Jai Glazer: In June, the Supreme Court ruled that Harvard’s admissions practices were not in line with Title IV of the Civil Rights Act, eliminating race-based affirmative action from the University’s admissions decisions. In the wake of this landmark ruling, new questions are being raised about Harvard’s admissions process, particularly whether other groups—such as recruited athletes—should be given admissions preferences. Even though giving admissions preference to athletes is standard among D1 schools, the recent abolishment of affirmative action makes these practices worth reexamining. While athletes should get somewhat of an admissions boost, they are given far greater preference than what is warranted.
Any serious extracurricular provides a boost to a Harvard applicant’s overall profile, yet at Harvard, the admissions preferences for athletes are excessive. A 2019 internal report stated that a “typical applicant with only a 1 percent chance of admission would see his admission likelihood increase to 98 percent if he were a recruited athlete.”
While their talents are certainly impressive, their dedication to their practice mirrors that of the best musicians and artists. So why does Harvard not take musical or artistic recruits? Harvard has nearly 1,200 athletes, with the large majority of them being recruited admits. Why does no other extracurricular command such a large percentage of the student body? Harvard’s extreme preference towards athletes just does not make sense, particularly when compared to other talented groups that have put equal amounts of sacrifice to their respective extracurricular activity.
Even assuming that athletes were a special group that separated themselves from other extracurriculars based on merit, giving athletes such special treatment sparks serious equity concerns. Harvard’s athletics program is substantially whiter (83% in the class of 2025 in comparison to 41% of Harvard undergrads) and wealthier (20% come from households that make $500k or more in comparison to 15% of the rest of the class) than the rest of the student body. Harvard proudly boasts that they are home to the most varsity sports teams of any Division 1 school, but this almost adds to the issue. A large reason Harvard has more D1 teams than any other school in the first place is the existence of “country club sports” such as squash, skiing, and rowing that Harvard offers. These sports are dominated by white, affluent students and do not have comparably competitive programs elsewhere throughout the country.
Harvard’s athletes also take up a larger percentage of the student body than most other schools. For example, varsity teams at the perennial athletic powerhouse University of Michigan, while having brought in nearly ten times more revenue than Harvard’s, actually carry 300 fewer athletes within an overall student body that is several times larger than Harvard. While Michigan’s athletics program is made up of 60% white students, the number of student athletes only represent 2.75% of the undergraduate class—compared to Harvard’s student athlete ratio of 20%.
Both of these concerns stem from Ivy League policy on athletic admissions. The Ivy Group Agreement states that athletes “shall be admitted as students and awarded financial aid only on the basis of the same academic standards and economic need as are applied to all other students.” This statement showcases the fact that Harvard, along with the rest of the Ivy League, considers athletics to be just one part of the college experience and that athletes should not be given special preference when it comes to admissions. However, the Ivy League is the only Division I conference that adopts this approach—all 355 other D1 schools are free to give out merit scholarships to athletes, meaning that they are clear in their prioritization of sports over other aspects of a student’s application.
In its current state, Harvard’s athletic admissions policies do not align with the University’s broader values and warrant careful examination. It values certain skills—such as athletic prowess—over others, such as musical and artistic talent, and reinforces certain racial and socioeconomic boundaries that our country thrives on. Based on the numerous inequities that admission preferences towards athletic recruits presents, they should no longer be given preference in the college admissions process.
Kate Oliver: While athletes at Harvard do have an altered admission process, their decision to commit to Harvard comes at a cost. While Harvard will match financial aid, student-athletes are potentially forfeiting full-ride scholarships to participate in Harvard’s athletic programs. Every athlete that commits here knows that there is no absolute guarantee that they will be admitted, hence why they commit “to the admission process.” Overall, the contributions that Harvard athletes make to the general Harvard community justify the athletic pull that student-athletes are given in the admissions process.
The success of Harvard athletics often yields large returns in alumni donations, which can ultimately improve the quality of experience for both Harvard athletes and nonathletes alike. While there is no data on donations related to artistic or musical success, a study at the University of San Diego found that winning five more football games than the previous year can increase alumni donations by up to 28% for any NCAA Division 1 athletic programs. There is monetary value in allowing coaches to recruit athletes that will help them perform on the field. Harvard boasts some of the top sports programs in the country, with multiple national champions across sports. This list includes both the Women’s and Men’s Squash Teams, the Sailing Team, and individual events such as Men’s Epee Fencing and Women’s Hammer Throw. Winning national titles draws alumni donations, which can be put towards improving the quality of the Harvard community across the board.
In addition to the academic pressures, athletics place serious restrictions on the ability to have a social life. While the NCAA mandates one off day per week, athletes are forced to sacrifice many social, academic, and extracurricular opportunities out of respect for their team commitments. Fall athletes arrive up to three weeks before classes start and winter athletes are on campus almost all of winter break. Spring athletes miss not only spring break but sometimes stay on campus until June—when other students could travel, go home, or rest for a month. It is safe to say that athletes make no small sacrifice so they can perform on the field while having a life outside of sports.
While most athletes are part of the early action acceptance to this school, prospective student-athletes have already been through two rounds of screening before receiving acceptance letters. The Ivy League has an index for athletes measuring GPA and standardized test scores, two factors that also measure the academic abilities of regularly admitted students. For all Ivy League schools, athletic recruits under a certain threshold will not be admitted. At the bottom extreme, athletes with lower standardized test scores must prove themselves athletically and be at the top of their recruiting class. Athletes at the top of their recruiting class, depending on their sport, might have offers to compete at other schools, with the financial incentive of free or discounted tuition. The decision to play at Harvard then comes with a financial cost.
Yet Harvard teams benefit from very little leeway in admitting higher-performing athletes with lower academic qualifications, and student-athletes should not be discounted in the work they put towards school. Anecdotally, Harvard has higher academic thresholds for recruited athletes than any other school, and Harvard teams have some of the highest team GPAs in DI athletics nationwide. In the 2022-2023 academic year, Men’s Track and Field and Field Hockey had the second-highest team GPA in the country within their respective sport in season. All this to say, student-athletes work hard in the classroom in addition to contributing to their team’s athletic success.
Not only will disposing of athletic admissions greatly reduce the number of student-athletes at Harvard, it will also overlook the sacrifice and perseverance that many qualified athletes have subscribed to for most of their lives. While other non-varsity athletes are able to utilize their free time to improve their resume or pursue extracurricular ventures out of enjoyment, athletes must dedicate the majority of their time to the success of their Harvard team. This unwavering dedication represents many athletes’ pure love of their sport and their drive to be the best they can be both on and off the field.
Kate Oliver ’26 (koliver@college.harvard.edu) is a biased member of the Field Hockey Team.
Jai Glazer ’27 (jglazer@college.harvard.edu) writes Sports for the Independent.