Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College et al

Filing 421

DECLARATION re 412 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Students for Fair Admissions, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32, # 33 Exhibit 33, # 34 Exhibit 34, # 35 Exhibit 35, # 36 Exhibit 36, # 37 Exhibit 37, # 38 Exhibit 38, # 39 Exhibit 39, # 40 Exhibit 40, # 41 Exhibit 41, # 42 Exhibit 42, # 43 Exhibit 43, # 44 Exhibit 44, # 45 Exhibit 45, # 46 Exhibit 46, # 47 Exhibit 47, # 48 Exhibit 48, # 49 Exhibit 49, # 50 Exhibit 50, # 51 Exhibit 51, # 52 Exhibit 52, # 53 Exhibit 53, # 54 Exhibit 54, # 55 Exhibit 55, # 56 Exhibit 56, # 57 Exhibit 57, # 58 Exhibit 58, # 59 Exhibit 59, # 60 Exhibit 60, # 61 Exhibit 61, # 62 Exhibit 62, # 63 Exhibit 63, # 64 Exhibit 64, # 65 Exhibit 65, # 66 Exhibit 66, # 67 Exhibit 67, # 68 Exhibit 68, # 69 Exhibit 69, # 70 Exhibit 70, # 71 Exhibit 71, # 72 Exhibit 72, # 73 Exhibit 73, # 74 Exhibit 74, # 75 Exhibit 75, # 76 Exhibit 76, # 77 Exhibit 77, # 78 Exhibit 78, # 79 Exhibit 79, # 80 Exhibit 80, # 81 Exhibit 81, # 82 Exhibit 82, # 83 Exhibit 83, # 84 Exhibit 84, # 85 Exhibit 85, # 86 Exhibit 86, # 87 Exhibit 87, # 88 Exhibit 88, # 89 Exhibit 89, # 90 Exhibit 90, # 91 Exhibit 91, # 92 Exhibit 92, # 93 Exhibit 93, # 94 Exhibit 94, # 95 Exhibit 95, # 96 Exhibit 96, # 97 Exhibit 97, # 98 Exhibit 98, # 99 Exhibit 99, # 100 Exhibit 100, # 101 Exhibit 101, # 102 Exhibit 102, # 103 Exhibit 103, # 104 Exhibit 104, # 105 Exhibit 105, # 106 Exhibit 106, # 107 Exhibit 107, # 108 Exhibit 108, # 109 Exhibit 109, # 110 Exhibit 110, # 111 Exhibit 111, # 112 Exhibit 112, # 113 Exhibit 113, # 114 Exhibit 114, # 115 Exhibit 115, # 116 Exhibit 116, # 117 Exhibit 117, # 118 Exhibit 118, # 119 Exhibit 119, # 120 Exhibit 120, # 121 Exhibit 121, # 122 Exhibit 122, # 123 Exhibit 123, # 124 Exhibit 124, # 125 Exhibit 125, # 126 Exhibit 126, # 127 Exhibit 127, # 128 Exhibit 128, # 129 Exhibit 129, # 130 Exhibit 130, # 131 Exhibit 131, # 132 Exhibit 132, # 133 Exhibit 133, # 134 Exhibit 134, # 135 Exhibit 135, # 136 Exhibit 136, # 137 Exhibit 137, # 138 Exhibit 138, # 139 Exhibit 139, # 140 Exhibit 140, # 141 Exhibit 141, # 142 Exhibit 142, # 143 Exhibit 143, # 144 Exhibit 144, # 145 Exhibit 145, # 146 Exhibit 146, # 147 Exhibit 147, # 148 Exhibit 148, # 149 Exhibit 149, # 150 Exhibit 150, # 151 Exhibit 151, # 152 Exhibit 152, # 153 Exhibit 153, # 154 Exhibit 154, # 155 Exhibit 155, # 156 Exhibit 156, # 157 Exhibit 157, # 158 Exhibit 158, # 159 Exhibit 159, # 160 Exhibit 160, # 161 Exhibit 161, # 162 Exhibit 162, # 163 Exhibit 163, # 164 Exhibit 164, # 165 Exhibit 165, # 166 Exhibit 166, # 167 Exhibit 167, # 168 Exhibit 168, # 169 Exhibit 169, # 170 Exhibit 170, # 171 Exhibit 171, # 172 Exhibit 172, # 173 Exhibit 173, # 174 Exhibit 174, # 175 Exhibit 175, # 176 Exhibit 176, # 177 Exhibit 177, # 178 Exhibit 178, # 179 Exhibit 179, # 180 Exhibit 180, # 181 Exhibit 181, # 182 Exhibit 182, # 183 Exhibit 183, # 184 Exhibit 184, # 185 Exhibit 185, # 186 Exhibit 186, # 187 Exhibit 187, # 188 Exhibit 188, # 189 Exhibit 189, # 190 Exhibit 190, # 191 Exhibit 191, # 192 Exhibit 192, # 193 Exhibit 193, # 194 Exhibit 194, # 195 Exhibit 195, # 196 Exhibit 196, # 197 Exhibit 197, # 198 Exhibit 198, # 199 Exhibit 199, # 200 Exhibit 200, # 201 Exhibit 201, # 202 Exhibit 202, # 203 Exhibit 203, # 204 Exhibit 204, # 205 Exhibit 205, # 206 Exhibit 206, # 207 Exhibit 207, # 208 Exhibit 208, # 209 Exhibit 209, # 210 Exhibit 210, # 211 Exhibit 211, # 212 Exhibit 212, # 213 Exhibit 213, # 214 Exhibit 214, # 215 Exhibit 215, # 216 Exhibit 216, # 217 Exhibit 217, # 218 Exhibit 218, # 219 Exhibit 219, # 220 Exhibit 220, # 221 Exhibit 221, # 222 Exhibit 222, # 223 Exhibit 223, # 224 Exhibit 224, # 225 Exhibit 225, # 226 Exhibit 226, # 227 Exhibit 227, # 228 Exhibit 228, # 229 Exhibit 229, # 230 Exhibit 230, # 231 Exhibit 231, # 232 Exhibit 232, # 233 Exhibit 233, # 234 Exhibit 234, # 235 Exhibit 235, # 236 Exhibit 236, # 237 Exhibit 237, # 238 Exhibit 238, # 239 Exhibit 239, # 240 Exhibit 240, # 241 Exhibit 241, # 242 Exhibit 242, # 243 Exhibit 243, # 244 Exhibit 244, # 245 Exhibit 245, # 246 Exhibit 246, # 247 Exhibit 247, # 248 Exhibit 248, # 249 Exhibit 249, # 250 Exhibit 250, # 251 Exhibit 251, # 252 Exhibit 252, # 253 Exhibit 253, # 254 Exhibit 254, # 255 Exhibit 255, # 256 Exhibit 256, # 257 Exhibit 257, # 258 Exhibit 258, # 259 Exhibit 259, # 260 Exhibit 260, # 261 Exhibit 261)(Consovoy, William) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/18/2018: # 262 Unredacted version of Declaration, # 263 Exhibit 1 (filed under seal), # 264 Exhibit 2 (filed under seal), # 265 Exhibit 5 (filed under seal), # 266 Exhibit 6 (filed under seal), # 267 Exhibit 7 (filed under seal), # 268 Exhibit 8 (filed under seal), # 269 Exhibit 9 (filed under seal), # 270 Exhibit 10 (filed under seal)) (Montes, Mariliz). (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/18/2018: # 271 Exhibit 11 (filed under seal), # 272 Exhibit 12(filed under seal), # 273 Exhibit 13 (filed under seal), # 274 Exhibit 14 (filed under seal), # 275 Exhibit 16 (filed under seal), # 276 Exhibit 17(filed under seal), # 277 Exhibit 18(filed under seal), # 278 Exhibit 19 (filed under seal), # 279 Exhibit 20 (filed under seal), # 280 Exhibit 22 (filed under seal), # 281 Exhibit 23 (filed under seal), # 282 Exhibit 24 (filed under seal), # 283 Exhibit 25(filed under seal), # 284 Exhibit 26 (filed under seal), # 285 Exhibit 28 (filed under seal), # 286 Exhibit 29 (filed under seal), # 287 Exhibit 31 (filed under seal), # 288 Exhibit 32 (filed under seal), # 289 Exhibit 33 (filed under seal), # 290 Exhibit 35 (filed under seal), # 291 Exhibit 36 (filed under seal), # 292 Exhibit 37 (filed under seal), # 293 Exhibit 38(filed under seal), # 294 Exhibit 39 (filed under seal), # 295 Exhibit 40 (filed under seal), # 296 Exhibit 41, # 297 Exhibit 42 (filed under seal), # 298 Exhibit 43 (filed under seal), # 299 Exhibit 44(filed under seal), # 300 Exhibit 45 (filed under seal), # 301 Exhibit 46 (filed under seal), # 302 Exhibit 47 (filed under seal), # 303 Exhibit 48 (filed under seal), # 304 Exhibit 51 (filed under seal)) (Montes, Mariliz).

EXHIBIT 184

To:

Dean Rakesh Khurana

From:

Erin Driver-Linn

Re:

Harvard College Projects from the Office of Institutional Research

Date:

May 30, 2014

Following up on our conversation in April, this memo highlights the Harvard College-related work the
Office of Institutional Research has done since my tenure began in the office. This work is typically done
at the request of President Faust or for particular leadership audiences at the College and FAS, such as
for Dean Fitzsimmons. Below, we provide an overview of our work in three categories: Admissions and
Financial Aid Policy, Student Achievement at Harvard College, and Student Outcomes at Harvard
College. The materials for each project are included in the accompanying packet.

Admissions and Financial Aid Policy
The Office of Institutional Research has supported decision-making around admissions and financial aid
at least since the introduction of the Affordability Initiative in 2007. Our office has conducted analysis,
and prepared materials for internal discussion among leaders in Mass Hall and University Hall, as well as
for presentation to the Corporation. On all of these policy questions, we collaborated closely with Dean
Bill Fitzsimmons and Director of Financial Aid Sally Donahue to understand the climate and nuances of
the data, but brought an external perspective to these questions around access and affordability. We
have enclosed three sets of materials related to this work:
­

Analysis for the Affordability Initiative

­

The Elimination of Early Action

­

Changes to Harvard's Financial Aid Policy (Memo and Exhibits)

We have also supported President Faust and our colleagues in Admissions and Financial Aid in their
goals to articulate the narrative around access and affordability at the College for public audiences. This
work includes a speech and presentation President Faust delivered to the Harvard College Fund
Assembly in 2009, and an exhibit we put together more recently:
­

Harvard's Continuing Tradition of Financial Aid

­

A decade of Access and Affordability (an exhibit)

Over the past year we provided analysis for the Corporation's Finance Committee in regard to their
discussions of the relationship between the College's Financial Aid policies and yield rates. This question
continues to be of interest and is a project we will work on further over the summer and fall of 2014.
­

Selected Slides: Yield rates by Income.

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

HARV00077521

Student Achievement at Harvard College

Redacted:
Redacted

Student Outcomes at Harvard College

Redacted:
Redacted

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

HARV00077522

Redacted:
Redacted

This covers the significant projects our office has undertaken related to Harvard College. There are a
handful of other projects related to topics such as the experience of athletes that we have not included.
As noted above, we have several potential projects related to the College in the pipeline for this next
year. There may also be a rich data source in Harvard College student uses of Canvas and the HarvardX
platforms.
We look forward to scheduling a time to discuss all of these past and potential future projects and to
helping support you as relevant and appropriate in your leadership of the College.

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

HARV00077523

Memorandum
To:

Members of the Corporation

From:

Drew Faust and Mike Smith

Subject:

Proposed Changes in Admissions Policy

Date:

February 2, 2011

Following up on the analysis and discussion at the January 10 Corporation meeting, we write to request
your approval for a restoration of non-binding, single-choice early action as an element of the Harvard
College admissions process. This memorandum, together with accompanying attachments, sets forth:
•

The specific form the new early action would take, the timeline for its implementation, and the

•

The context for this request, in terms of history and peer practice, and in relation to our decision

•

The reasons for our judgment that a return to early action is in the best interests of the College

shape of the revised admissions cycle;
in 2006 (effective fall of 2007) to eliminate early action in favor of a single admissions cycle;
and consistent with broader policy goals;
•

The mechanics of "new" early action, options considered, and reasons for recommended

•

The elements of an enhanced recruiting program to ensure that the return to early action

approach;
remains true to our goals of access, opportunity, and excellence across the admissions cycle;
and,
•

A draft press release to give a sense of how we will aim to position this decision with our own
constituencies and the broader public.

Recommended Action
The Structure of the Proposed Early Action Program
We recommend a return to a single-choice, non-binding early action program for this coming fall (2011)
(see Exhibit 1: Early Admission Programs — Models and Peer Practices, and Exhibit 2: Range of Admission
Process Options). This program would be similar in structure to the early action program in effect at
Harvard until 2007, but would be accompanied by an enhanced recruiting and outreach program
designed to ensure that our goals of access, opportunity, and excellence are served aggressively across
our admissions cycle.
The proposed early action program would be structured as follows:
•

Students would apply by November 1and be notified by December 15 of a decision to admit,

•

Students may not apply to other colleges under early action or early decision programs. Harvard

•

Students may apply simultaneously to any college under regular decision programs.

deny admission, or defer their application for further consideration in the regular decision cycle.
will withdraw any offer of admission to a student who does so.

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

HARV00077562

The Overall Admissions Cycle
With a return to early action, we would maintain the current "regular decision" deadlines, which require
that students apply to Harvard by January 1, are notified by April 1, and have until May 1to decide
about matriculation (see Exhibit 3: Overview of Proposed Total Admissions Cycle at Harvard). As noted,
because our proposed early action program would be non-binding, all students would have until May 1
to make their decisions.
In the period between the early action and regular decision notifications, we would plan to send more
"likely" letters to top candidates who miss our early action deadline but are certain to be admitted on
April 1. (See Exhibit 4: Sample "Likely" Letter.) These will include students from modest economic
backgrounds whose inadequate high school counseling caused them to miss our November 1deadline.
But it would also include candidates from all economic backgrounds who bring the kinds of excellence
that Harvard and other selective colleges seek.
Finally, we will continue to maintain a waiting list for applicants from the regular admissions cycle
(including early applicants "deferred" to regular admission on December 15), admitting those students
on a space available basis between May 1and July 1.
Context for Current Recommendation
Early Admissions at Harvard: History and Peer Practice
The Ivy League first introduced a formal early admissions program in 1977 (Class of 1981), and some
form of early action admissions was employed by Harvard College from that date until we eliminated
the program in 2007 (Class of 2011). The landscape of early admissions has evolved over time, with
changes made in the policies of our closest peers, and with different forms of early action in effect at the
College (see Exhibit 5: History of Early Admissions at Harvard). Over this period, early applications
increased faster than regular applications, reaching a peak in 2003 at 36% of total applications. In 2004,
Harvard moved to single choice early action, controlling the number of early applications received.
Harvard has never had an early decision program (binding)—based on the principle that it is important
that students be able to apply to other colleges, compare financial aid packages and make a more
informed choice in May, rather than October, of their senior year.
The Decision to Eliminate Early Action
In 2006, the Corporation voted, with the support of FAS Interim Dean Jeremy Knowles and Interim
President Derek Bok, to eliminate early action as a part of ongoing efforts to expand access and
affordability. (See Exhibit 6: Press Release, September 12, 2006.) President Bok outlined the following
reasoning for the decision: "The college admissions process has become too pressured, too complex and
too vulnerable to public cynicism. We hope that doing away with early admission will improve the
process and make it simpler and fairer." (See Exhibit 7: The Decision to Eliminate Early Action in 2007.)
Specifically, our goals were to:
•

Simplify admissions for Harvard and for elite higher education more broadly;

•

Eliminate the perceived admissions advantage from applying early;

•

Extend the fall recruiting period, allowing Harvard to engage underserved students more
intensively in the fall; and
2

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

HARV00077563

•

Reinforce Harvard's message regarding access and affordability.

Our thinking in this regard was informed by research showing that early action was being used
increasingly by institutions to bolster yield and boost college rankings. Meanwhile, sophisticated
students and their parents looked to early decision and early action to increase their chances of
admission to selective (and not-so-selective) institutions, because it was understood that the chances of
admission were better for early applicants. Research had also demonstrated that early admission
programs favored students from more privileged backgrounds, with access to college counseling that
provided stronger guidance through the college application process. Early admission programs also
distorted the secondary school experience, placing pressure students to make a highly consequential
choice prematurely.
Finally, during the early 2000's, certain of our Ivy League peers, most notably Stanford and Yale, had
responded to growing concern about the distorting impact of early programs with a move from their
long-standing, binding early decision programs to non-binding, single choice early action on Harvard's
model. Thus, it seemed worth exploring whether, as part of our broader access agenda, we could use
our leadership position in higher education to influence key peers to abandon it altogether.
An "Experiment" from the Outset
Understanding that our agenda of simplifying admissions from the student's point of view would only
work if key peers followed suit, and understanding, further, that if they did not we might face increased
competitive pressures for top students, we announced the elimination of early action as a pilot program.
After laying out the plan to eliminate early action, our initial press release specified that: "Harvard will
commence the unitary system with a two- to three- year trial period so that it can monitor the impact of
this change and make sure that it does not have a negative impact on student quality" (See press
release, Exhibit 6). As Dean Fitzsimmons put it in the same announcement, "We have always felt that
early action avoids the most troublesome aspects of binding early decision while preserving the original
aim of early admission — providing students with early notification of admission without binding those
who change their minds later in the process.... If, after several years with a single admissions deadline
we find ourselves needing to reinstate early admission to improve the quality of our student body, we
will return to early action" (see press release, Exhibit 6).
Reasons That We Recommend a Return to Early Action
We recommend a return to early action for three main reasons. First, the "public policy" dimension of
our experiment — to simplify the admissions process from the student point of view — did not succeed, as
only Princeton and UVA joined us in eliminating early action (see Exhibit 8: Summary of Results from the
Early Action Experiment). Thus, a given student arguably faces greater, rather than less, complexity in
deciding how to how to navigate the admissions landscape in which Yale and Stanford offer an early
option and Harvard and Princeton do not.
Second, since 2007, the trend toward early admissions has intensified, rather than diminished, as
uncertainty about the future arising from the economic downturn has created greater anxiety about
applying for college. (See Exhibit 9: Early Applications to All COFHE Schools). More than ever, students
and their families are anxious to seek the best and most affordable options for higher education. This
anxiety has led record numbers of students to apply to college both regular decision and early, and
college counselors often respond by encouraging students to apply early in order to ensure a spot in a
3

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

HARV00077564

selective college. At some of Harvard's most productive "feeder" high schools, for instance, up to 90%
of students apply early somewhere. By not offering an early admissions option, therefore, Harvard has
placed itself at odds with trends in the market.
These forces are visible in admissions results for some of our most desirable students — academicallywell prepared first generation, under-represented minority, and low income students, and top students
from across the income spectrum who seem to want an early option. A careful review of admissions
results since the end of early action demonstrates that although Harvard has seen a rapid increase in the
number of applications it receives, and yield rates have held up remarkably well overall, yield rates have
declined meaningfully among some of the most talented and desirable students (see Exhibits 10-12:
Changes in Yield Rates). While our "win rate" is still strong against key peers, it has been declining (see
Exhibit 13: Admissions wins versus Yale, Stanford and Princeton). Some of this decline may be may be
among cross-admitted students, who are admitted early to our peers and are then the target of
aggressive recruiting strategies. In addition to these students, we do not know how many students are
admitted through early programs elsewhere and therefore never apply to Harvard.
Of particular interest given the rationale for eliminating early action, our Admissions office is becoming
increasingly concerned that not having an early admission option is causing us to lose some of the most
academically talented and prepared low-income and underrepresented minority students. Our new
financial aid initiatives have attracted large numbers of low-income students from among the better
public and magnet schools, schools in more mixed-income districts, and affluent public schools with
bussing options, voluntary open enrollment, or small low-income pockets in their communities. In fact,
many of our low-income and minority students come from our top "feeder" high schools (see Exhibit 14:
Top High Schools Sending Low Income and Minority Students to Harvard). Furthermore, many of the
best private secondary schools have, like Harvard, provided financial aid to needy but promising
students. As a result, many private schools are considerably more diverse economically and ethnically
than many public schools given the real estate prices in affluent towns. Increasingly, these students are
counseled to apply early to their top choice program to better their chances of admission. This trend
was beginning to manifest itself in the years immediately before we eliminated early action resulting in
increased diversity among our early applicants and an early pool that looked more like regular
admissions pool, and it has likely continued since we eliminated early action. (See Exhibit 15: Diversity of
Harvard's Early Applicants and Exhibit 16: Diversity of Harvard's Early and Regular Applicants.)
These concerns—the failure to instigate a policy change among our peers, the increasing demand from
students for an early admission option, and the decline in yield among the most desirable students,
including talented low income and underrepresented minority students — have led us to the conclusion
that Harvard should reintroduce early action. Not to do so potentially puts at risk not only our access to
top minority students and the best students eligible for the low and moderate-income component of
the Harvard Financial Aid Initiative, but also our competitive position with regard to the very best
candidates from all economic backgrounds. All of these exceptionally talented students — whether
minority, low income, or privileged — help to ensure Harvard's pre-eminence in the Putnam Math
Contest, the Rhodes and Marshall competitions, and the production of great performers, athletes and
public leaders.

4

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

HARV00077565

HIGHLYCONFIDENTIALATTORNEYS' EYESONLY

Exhibit 8: Summary of Results from the Early Action Experiment

PRELIMINARY DRAFT

Rationale:

Results:

 Simplify admissions for
Harvard applicants and
more broadly

•

Increased applications from all types of students

•

Improved recruiting timeline and mechanisms for
engaging with previously underserved students

•

Higher education did not change with us

 Eliminate the admissions
advantage from applying
early

• Princeton and UVA were the only institutions to join us

 Extend the fall recruiting
period

• Stanford and Yale maintained early action to their
competitive advantage

 Reinforce Harvard's
message regarding access
and affordability

• UVA announced in December 2010 a move back to early
admissions
• The current economic and social climate has pushed
institutions to further rely on their early action programs

Z8SLL000A1VH

•

Declining yield rates, especially among targeted
populations—those with high academic and
extracurricular ratings, and under-represented
minorities

HIGHLYCONFIDENTIALATTORNEYS' EYESONLY

Exhibit 9: Early Applications to All COFHE Schools

PRELIMINARY DRAFT

• Early applications to COFHE institutions have increased almost every year since 1989
• At most, early applications represented 15% of total applications (in 2003). In recent years, early applications as a percent of all
applications has declined.
Number of Early Applications and Early Applicants as a Percent of Total Applicants to All COFHE Schools,
Entering Fall 1989 to 2009
Early Applications —•—% of Total Applicants
60,000
14%

14%

50,000
11%
40,000

9%
8%

10%

51,460 51,929 50,865
48,566 -

9%

45,233 45,319

11%

12%

41,735

32,11132,979

34,938 34,6C,-

10%

•

8%

26,14n
24,16623,897
22,212
0'583 19,601

14%

9%

10%

8%

11%

12%

54,961

14%

13%

30,000

16%

15%

22,964

6%

20,000
4%
10,000
2%
0%
Annual % Change:

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Early Applicants

N/A

-5%

13%

9%

-1%

-4%

14%

23%

-1%

21%

8%

0%

11%

-7%

Total Applicants

-6%

-3%

1%

4%

0%

8%

4%

5%

3%

4%

3%

0%

4%

2%

MLL000ffiNH

Last class at

Recent results:
Stanford and Duke have seen record early applications for the Class of
2015, while MIT, Georgetown, and Penn have all had substantial increases
over last year. Early applications to Yale are even with last year.

Source: Office of Admissions

Harvard and
Princeton
with early
admission

Effect on recruitment. It is worth noting that both academic and athletic preparation are positively
correlated with income. Thus, while many varsity recruited athletes do not apply for aid, those who do
are typically in the upper income bands (above $180,000). Likewise, while many of our most
academically prepared students (those students who receive the top admissions academic rating of "1"
or "2") do not apply for aid, when we look across the aided population, we see that a larger share of
students from incomes between $150,000 to $200,000 attain ratings as academic "1s" or "2s" than do
those in lower income bands (although it is worth noting that this is a relatively small group compared
to the absolute number of academic "1s" and "2s" who are low income or not on financial aid). As
mentioned earlier, the Affordability Initiative improved yields for students in these income ranges. We
may find that increasing the parent contribution using either strategy will have an effect on yield.
However, the reintroduction of early action may somewhat mitigate that effect.
The Impact of the Calculator. The financial aid or net price calculator poses a challenge for all
institutions. It is meant to provide greater clarity to families regarding the costs of sending their child to
a particular college. In order to encourage students to apply, the calculator needs to be specific enough
in the information it asks for to provide families with accurate calculations. On the other hand, asking
for too much information may deter a student or family from using the calculator or applying at all.
Harvard's approach to the calculator is to make it as simple as possible in keeping with our "bright line"
approach to financial aid. After an appropriate disclaimer about the intention of the calculator, it
requires only a few pieces of information to provide a policy-based estimate of a family's net price. The
simplicity will allow families to make minor changes ($5,000) to their income and assets and easily see
the impact on their net price. We imagine that families and others, including general members of the
public and the media, will test the calculator's boundaries.
Impact on Campaign Fundraising. UDO and FAS fundraisers have noted in recent years that some
alumni have commented that they feel the current policy is overly generous to families in the higher
income ranges. On the other hand, to others, pulling back on financial aid could stand as a visible
qualification of our narrative about access and affordability, placing an asterisk alongside one of
Harvard's most compelling storylines. In fact we have no real data with respect to broadly held donor
opinion. There are doubtless those who would be more likely to support an industry-leading
commitment upheld even in the face of the financial crisis than a set of policies we are adjusting. There
are also those who feel we've been too generous, and those who would see the optimal solution as one
that sustains a robust financial aid program but also responds to fiscal realities with respect to trade-offs
and sustainability.
Public Impact and Press Strategy. As noted, whether or not we decide to make a public change to the
income ceiling, we will have a "public moment" with respect to financial aid policy when we put up the
calculator in August. We and all of our peers are on the same admissions cycle, so it is likely that we will
see various calculators going up over the next six weeks. (As noted, Princeton and Stanford already have
calculators. Yale had one, but pulled it down.) It is also likely that interested press will spend some time
exploring the differences in both mechanics and net price. Coverage of recent Department of Education
lists, despite flawed methodology, reinforces press interest in the cost issue, and there has been a
growing interest in popular media about the "value" of a four year residential college experience
relative to the cost.
Under the circumstances, it seems reasonable to tie any announcement about public changes in our
policy to the launch of the calculator, not least because the website of the Office of Financial Aid links to
8

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

HARV00077599

0
-0
rt
0
Institutional Grant Aid Expenditures and Savings,
Baseline Projections and Option Projections, FY12-FY16 $ Millions*

CAGR FY12FY16

a)

b.Z7o

3
-0

$211

Q.

a)
$11.9
$199
$9.2

$8.4
4.7%

$6.5
Cumulative
Savings FY13-FY16

$187
$6.4

$4.7

$1/6
$3.7

31m

2.8

22 m

FY12

FY13
Baseline Projection
,12 Difference from Baseline Projection

S179LLOOOMVH

9

PRELIMINARY DRAFT

A1N0S3A3
,SA3N1OLLV

1VIlN30IJNODAlFIDIH

Projected impact of feathering options on grant aid expenditures and savings, FY12-FY16

FY14

FY15

FY16

o FeatheringAbove $180K
• FeatheringAbove $150K

• In FY16, policy changes would be fully implemented across all classes
• Additional student contribution increases would further reduce expenditures
• In years following FY16, increases in grant aid expenditures would be mainly driven by
changes in the cost of attendance, percent of students on aid and their financial profile
*Assumptions used for Projections: 1% annual growth in the number of financial aid students; COA increases 3.8%; 4% annual growth in books and travel costs; no
family income growth.

HIGHLYCONFIDENTIALATTORNEYS' EYESONLY

Projected impact of feathering options on parent contribution, FY13

PRELIMINARY DRAFT

FY13 Parent Contributions for Families with Incomes Between $150-210K

0

Under Two Options* and Asset Categories

r+
.
0

cn
33074

32526
29457

_24/3 28628

V24801
22882
19930
17372
22%_

Families with

-S
14273

11834

30% of families at Harvard
have more than one child

0%

0%

I

attending college.

Below
("Typical Assets")

60 families at Harvard have
N7

150-160K

160-170K

I

170-180K

91

94

I

77

Feathering above $150K

180-190K
I

74

Feathering above $180K

190-200K

200-210K

71

1

42

In-state tuition and fees at
39745

38402

36766
31286
27918
25115

-

34026
31569
33'/
23%

3A33850

—Al

Assets Above
$100K

top-tier public institutions
run between $10K-$15K

22%

25151

21%

" 22967

•

19%

- 22%

I

Families with

two students enrolled at
Harvard.

— Current Harvard PC

%- percent increase above current Harvard PC

I22021

0.
3

r+.

14994

0%

Other factors to consider
regarding parent
contribution:

-- 9%

37 - r
A
16760

Assets $100K and

1

I

I

I
I
I

150-160K

9179LL000ffiNH

10

160-170 K

170-180K

180-190 K

190-200K

200-210K

75

64

60

61

60

51

Feathering above $150K
Featheringabove $180K
%- percent increase above current Harvard PC

— Current Harvard PC

* Projections use FY11 aid packages for aided students in the Classes of 2014, 2013 and 2012, and preliminary FY12 aid packages for the Class of 2015.

0

HIGHLYCONFIDENTIALATTORNEYS' EYESONLY

Exhibit 10: Changes in yield rates — Since 2007 (the last class with early action)

PRELIMINARY DRAFT

• The yield rates for all applicants have declined since the end of early action.
• However, the yield rates for all applicants since the end of early action are higher than the yield rates for regular applicants before the
policy change.
Yield Rate by Application Type, Entering Fall 2003 to Fall 2010
100%

95%

Early Applicants

93%
92%

90%
/91%

91%

78%

78%

85%
a)

84%
79%

cc

80%

78%

79%
76%

76%
75%

All Applicants

75%

70%

Regular Applicants
68%

68%
67%

65%

67%

65%

60%
2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

t8SLL000ffiNH

Last class
with early
action

2008

2009

2010

1VIlN30IJNODAlFIDIH
A1N0S3A3
,SA3N1OLLV

Exhibit 11: Changes in yield rates — By academic and extracurricular rating
PRELIMINARY DRAFT

• The yield rate gap between the most high rated (as measured by academic or extracurricular rating) and all other students increased
after the end of early action.

Yield Rates by Academic and Extracurricular Ratings', Fall 2003 to Fall 2010

Academic Rating

Extracurricular Rating

100%

100%

95% -

95% -

90% -

90%
85%

85% -

85%
3% '
____ ,,,,,..--'*----

85%

85%

85%
Non-High

83%

85% -

82%

81%

80%z
80% -

78%

75% - 77%

I

79%

77%

80%
A\

75% 177%
76%

77 %

77%

74%
70%

73%

72%

65%

80%

78%

77%

Non-High

77%
- High

74%
72%

70%

65%
2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Last class
with early
action

S8SLLOOOMVH

81%

78%)
,

High
72%

80%

1. "High" indicates a rating of 1or 2. Non-high are students with all other ratings.

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Last class
with early
action

2008

2009

2010

HIGHLYCONFIDENTIALATTORNEYS' EYESONLY

Exhibit 12: Change in yield rates — By academic and extracurricular rating and race/ethnicity
PRELIMINARY DRAFT

• Yield rates for the most highly rated Hispanic, Black and white students declined after the end of early action.
• Yield rates for all Hispanic and white students declined after the end of early action.

Yield Rates by Race Ethnicity, Fall 2003 to Fall 2010
Students with High Academic and
All Students

Extracurricular Ratings
90.0%

90.0%

85.0%

85.0%

Number of Admits

80.0%

80.0%

High
Ratings

3,131

Asian

—0— White
70.0%

2,033
3,462

7,432

—0— White

411

1,581

—X—Hispanic

253

1,769

79.1%

Admits

Asian

75.0%

All

—Black

Hispanic

—0— Black
65.0%

75.0%
71.3%

76.1%

70.0%

65.0%
Ethnicities with statistically significant

60.0%

changes marked in crimson

60.0%

55.0%

55.0%

50.0%

50.0%
2003-2007

URM Yield

98SLL000ffiNH

Rate

2008-2010

2003-2007

2008-2010

64.5%

54.5%

69.6%

65.2%

Source: Office of Admissions and Financial Aid. "High" rating indicates a rating of 1or 2.

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

HARV00077592