In 1905, Harvard College adopted the College Entrance Examination Board tests as the principal basis for admission, which meant that virtually any academically gifted high-school senior who could afford a private college had a straightforward shot at attending. By 1908, the freshman class was seven per cent Jewish, nine per cent Catholic, and forty-five per cent from public schools, an astonishing transformation for a school that historically had been the preserve of the New England boarding-school complex known in the admissions world as St. Grottlesex.

As the sociologist Jerome Karabel writes in “The Chosen” (Houghton Mifflin; $28), his remarkable history of the admissions process at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, that meritocratic spirit soon led to a crisis. The enrollment of Jews began to rise dramatically.By 1922, they made up more than a fifth of Harvard’s freshman class. The administration and alumni were up in arms. Jews were thought to be sickly and grasping, grade-grubbing and insular. They displaced the sons of wealthy Wasp alumni, which did not bode well for fund-raising. A. Lawrence Lowell, Harvard’s president in the nineteen-twenties, stated flatly that too many Jews would destroy the school: “The summer hotel that is ruined by admitting Jews meets its fate . . . because they drive away the Gentiles, and then after the Gentiles have left, they leave also.”

The difficult part, however, was coming up with a way of keeping Jews out, because as a group they were academically superior to everyone else. Lowell’s first idea—a quota limiting Jews to fifteen per cent of the student body—was roundly criticized. Lowell tried restricting the number of scholarships given to Jewish students, and made an effort to bring in students from public schools in the West, where there were fewer Jews. Neither strategy worked. Finally, Lowell—and his counterparts at Yale and Princeton—realized that if a definition of merit based on academic prowess was leading to the wrong kind of student, the solution was to change the definition of merit. Karabel argues that it was at this moment that the history and nature of the Ivy League took a significant turn.

The admissions office at Harvard became much more interested in the details of an applicant’s personal life. Lowell told his admissions officers to elicit information about the “character” of candidates from “persons who know the applicants well,” and so the letter of reference became mandatory. Harvard started asking applicants to provide a photograph. Candidates had to write personal essays, demonstrating their aptitude for leadership, and list their extracurricular activities. “Starting in the fall of 1922,” Karabel writes, “applicants were required to answer questions on ‘Race and Color,’ ‘Religious Preference,’ ‘Maiden Name of Mother,’ ‘Birthplace of Father,’ and ‘What change, if any, has been made since birth in your own name or that of your father? (Explain fully).’ ”

At Princeton, emissaries were sent to the major boarding schools, with instructions to rate potential candidates on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 was “very desirable and apparently exceptional material from every point of view” and 4 was “undesirable from the point of view of character, and, therefore, to be excluded no matter what the results of the entrance examinations might be.” The personal interview became a key component of admissions in order, Karabel writes, “to ensure that ‘undesirables’ were identified and to assess important but subtle indicators of background and breeding such as speech, dress, deportment and physical appearance.” By 1933, the end of Lowell’s term, the percentage of Jews at Harvard was back down to fifteen per cent.

If this new admissions system seems familiar, that’s because it is essentially the same system that the Ivy League uses to this day. According to Karabel, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton didn’t abandon the elevation of character once the Jewish crisis passed. They institutionalized it.

It would bug me to know that:

- academic standards were lowered to let in substandard students in the name of “diversity”, especially if I had to work my butt off to get in

- the quality of my education at school was lowered to accomodate students who were not prepared for the education or or did not have the personal / business experience contribute in class

- the marketability and return on my educational investment was diminished because the quality of graduating students was lowered over time to facilitate some skewed idea of fairness and diversity

Simply put, not everyone is a good fit for every school nor should they be force fit just to meet a quota. I do think the hyperfocus on Alito’s membership in the Princeton club is being blown out of proportion but I think the disconnect is what “Johnny” so eloquently points out – - higher learning is not the place to “balance the playing field”.

Gee, and here I’m thinking I might just be cheesed off if I were a highly-qualified woman or minority back in 1972 and Princeton told me, “Sorry, we filled our quota. We have legacy admissions spaces to fill. You might be more qualified than those white boys, but we have to think about the quality of our student body.”

I know, I know. Privilege is tough to give up. And it’s always easier to assume that the person who took “your” spot was less qualified than you and of course they only got in because of quotas.

One thing that really gets me about people like Alito and D’Souza: they pull the ladder up behind them. Because, you see, not so long ago, people like them were considered substandard and deleterious to the quality of education at fine institutions like Princeton and Harvard.

There’s a very good reason the Catholic university system, particularly the Jesuit-run schools, exist in this country: because Catholics were either kept entirely out of the elite universities or subject to quotas. My grandfather went to Georgetown for dental school because he was rejected due to his religion everywhere else he applied. My uncle was told by several medical schools in the early 60s that, “You’re a fine student, you’d make a fine doctor, but we’ve filled our Catholic quota.”

There was a fascinating article in the New Yorker not too long ago about Ivy League admissions — they actually started the College Board to try to make admissions more fair, but when they started seeing a huge increase in Jewish students — because those students were scoring very well on the admissions tests — they returned to a system that favored those from the elite.

As a left-liberal myself (for lack of a better label), I wouldn’t find myself in agreement at all with the views of a group like CAP, but back when I was an undergraduate, I was a conservative student who was active in a couple of conservative student organizations on campus and left behind a record of that activity. I’ve long since left that worldview behind (long story); my point being is that I wouldn’t want the political views and activity of my past to obviate what I’ve done (and how I’ve changed) since then.

I read Dinish D’Souza’s “Illiberal Education” years ago and was gobsmacked at the lengths esteemed institutions such as Berkeley, Harvard, Michigan, et al would go to in order to create their own little “melting pots” of diversity.

http://www.dineshdsouza.com/books/illiberal-jacket.html

Students pay a LOT of money to attend quality academic institutions like Princeton. Presumably, they are interested in the qualifications and leverage a degree from a top university can provide in the marketplace.

It would bug me to know that:

- academic standards were lowered to let in substandard students in the name of “diversity”, especially if I had to work my butt off to get in

- the quality of my education at school was lowered to accomodate students who were not prepared for the education or or did not have the personal / business experience contribute in class

- the marketability and return on my educational investment was diminished because the quality of graduating students was lowered over time to facilitate some skewed idea of fairness and diversity

Simply put, not everyone is a good fit for every school nor should they be force fit just to meet a quota. I do think the hyperfocus on Alito’s membership in the Princeton club is being blown out of proportion but I think the disconnect is what “Johnny” so eloquently points out – - higher learning is not the place to “balance the playing field”.

Cheers – DC

What? You say we don’t have the skills to play in the NBA? Hey, sometimes standards have to be relaxed in order to create and promote racial harmony.

The fact that the National Review was his intellectual foundation during the 1960’s is far more disturbing. It was essentially the magazine for educated Klansmen.

Thanks for this, I needed a good laugh today. Assuming that this wasn’t meant in jest, this is the funniest example of liberal hyperbole I’ve seen in quite a while.

so that men can receive an education and not be forced to become housewives? So that Parentis Loco might operate more lazily without fear of rape and fraternization? so that porno has a subject for hot-teen-lesbo fantasies?

Now that’s a charge from the left that as a Conservative, I can live with. With one small change.

I also give a shit about my parents, my siblings, my wife and my children. (Also selected nieces, nephews, co-workers, friends, etc.) I work hard to protect and provide for those I can in this group, and my votes in national and local elections reflect what I believe to be best for myself and the people I ‘give a shit about.” (Althought I tend to call it “people I Iove.”

I don’t give a shit about anyone that wants a handout, anyone that isn’t ready to work as hard as I do, or anyone that wants to take what is mine because they feel that they have an entitlement because somewhere along the line their distant relatives were enslaved or treated badly by some distant relative of mine or someone that just happens to have the same color of skin I have.

And guess what – I think I’m in the majority in the U.S. when I say these things.

If democrats can find a way to communicate with me and work with me based on those beliefs, I’m ready to listen. (I’m not in love with the republicans, but at least they don’t belittle my core beliefs.)

If democrats can’t, they will continue not to get my vote, or the vote of the majority of Americans, and they deserve to lose the national debate.