{shortcode-3f788e1e550f902e8c1f3d567c4afd5ea25fa9a0}

Harvard’s admissions webpage proudly displays the following mantra: “No American College is More Affordable.” Just this year, Harvard announced that families with annual incomes below $75,000 won’t have to contribute to the cost of attendance — a marked increase from the previous $65,000 threshold. Impressive statistics are scattered all over the financial aid page; 55 percent of students receive aid, 19 percent of undergraduates are on Pell Grants, and remarkably, everyone can graduate debt-free. Students, for the most part, do not have to worry about the cost of their education.

Diversity, another traditional talking point of elite universities, is a second point of emphasis on the admissions webpage. Resources, ranging from initiatives like the Undergraduate Minority Recruitment Program to information for prospective undocumented students fill your screen as you scroll down the page. Harvard represents over 100 countries, with each student bringing a perspective that is “deeply tied to their culture, background, and experiences.” Similar to its narrative about financial aid, Harvard justifiably boasts about its racial and geographical diversity on campus.

Harvard highlights these facts on its admissions website because it wants to create a simple, and powerful, portrayal of its mission. The best students from around the world — regardless of disadvantage — have the opportunity to benefit from a Harvard education. Meritocratic social mobility in its purest form.

Social mobility is the pillar behind our intuitive predilection for robust financial aid and affordability. Financial aid is not intrinsically good; it does not categorically create benefits right off the bat, rather, it allows low and middle-income students to graduate debt-free and reap the full benefits of a Harvard education. Financial aid levels the playing field and ensures social mobility for all students, not just the wealthy.

Diversity rests on the same logic. Beyond creating a stimulating learning environment, the presence of students from underrepresented backgrounds at Harvard ensures that the benefits of an Ivy League education are not concentrated within any one racial or cultural group. It can feel odd to bluntly assert that we want underprivileged students to become financially successful; however, this is the obvious message lurking directly under programs seeking to increase access to Harvard. Social mobility as a goal for underrepresented individuals shouldn’t be obscured or qualified in any way — it is one of the core goals of diversity.

Creating this special role for social mobility — the unambiguous goal of Harvard’s financial aid and diversity initiatives — allows us to view the success of these programs from a new perspective, beyond the statistics provided on the admissions website.

When a student in the bottom fifth income quartile matriculates to Harvard, they have a 58 percent chance of becoming a rich adult. Only 41 schools, out of 2,137, in the country are better at enabling this type of growth for low-income students. Despite this, Harvard is one of the worst colleges in America in terms of overall social mobility — safely within the bottom 10 percent. Nearly 2,000 schools in the country are better at having students move up two or more income quintiles. The root of this failure is Harvard’s inability to recruit and admit a significant amount of low-income students. Only 4.5 percent of the student body comes from the bottom quintile of familial income, compared to 67 percent that comes from the top fifth. It’s hard to have social mobility when most students already rest at the top of the income bracket.

Harvard’s financial aid and diversity statistics are hollow. While they sound great during info sessions, they mostly serve as a machination, implying social mobility where it doesn’t truly exist. Fifty-five percent of students receiving aid sounds impressive until you realize that hundreds of students whose parents make $200,000 are receiving scholarships and only 4.5 percent of the school is low-income.

Looking at financial aid and diversity statistics are important, but they obscure what truly matters: worthy and disadvantaged students using Harvard as a vehicle for social and economic improvement. What does Harvard have to brag about if only 1.8 percent of its students come from poor families and become wealthy? This number is striking, and sits at the core of what Harvard needs to improve upon. Impressive scholarships and representation amount to a public appearance of meritocracy while in reality, Harvard remains a place where social mobility is essentially stagnant. Until this changes, the college’s statements about affordability and access fall completely flat.

Harold Klapper ’25 is an economics and philosophy double concentrator in Eliot House. His column “Practical Progressivism” usually appears on alternate Tuesdays.