admissions, this “feather in the scale” is even lighter. Lewis suggests that, for some admissions committee members, sibling status is a “tiebreaker” whereas for others it has no influence. Although the committee has not recorded statistics regarding sibling admissions, she surmises that their acceptance rate is higher than average, primarily because the siblings “tend to be pretty well self-selected as candidates.” Lewis warns that the “tip” is only considered when two applicants are otherwise indistinguishable; it has no bearing on objective criteria like grades and test scores.
Students agree with the “sibling tip” to varying degrees. Christina Krause, who was accepted in December and is the younger sister of Molly Krause ’02, concurs with the self-selection theory; she notes that although she knows several siblings who were accepted, they applied because they knew they were as qualified as their older siblings. Joanna Hootnick ’02 and Dan Koski-Karell ’03 assert that siblings shouldn’t have any significant advantage, but they appreciate the school’s tendency toward bringing family members together. If the slight “tip” boosted the scales in their favor, they are not complaining.
Dan’s older brother, Art Koski-Karell ’01, is a stronger believer in the “sibling tip.” If parents are contributing the dough as active alumni, applicants should receive a similar advantage if their siblings are successful at Harvard. A sibling’s success at the College should reflect well on the applicant, as the younger is likely to perform similarly. He maintains that, conversely, if a student is Ad-Boarded, his actions should reflect poorly on the application of his younger sibling.
The College’s role in reuniting families on the River is limited, so perhaps pressure is exerted within the families. James Carmichael ’01, whose parents also attended Harvard, surmised that his sister felt “implicit pressure” from the three family members; she was recently admitted to the Class of 2004. Carmichael’s parents were probably frustrated, he explains, that his sister might apply to a different college solely for the sake of rebellion. “I believe it got a little tight a couple of times,” he admits. Pat McKenna ’01 observed similar tension in his younger brother: “Of course he felt pressure, but not from me. Most of the pressure was self-inflicted, and due greatly to the fact that we are always competing with each other in everything we do.”
The other sibling pairs who spoke to FM recalled little or no pressure on the younger child to apply to Harvard. Dan Koski-Karell says that his parents were certainly impressed by the idea of having two “Harvard sons” but did not push him to apply. His brother Art adds that their parents were “floored” when he was accepted and therefore would not have imposed such lofty standards on his younger siblings. The Koski-Karell and Krause children explained that their parents were primarily excited because their children would be together, not because they would both be at Harvard.
The togetherness factor, more than anything else, seems to be driving these family reunions. Hootnick found that, even though she was hesitant to be defined as “the younger sister,” her closeness with her older siblings was a more weighty factor. She has greatly enjoyed living near them. Molly Krause, who is extremely close with her sister, was hesitant to let their relationship interfere with Christina’s decision, but they are both eager to spend the next two years together in Cambridge.
The Krause sisters also point to the advantage of an automatic support system for the incoming freshman. Carmichael agrees and contends that siblings have an advantage not in the admissions process, but instead during freshman year: “I’m sure it’s nice coming here knowing that there’s someone here who’s always happy to look out for you and knows the ropes,” he says. Indeed, Dan Koski-Karell describes his current relationship with his brother as symbiotic: Dan benefits from the academic and social advice he receives, and Art derives much excitement as he helps to guide his brother thorough Harvard and vicariously relive the Yard life.
Yet sibling rivalry in a competitive Harvard may be enough to push the siblings over the edge. Whereas Fredo and Michael Corleone could not coexist without destroying their friendship, the Harvard siblings are able to cope. The younger sibs do not feel condemned to a repeat performance. Dan Koski-Karell explains that the competition between him and his brother is only playful. Art established certain benchmarks in his academic and extracurricular activities at Harvard, and now Dan seeks to reach or surpass those milestones. Neither Joanna Hootnick nor Christina Krause feels pressed to live up to standards set by their elders; they are confident that Harvard is diverse and large enough to allow them to follow their own paths.
If there is any fear of competition, it’s on the part of the older sibling. Art Koski-Karell laments that Dan is surpassing him as a rower and as a student. Another junior, whose brother will be a freshman next year, jokes that he might one-up her and interfere with the communication between her and her parents. Carmichael says simply of his sister, “She’s much smarter than I am.” Despite their semi-sarcastic apprehensions, they of course remain excited to be joined by a family member.
The total college experience, accompanied by a familiar face from home, first-hand advice on academic and extracurricular life, an automatic hookup to the upper-class social scene, and, of course, it’s Harvard. For quite a few siblings, as Mike Corleone would say, it’s an offer they can’t refuse.
