Executive Summary
Access to higher education is vital for bridging the scholars’ academic ambitions towards the attainment of personal and professional growth. Today, institutions of higher learning host students from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Therefore, university admission boards have been facing challenges in balancing the different students from various backgrounds, which results in some cases of discrimination allegations. Harvard University is one of the institutions of higher education that have been probed for discriminating against Asian-American students who seek enrollment into the university. Established in 1636, Harvard University boasts of a rich culture that makes it the oldest institution of higher learning in the US. Thus, the allegations based on the admission criterion, which is perceived to discriminate against the Asian American cohort, necessitate the need for immediate proposals to solve the problem.
The problem that requires to be solved revolves around the unequal admission procedures that bar minority groups like the Asian Americans from securing enrollment into the university in spite of their academic qualifications. The 2400-point scale seems to apply unevenly among the White Americans, African Americans, Hispanic, and Asian Americans. Therefore, the inequalities undermine the value of equitable education opportunities regardless of an individual’s ethnic or racial background. The development of the proposal is based on the aspect of modernity that has increased the number of minority and foreign students enrolling for courses at Harvard University. The study would contextualize the issue based on ethnic background, admission criteria, and policies governing the enrollment of University students. Therefore, the process implementation would reflect on the elements of standardized criteria for admission, affirmative action, and the observance of the admissions requirements that uphold equality.
The chief goal of the proposal is to ensure that each applicant for Harvard admission gets equal chances for enrollment regardless of the ethnic or racial aspects. The proposal seeks to achieve some objectives that would foster the realization of the goal regarding Harvard University’s admissions. The objectives include the standardization of the admissions criteria, facilitating transparency in the process, and observing the laid down policies governing the admission of students at the university level. The population involved in the study would include the main stakeholders in the admission process. The population constitutes the members of the Admissions Office, the Tutors for Admissions, and the Asian American students applying for admissions at the university. Other minority groups that experienced discrimination in enrollment would also be considered.
The proposed program would employ the integration of qualitative and quantitative inquiry methods to obtain comprehensive information regarding admissions at the institution of higher education. Questionnaires would be used to source interviews for the tabulation of grouped data concerning the procedures and implications of the admission process. The staffing element of the implementation process aims at the committed participation of the affected parties. This assertion implies that proactive staffing would seek the participation of main stakeholders in the development of new policies that seek to create equality in the admission process. The implanted program would be evaluated in terms of the process and outcomes. The process outcomes would involve the development of questions that evaluate if the activities were executed according to plan. On the other hand, the outcome evaluation inquires the extent to which the stakeholders benefitted from the program.
Introduction
Institutions of higher learning are usually characterized by culturally diverse populations, which are in pursuit of excellence in a particular field of study. Harmonious coexistence in such environments is perceived as essential to the success of all the stakeholders in the organizations. In the occurrence that a segment of the students is discriminated against, the attainment of the learning organization’s goals, missions, and vision is undermined. This aspect implies that the issue has to be addressed to cultivate successful engagements (Featherstone, 2011). The significant cultural diversity suggests that worldliness, social development, creative thinking, self-awareness, and preparation for future career development would be enhanced. Additionally, the knowledge base, which is a significant aspect of learning, would be fostered. Therefore, educational organizations characterized by the discrimination of minority groups pose a serious problem that deserves undivided attention for the alleviation of the situation (Alon, 2009). Harvard University is one of the institutions of higher learning that has been alleged to discriminate against a particular section of the ethnic minority groups in their academic endeavors. This paper seeks to propose ways in which cultural diversity issues regarding admissions can be curtailed at Harvard University to develop an enabling learning environment for all ethnic and racial groups in the institution.
Description of the Organization
The establishment of Harvard University in 1636 makes it the oldest institution of higher education in the United States. Reverend John Harvard was the first individual to donate resources to the organization, and thus it was named after him. In 1650, the Colony of Massachusetts chartered the institution, which has authorized it to operate up to date. Over the centuries, the institution has undergone various changes that portray its rich history that facilitates the attainment of the goals of ambitious scholars from different cultural backgrounds (Harvard University, 2015).
Mission and Vision Statements
The mission of Harvard University is to foster education among society’s citizens and citizen-leaders. The achievement of the mission is founded on the institutions’ commitment to the transformative power of the sciences and liberal arts education (Harvard University, 2015).
The vision of Harvard University is to create the standard for residential sciences and liberal arts education in the 21st Century. The achievement of this vision is cultivated by the commitment to the development and sustainability of conditions that enhance the students’ unparalleled educational expedition, which is intellectual, personal, and socially transformative (Harvard University, 2015).
Location and size
Harvard University is an Ivy League research institution, and it is located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Located on the banks of Charles River, the institution’s surroundings are characterized by international restaurants, one-of-a-kind shops, cafés, bookstores, and theaters. The university’s size is portrayed by the regular admission of 17000 students per academic year. An additional 30000 students are enrolled in credit and non-credit programs and seminars (Harvard University, 2015).
Target population, programs, and services offered
Harvard University’s enrollment of students considers the native and foreign groups that are ambitious towards the attainment of educational excellence. Therefore, the institution admits students from various regions of the world besides the domestic students in the US to generate a culturally diverse environment.
The educational programs and services are under the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, which includes Business, Continuing Education, Dental, Divinity, Design, Education, Engineering, Law, Medical, Public Health, and the Radcliffe Institution of Advanced Studies (Harvard University, 2015).
Description of the problem
Since Harvard is an internationally renowned institution of higher learning, fair admission of students from culturally diverse backgrounds is imperative. However, lately, there have been allegations that the institution discriminates against a particular ethnic group in its admissions. In May 2015, a coalition of Asian-American students filed allegations against the Harvard University’s admission process that was perceived as discriminative. The claims were based on the reduced percentage of the Asian American admission at Harvard since they were expected to score 140 extra points higher than the Whites score, 270 extra points compared to the Hispanic, and 450 points more as compared to the African-Americans. Failure to do so barred them from admission, yet they were qualified (Jayakuma & Garces, 2015). Therefore, the allegations cited by the Asian-American students portray ethnic discrimination at Harvard University, as seen in the admission processes, which is a serious problem for the institution.
The issue of discriminative admission has become acute regarding the advancement of prestigious institutions of higher learning as disadvantaged, and minority groups face challenges in enrollment. Students from privileged backgrounds have greater chances of studying A-levels in their preferred institutions than their counterparts from disadvantaged backgrounds due to biased admission criteria. Ethnicity and social class seem to control the enrollment of students in institutions like Oxford University, Cambridge University, and Harvard University, as depicted by the selection inequalities (Alon, 2009).
The significance of the problem dwells in the aspect of fairness in accessing higher education at Harvard University. Additionally, the students’ achievements, potential, and talents should be considered holistically instead of comparing the backgrounds of individual students or groups for admission. Furthermore, the aspects of social development, preparation to work in a global society, improving the knowledge base, and promoting cultural diversity in higher learning institutions would be undermined due to the discriminative admission processes.
Description of the proposal and its importance
The proposed study delves on the view that traditional education is not enduring due to the structural and cultural alterations in the global economies. Changes brought about by modernity have seen more students from different backgrounds meet the required threshold for enrollment into institutions of higher learning. The reflection is at odds with the current concerns over the aspects of social justice and broadening the participation of diverse groups in higher education (Espenshade & Radford, 2013). The extent to which elite universities engage in the equal admission of students from different backgrounds to enhance their participation is essential not only for the education sector but also to contemporary society. Therefore, given that the admissions problem at Harvard University can be categorized as a policy-relevant issue, research on the social processes that involve the administrators and students should be carried out.
The contextual information regarding the complaints filed by the 64 coalitions representing the Asia-American students at Harvard University would be considered for understanding the circumstances triggering the alleged admission issue. The information obtained would be valuable for endorsing systems that would facilitate fair admission processes at Harvard University. The selectors’ practices and attitudes in the admission process would also be considered for the assessment of the policy outcomes regarding the policy-makers’ expectations higher learning admission processes (Featherstone, 2011).
Harvard University should implement measures that seek to improve its admission of students to various programs and refrain from claiming that it engages in academically fair admissions. Despite considerable political and media interest in the issue, this paper provides a study that would facilitate the development of strategies for the alleviation of admissions inefficiencies regarding various ethnic groups in the higher learning institution. Therefore, the proposal seeks to safeguard the image of the prestigious and oldest institution of higher learning in the US from the sensitive admission allegations that would tarnish its rich history. Besides, the proposals seek to foster the essential aspect of cultural diversity in the institution so that all deserving students acquire equitable odds of admission regardless of their background.
The proposal for the mitigation of the admissions unfairness issues based on ethnicity would focus on the standardization of the admission criteria. This assertion implies that the Asia-American, who constitute 5% of the student population in the university, earn over the current estimated 30% of National Merit honors for semifinalists willing to be enrolled in the institution. The standardization of the approval standards for White Americans, African Americans, Hispanic, and Asian Americans is essential for attaining admission fairness at Harvard for both domestic and international scholars (Espenshade & Radford, 2013).
Harvard University ought to uphold the value of transparency in the selection process to portray accountability and responsibility for justifiable admission processes. Transparency in the approval of new students in the institution would foster its defensibility strategies when allegations regarding admission malpractices emerge. The 2400-point scale that gauges the score of individual students must be determined in a see-through manner that is free from ethnic bias (Espenshade & Radford, 2013). In this regard, higher education offered at Harvard would act as a powerful force that reinforces advantages diffused to upcoming generations through transparent procedures.
The institution needs to admit students with the ability to complete the course as reasonably determined by their academic achievements and potential. The criteria should be based on merit. This assertion means that the students are justified to be enrolled for a particular course, regardless of their background attributes. Therefore, extracurricular activities such as debates and choirs should not be prioritized as the major disqualifying factors provided the applicants have the potential and capability of completing the course successfully, as depicted in their academic qualifications. In this sense, the Admissions Office at Harvard University should strive to apply assessment methods that enhance reliability and validity in the practice of students’ enrollment.
Engaging in affirmative action is also essential for the institution’s management to curtail the problems with its admissions going by the allegations filed by the Asian Americana. Therefore, the barriers that face applicants should be minimized to get rid of admissions disparities. This assertion implies that admission thresholds should not be factored based on social caste aspects of the individual personalities of the applicants. The thresholds need to be fixed and publicized to eliminate a significant empirical challenge of determining admissions and rejections marginally (Jayakuma & Garces, 2015). In retrospect, professionalism in all the registration processes should be upheld to enhance transparency as underpinned by relevant structures of the organization.
The underscored issue of discriminative admissions at Harvard University raised by the Asian American cohort undermines the institution’s mission and vision, thus threatening the transformative power of the courses that it offers. This assertion implies that the education system should not segregate the admission of particular minorities. On the contrary, it should admit them holistically based on merit and fairness. The implementation of the mentioned proposals would enhance the institution’s endeavors of curbing similar cases.
Goals and objectives of the proposal
The goals of the proposal are facilitated through the realization of the set objectives aimed at streamlining the admission process at Harvard University. In this sense, the goals and objectives of the proposal shape the working plan to ensure that all the culturally diverse students meeting the required threshold points are given equal chances for admission. The proposal’s key goal is to ensure that the admission process at Harvard University is fair, and it applies equally to all the deserving students regardless of their ethnic or racial background. This aspect implies that future cases of Asian American students criticizing the administration for limiting their acceptance and that of other groups are mitigated. Therefore, the lawsuits filed by plaintiffs like the Students for Fair Admissions (SSFA) should no longer subject the prestige of the institution to blemish base on racial discrimination.
The objectives of the proposal are expected to be compatible with all its aspects. This assertion implies that the loopholes in the admission criteria need to be filed for the attainment of the desired goal of fairness in the admission processes.
Firstly, the objective would be the standardization of the admission criteria at Harvard University. The study would consider a comprehensive research work based on education literature to identify the essence of standardizing the test scores in the US. The implication of standardization is that test scores such as SAT should be based on a criterion that upholds equality and fairness in admissions. The standardization would foster predicting the academic success of individuals based on the threshold scores required as opposed to their social caste or racial attributions.
Attaining transparency in the Admissions Office is critical to the realization of the proposal’s goals. Therefore, empirical data concerning admissions would be analyzed to verify the validity of the quality mismatch claims in the processes. Consequently, the cases of deliberate destruction of admission files should not be practiced like in the case of Yale University after probes emerged over its admission procedures (Alon, 2009). Therefore, the realization of a transparent admission system would foster fairness in the recruitment of culturally diverse students.
Ensuring compliance with the policy provisions regarding admissions at the university level is also an important objective of solving the allegations concerning Asian Americans’ discrimination. In this line, the alleged unconstitutional racial quota system that restricts the number of admitted students from the Asian ethnicity needs to be scrapped for the attainment of fairness. Additionally, the Supreme Court forbids the racial balancing criteria that Harvard University was applying in its admissions through the Fisher Scrutiny Standards articulated in 2013. The policy requires institutions of higher learning to implement admissions means that are race-neutral to attain student body diversity prior to racial preferences and classifications. The objective here is to ensure that the institution of higher education is in line with the policy provisions aimed at eliminating racial discrimination at the university by promoting equal opportunities for all deserving students based on merit.
Upholding the essence of affirmative action in the institution is also an objective of the proposal to alleviate minority groups from admission discrimination. The proposal would delve into the impacts of disregarding affirmative action in the admission of minority groups concerning their behavioral responses (Jayakuma & Garces, 2015). This aspect would depict the level of marginalization faced by the minority groups in the university’s processes to facilitate social inclusiveness without considering the background aspects of the applicants.
The population
The target population for the proposed solutions would be primarily comprised of the affected parties in the admissions problem at Harvard University. This aspect would include the minority group that has been facing discrimination, viz. the Asian Americans. The officials mandated with admissions at the university would also be considered as the target population in the work design for the proposal. The information on the admission treatment outcomes from the specified population would be used for targeting future populations in the enrollment procedures.
Therefore, the tutors associated with the selection of students for the undergraduate programs at Harvard University would be assessed to ensure that the process is done objectively and free from stereotypes or bias. This assertion implies that their representatives for the faculties or departments do not have decision-making powers, but they influence the enrollment at the institution. The efficiency at the organization’s Admission Office can be evaluated at the ground level where the selection takes place under the oversight of the Tutor for Admissions.
The implementation of the proposal would ensure that at least 50% of the Tutors for Admissions participate in the problem-solving process through research. This move would enhance the representativeness of the sampling population. Additionally, the complainants would be sourced through simple sampling methods before engaging them in interviews regarding the discrimination allegations.
Methods of data collection
The problem requires an integration of various techniques used in qualitative methods to gain a multidimensional perspective of the situation. Semi-structured interviews and questionnaires would be used in a complementary approach to the main forms of data collection. The questionnaires aim to fulfill two purposes. Firstly, it would foster the collection of data from a large sample of respondents from both subjects that include the Tutors and minority groups applying to pursue their academic endeavors at Harvard University. This aspect would foster the encapsulation of the potentially diverse cultures inherent in the various disciplines and faculties. Secondly, the questionnaires would be used to engage the participants in the in-depth interviews for acquiring data concerning the admission issue at Harvard. This move would enhance the deductions from a rich source of data to reinforce and facilitate the elaboration of the questionnaire findings (McDavid, Huse, & Hawthorn, 2012).
The representative sample from at least 50% of the Tutors for Admissions at the institution would be essential for the availability of a spread of admission rates that lie in the high, medium, and low brackets. In so doing, the risk of bias or subjectivity emanating “from non-response stemming from non-contact” (McDavid et al., 2015) would be minimal. Due to the sensitivity aspect of the policymaking inquiry, the questionnaire distribution would be channeled “officially” to the Tutors for Admissions at their respective faculties. The participation process would be out of willful consent and voluntary.
The aim of the techniques of data collection is to expose the research turf to tutors of all dispositions and groups even though the potential for biases in the sample induced by response through refusal. The sample size of the tutors and student population is unknown, and the questionnaire’s rate of return is indefinite. Questionnaire respondents would be encouraged to provide their contacts for the facilitation of follow-up interviews to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed solutions (McDavid et al., 2015). Individual and college aspects that require secondary considerations due to the complexity of their admission discrimination or management factors would be regarded as special cases for further analysis.
Analysis of the data
Since the data collection methods applied to the opt-in process of the respondents’ informed consent, the anonymity would be upheld to achieve confidentiality. This assertion implies that the Tutors for Admissions would be protected since the information revealed might be sensitive and may contradict the institution’s policies. Therefore, the findings would not reveal the individuals who shared the data. A combination of quantitative and qualitative data collection will be used in the collection process.
Cross-tabulation of the unique characteristics of the participants would be done to determine the extent of unique individual characteristics that depict the level of prevalence among the respondents (McDavid et al., 2015). The analysis of the data would be based on thematic extraction and grouping of the data obtained from the qualitative data retrieved from the questionnaires and interviews based on the prioritization of key ideas concerning the admission process. The coded data would then be organized into broader themes and categories to enhance the identification of important concepts that would reinforce the findings. The triangulation process based on comparison would be adopted to allow rigorous analysis of the data derived from the two sets of tools to validate the findings.
Staffing
Staffing is an essential aspect of the proposal implementation process. The alleged discrimination issues regarding Harvard University admissions against the Asian Americans need to be solved by a skilled workforce in addressing the issue. Therefore, the implementation of the proposal in terms of streamlining the admission criteria, fostering affirmative action, and observing the policies regarding university admissions would be essential. This aspect would involve developing a long-term framework for short-term decision-making strategies. Therefore, the team implementing the proposal, including the Tutors for Admissions, ought to refrain from predicting the future constituent ethnic groups at Harvard University. Instead, they should embrace cultural diversity at the institution.
The implementation of the solution would approach the staffing aspect from a proactive perspective that values planning (McDavid et al., 2015). This aspect means that the standardization of the admission criterion would encourage the staff in the organization to focus on the current issues instead of the institution of higher learning and the departments. The parameters for the admissions should be tailored to serve the interests of the applicants at Harvard University. Additionally, the staffing attribute of the problem-solving process would consider the creation of plans that counteract the changing strategies regarding admissions. Therefore, policy development should not be a one-time event but continuous through planning to enhance the adoption of new policies.
Process Evaluation
Process evaluation is an important aspect of program implementation that focuses on the delivery of activities. The process enables practitioners to define the extent to which an intervention program was executed as planned and the level to which it reaches the participants (McDavid et al., 2015). Since the maximization of quality in the program implementation is essential to ensure equitable admission opportunity at Harvard University, process evaluation provides tools for monitoring the standard.
On the Harvard University’s discrimination against the admission of the Asian Americans, process evaluation would be used to assess some issues that would include the development of a persuasive picture of the targeted population after each strategy is implemented. Process evaluation would also seek to establish whether the program reached the targeted stakeholders affected by the program. This aspect would include the members of the Admissions Office, Tutors for Admissions, and the Asian American cohort applying for admission at Harvard University. Additionally, the process would seek to provide essential data that could be used for the improvement of the program. For instance, issues of miscommunication regarding admission requirements would be clarified to streamline the registration of new students at the institution.
In this case, process evaluation would be implemented by asking some questions that seek to view the impacts of the program (McDavid et al., 2015). The vital questions for the program would include the following. Who handles the program delivery? In this case, the commitment of the administrators at the university would be vital for evaluating the responsibility aspect. Was the program implemented according to the plan? This question looks at the timeframe aspects and series of activities in ensuring that the admissions issue was resolved. How were the recipients of the program staff and the target group? Here, their commitment to supporting the program would be considered. What were the hindrances to program execution? These are the barriers to the effective implementation of the proposed solutions at Harvard University.
The questions in the process evaluation phase would be used to determine the quality of the program activities as planned. Additionally, unsatisfactory program data obtained would be used to make refinements for the program to be satisfactory.
Outcome evaluation
After the program has been implemented, it is essential to carry out outcomes evaluation to identify the impacts, results, or benefits of the stakeholders after their participation in the program (McDavid et al., 2015). Therefore, the benefits to the Asian American students would be improved admission processes free from discrimination when securing enrollment at Harvard University. Therefore, outcome evaluation enhances the mitigation of short, intermediate, and long-term changes that would face the program.
Various questions need to be asked to gauge the degree of benefits to the stakeholders to facilitate an effective program evaluation (McDavid et al., 2015). The following questions would require answers for an effective outcome evaluation process for the program. What are the decisions required to be made after the evaluation results? What parties are the prime audiences for the outcomes? What are the classes of information needed? What is the timeframe for the results? Are the resources available adequate to obtain the information? How can the information regarding the outcomes reported in a useful manner?
The process of outcomes evaluation takes place in various steps to ensure that the relevant information is obtained to evaluate the impact of the program. In the case of Harvard University’s admissions issue, the first step would be choosing the desired outcomes that would be beneficial to the Asian American students and the institution’s management. The choice would cover the short-term, transitional, and long-term outcomes of the program. The indicators of the benefits would then be chosen to facilitate the data collection and planning phase. In this case, increased enrollment of the Asian American students from the current 5% would be regarded as a desirable outcome. Piloting of the initial phases of the program would precede the analysis and reporting phase to determine the extent of the program’s impact (McDavid et al., 2015).
Therefore, the program would be successful if it facilitates the standardization of the admissions criteria, promotes adherence to admissions policies, and enhances affirmative action towards the empowerment of minority groups at Harvard would render the program successful.
References
Alon, S. (2009). The evolution of class inequality in higher education competition, exclusion, and adaptation. American Sociological Review, 74(5), 731-755.
Espenshade, J., & Radford, A. (2013). No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Featherstone, L. (2011). Fair Admissions and the Elite University: An examination of the practice of ‘contextualisation’ in the undergraduate admissions process. Reflecting Education, 7(1), 5-22.
Harvard University: About Harvard. (2015).
Jayakuma, M., & Garces, L. (2015). Affirmative Action and Racial Equity: Considering the Fisher Case to Forge the Path Ahead. New York, NY: Routledge.
McDavid, J., & Huse, I., & Hawthorn, L. (2012). Program Evaluation and Performance Measurement: An Introduction to Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.