“小獎勵”、“Z名單”：哈佛招生秘密標(biāo)準(zhǔn)曝光

He had perfect scores — on his SAT, on three SAT subject tests and on nine Advanced Placement exams — and was ranked first in his high school class of 592. An admissions officer who reviewed his application to Harvard called him “the proverbial picket fence,” the embodiment of the American dream, saying, “Someone we’ll fight over w/ Princeton, I’d guess.”

他的SAT考試、三次SAT專科考試和九次大學(xué)先修課程考試成績無懈可擊，在592名高中同屆同學(xué)里排名第一。負(fù)責(zé)審核其哈佛大學(xué)申請書的招生官員稱他是“公認(rèn)的尖樁籬笆”——也就是美國夢的化身，這位官員說，“我猜我們得和普林斯頓爭這個人。”

But in the end, the student was wait-listed and did not get in.

但是到最后，這名學(xué)生被列入候補名單，最終沒有進(jìn)入哈佛大學(xué)。

Generations of high school students have applied to Harvard thinking that if they checked all the right boxes, they would be admitted.

向哈佛提出申請的幾代高中生們都認(rèn)為，如果他們符合所有標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，就會被錄取。

But behind the curtain, Harvard’s much-feared admissions officers have a whole other set of boxes that few ambitious high school students and their parents know about — or could check even if they did. The officers speak a secret language — of “dockets,” “the lop list,” “tips,” “DE,” the “Z-list” and the “dean’s interest list” — and maintain a culling system in which factors like where applicants are from, whether their parents went to Harvard, how much money they have and how they fit the school’s goals for diversity may be just as important as scoring a perfect 1600 on the SAT.

但在幕后，哈佛大學(xué)令人畏懼的招生官員還有另外一整套標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，是那些雄心勃勃的高中生和他們的父母所不知道的——就算知道，他們或許也無法滿足這些標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。這些官員講的是一種秘密語言——“備審表”、“縮減名單”、“小獎勵”、“DE”、“Z名單”和“院長關(guān)注名單”——他們還有一個篩選系統(tǒng)，其中的條件包括申請者來自哪里、父母是否從哈佛畢業(yè)、他們有多少錢，以及他們是否適合學(xué)校的多樣性目標(biāo)，這一切可能跟SAT考1600分滿分一樣重要。

This arcane selection process has been illuminated by a lawsuit accusing Harvard of violating federal civil rights law by using racial balancing to shape its admissions in a way that discriminates against Asian-Americans. Harvard says it does not discriminate. Hundreds of admissions documents have been filed in the suit — over the university’s objections that they could reveal trade secrets — and many sections that were previously redacted have been ordered unsealed in recent weeks.

這一神秘的遴選過程因一項訴訟而受到關(guān)注，該訴訟指控哈佛在招生過程中利用種族平衡，以一種歧視亞裔美國人的方式來調(diào)整招生工作，違反了聯(lián)邦民權(quán)法。哈佛說自己沒有歧視行為。在訴訟過程中，不顧哈佛大學(xué)以透露商業(yè)機密為由的反對，數(shù)百份入學(xué)文件得以提交，最近幾周，法庭還要求公開許多之前涂黑過的部分。

“I hope that no student who doesn’t get accepted to Harvard — by the way, I wasn’t accepted to Harvard College out of high school; I wouldn’t let me in, even today — what you hope is that people do not read this as if it’s a validation either of who they are nor an invalidation of their potential or their achievement,” said Rakesh Khurana, the dean of Harvard College, who went to Cornell as an undergraduate.

“我希望未被哈佛大學(xué)錄取的學(xué)生不會以此界定自己的身份、或是把這看成對他們的潛力與成就的否定——順便說一句，我高中畢業(yè)后也沒有被哈佛大學(xué)錄取;即使到了今天，我也不會讓當(dāng)初的我入學(xué)，”哈佛大學(xué)本科生院長拉凱什·庫南納(Rakesh Khurana)說。他本科讀的是康奈爾大學(xué)。

The lawsuit, brought by an anti-affirmative action group called Students for Fair Admissions, has revived the national debate over race-conscious admissions, which is playing out from colleges down to elementary schools.

這場訴訟由一個名為大學(xué)生公平錄取(Student for Fair Admissions)的反歧視行動小組提起，它重新啟動了在入學(xué)錄取時考慮種族因素的全國性辯論，其范圍涵蓋了從大學(xué)直到小學(xué)。

That debate goes back to the civil rights movement of the 1950s and ‘60s. The assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968 was a turning point, pushing colleges to redouble their efforts to be more representative of U.S. society.

該辯論可以追溯到1950年代到60年代的民權(quán)運動。小馬丁·路德·金博士(Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.)于1968年被暗殺是一個轉(zhuǎn)折點，促使大學(xué)加倍努力，令其學(xué)生構(gòu)成更能代表美國社會。

But Asians were an overlooked minority despite a long history of discrimination. As late as 1976, Harvard did not recognize them as a minority group and barred them from a freshman minority orientation banquet. They had a kind of neither-nor identity, denied both the solidarity of other students of color and the social standing of white people.

但是，盡管有長期遭受歧視的歷史，亞洲人仍是一個被忽視的少數(shù)群體。直到1976年，哈佛大學(xué)并沒有將他們視為少數(shù)群體，禁止他們參加少數(shù)族裔新生酒會。他們有一種二者皆非的特性——既沒有其他有色人種學(xué)生的團結(jié)，也沒有白人的社會地位。

Since then the stakes in the admissions game have grown. About 40,000 students apply each year, and about 2,000 are admitted for some 1,600 seats in the freshman class. The chances of admission this year were under 5 percent. Of the 26,000 domestic applicants for the Class of 2019 (the lawsuit is not concerned with international students), about 3,500 had perfect SAT math scores, 2,700 had perfect SAT verbal scores, and more than 8,000 had straight A’s.

從那以后，招生錄取率越來越低。每年約有4萬名學(xué)生申請，大約2000名學(xué)生會得到入學(xué)通知，可以在大一新生班級的1600個座位中擁有一席之地。今年的申請獲批率不到5%。在2019級的2.6萬名國內(nèi)申請者中(該訴訟與國際學(xué)生無關(guān))，大約3500人在SAT數(shù)學(xué)考試中獲得滿分，2700人在SAT詞匯考試中獲得滿分，超過8000人擁有全優(yōu)成績。

The sorting begins right away. The country is divided into about 20 geographic “dockets,” each of which is assigned to a subcommittee of admissions officers with intimate knowledge of that region and its high schools.

入學(xué)篩選隨之開始。哈佛大學(xué)把全國分為大約20個地理“備審表”，每個備審表都被分配給一個對該地區(qū)及其高中有深入了解的招生官員小組委員會。

Generally two or three admissions officers, or readers, rate applications in five categories: academic, extracurricular, athletic, personal and “overall.” And an alumni interviewer also rates the candidates.

一般來說，有兩三個招生官員或?qū)忛喺邥奈鍌€方面對申請者進(jìn)行評定：學(xué)術(shù)、課外、體育、個性和“綜合”。還有一位校友面試官會對候選人進(jìn)行評定。

Harvard says it also considers “tips,” or admissions advantages, for some applicants. The plaintiffs say the college gives tips to five groups: racial and ethnic minorities; legacies, or the children of Harvard or Radcliffe alumni; relatives of a Harvard donor; the children of staff or faculty members; and recruited athletes.

哈佛大學(xué)表示，對于一些申請人來說，它也會考慮“小獎勵”或者說招生優(yōu)勢。原告稱，學(xué)院向五個群體提供小獎勵：少數(shù)族裔;繼承群體，即哈佛或拉德克利夫校友的子女;哈佛捐助者的親屬;工作人員或教職員工的子女;以及學(xué)校招募的運動員。

Whether Harvard gives a penalty — in effect, the opposite of a tip — to Asian-Americans goes to the heart of the current litigation. A 1990 report by the Education Department found that Harvard was not giving tips for being Asian-American. A 2013 internal report by Harvard found that being Asian-American was negatively correlated with admission, as did an expert analysis for the plaintiffs. But using a different statistical approach, Harvard’s expert found a modest bump for two subgroups of Asian-Americans — women and applicants from California — belying, Harvard said, the overall claim of discrimination.

哈佛是否在懲罰亞裔美國人群體——實際上就是“小獎勵”的反面——是當(dāng)前訴訟的核心。教育部1990年的一份報告表明，哈佛沒有對亞裔美國人給予獎勵。哈佛大學(xué)2013年的一份內(nèi)部報告表明，亞裔美國人身份與入學(xué)率呈負(fù)相關(guān)，原告的專家分析也是如此。但哈佛大學(xué)的專家使用不同的統(tǒng)計方法，認(rèn)為亞裔美國人中的兩個亞群體(女性和來自加利福尼亞州的申請人)入學(xué)率的適度上升可以證明，歧視主張從整體而言是站不住腳的。

There are other ways to bolster one’s chances of admission, according to the court papers. Savvy alumni hope to gain an advantage for their children by volunteering for Harvard, perhaps by being an admissions interviewer.

法庭文件顯示，還有其他方法可以增加學(xué)生的入學(xué)機會。精明的校友希望通過為哈佛大學(xué)做志愿者(也許是招生面試官)，可以為子女贏得優(yōu)勢。

It also helps to secure a spot on the “dean’s interest list” or the “director’s interest list.” These are not the familiar lists from academic deans recognizing students with good grades. These lists are named for the dean and director of admissions, and include the names of candidates who are of interest to donors or have connections to Harvard, according to the court papers.

在“院長關(guān)注名單”或“主任關(guān)注名單”上獲取一席之地也是有幫助的。這個名單并不是人們熟悉的那種成績優(yōu)異、受到大學(xué)院長認(rèn)可的學(xué)生列表。根據(jù)法庭文件，它們以院長和招生主任的名字命名，上面是與捐贈者有利益關(guān)系，或與哈佛有關(guān)系的申請者姓名。

The final decisions are made by a committee of about 40 admissions officers over two or three weeks in March. Meeting in a conference room, they argue over candidates who are “on the bubble” between admission and rejection.

最終決定由一個大約40名招生負(fù)責(zé)人組成的委員會在3月份用兩三周的時間做出。在會議室碰頭的時候，他們會就那些在錄取和拒絕之間“待定”的候選人展開爭論。

Court filings also explore Harvard’s little-known Z-list, a sort of back door to admissions.

法庭文件還查閱了哈佛大學(xué)鮮為人知的Z名單，有點像是為招生工作留的后門。

Harvard is reticent about the Z-list, and much of the information pertaining to it in court papers has been redacted. The list consists of applicants who are borderline academically, the plaintiffs say, but whom Harvard wants to admit. They often have connections. They may be “Z-ed” (yes, a verb) off the wait-list, and are guaranteed admission on the condition that they defer for a year.

哈佛對Z名單保持著沉默，法庭文件中關(guān)于該名單的大部分信息都經(jīng)過了涂黑處理。原告表示，這份名單上都是些成績介于合格與不合格之間，但哈佛又想錄取的申請者。他們往往是一些關(guān)系很厲害的人。他們可能從候補名單上“被Z了”(對，是一個動詞)，在推遲一年的條件下保證被錄取。

About 50 to 60 students a year were admitted through the Z-list for the Classes of 2014 to 2019. They were for the most part white, often legacies or students on the dean’s or director’s list, the plaintiffs say. 2014屆至2019屆期間，每年約有50至60名學(xué)生通過Z名單錄取。原告說，這些人大部分是白人，一般家里有人在哈佛讀過書，或者是院長、主任希望錄取的學(xué)生。

Chuck Hughes, an admissions officer at Harvard from 1995-2000, described a special review given to minority applicants while he was there.

1995年至2000年期間擔(dān)任哈佛大學(xué)招生人員的查克·休斯(Chuck Hughes)描述了他在職期間對少數(shù)族裔申請人的一項特別審查。

Early in his tenure, he said, all competitive applicants had their files studied by at least two readers. He said some minority applicants would also have their file reviewed by a third reader who was considering the racial composition of the entire class.

他說，一開始所有有競爭力的申請者至少都有兩位審讀人研究過他們的檔案。他說，一些少數(shù)族裔申請者還會有第三位正在考慮整個班級種族構(gòu)成的審讀人進(jìn)行評估。

“If there was uncertainty on a case in which there were candidates that might have represented minority interests — an Asian-American, an African-American, a Hispanic or a Native American candidate — those would be passed on to someone who was looking at the entire slate of candidates in that particular demographic pool,” Hughes said.

“如果一個不確定的案子涉及少數(shù)族裔候選者——一名亞裔、一名非裔、一名西裔或者一名原住民，那么這些人的文件檔案將會交給正在考慮該特定族裔整體候選情況的審讀者來評估”

Hughes said that practice ended early in his time at Harvard.

休斯說，這種做法在他入職哈佛之初就已經(jīng)停止了。

But the court papers describe a continuing process called “a lop,” which the plaintiffs say is used to shape the demographic profile of the class.

但法庭文件描述了一個一直在采用的、名為“剝奪優(yōu)先權(quán)”的方法，原告表示，它用于調(diào)整班級的學(xué)生構(gòu)成。

In a response filed in court Friday, Harvard said that all information in an application file is considered during the lop, and that lopping is not used to control the racial makeup of the class.

哈佛周五提交給法庭的回應(yīng)中說，申請文件中的所有信息都是在“剝奪優(yōu)先權(quán)”期間考慮的，而且剝奪優(yōu)先權(quán)并不是為了控制班級的種族構(gòu)成。

The plaintiffs say that the personal rating — which considers an applicant’s character and personality — is the most insidious of Harvard’s admissions metrics. They say that Asian-Americans are routinely described as industrious and intelligent, but unexceptional and indistinguishable — characterizations that recall painful stereotypes for many people of Asian descent. (The applicant who was the “proverbial picket fence” was Asian-American.)

原告稱，針對申請者的性格和個性的個人評分，是哈佛大學(xué)最為隱秘可疑的招生標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。他們說，亞裔美國人通常被描述為勤奮、聰明，但不突出、難以區(qū)分，對于許多亞裔人士來說，這讓人想起令人痛苦的刻板印象(那個被稱為“公認(rèn)的尖樁籬笆”的申請者就是亞裔美國人)。

Khurana, the Harvard College dean, acknowledged that Harvard was not always perfect, but said it was trying to get its practices right.

哈佛大學(xué)本科生院長庫南納承認(rèn)，哈佛并不總是完美，但表示它在努力用正確的方式行事。

“I have a great deal of humility knowing that some day history will judge us,” Khurana said. “I think that’s why we are constantly asking ourselves this question: How can we do better? How could we be better? What are we missing? Where are our blind spots?”

“我非常謙卑地知曉，歷史總有一天會評判我們，”庫南納說。“我想這就是我們?yōu)槭裁捶磸?fù)自問這樣一個問題的原因：我們要怎樣才能做得更好?我們要如何變的更好?我們漏掉了什么?我們的盲點在哪里?”