[crazygringo]

So here's the thing: a student body is more than the sum of its parts, which a lottery ignores.

To use just one example: a lottery could easily wind up admitting 40 violin players and zero bassoon players, or 8 percussionists but not a single oboe player. In which case a viable university orchestra becomes impossible, and every potential orchestra player suffers. (These are not exaggerated either -- for an incoming class of 1,000 students, of which only ~100 have a sufficient orchestra background with the requisite years of practice and want to play, there isn't a lot of margin for error.)

Now repeat ad nauseum for every type of sports team, extracurricular, distribution across majors, etc.

By ensuring there are approximately the right number of every "slots" for each type of applicant, the institution ensures that students have the ability to participate in the types of activities and courses they want to, and that student life is rich both academically and extracurricularly.

There are legitimate problems with some of the "slotting" as practiced today (particularly concerning legacies and in terms of whether a racial/ethnic/national balance should match the nation, the applicant pool, some other balance, or be ignored entirely), but a lottery would throw out the baby with the bathwater, and be a disaster for ensuring the kind of vibrant student life that is a major part of 4-year university experience.

(Obviously this is specific to smaller institutions, whether elite or not -- if your incoming class is 30,000 students then you'll always have enough of everyone.)

[siruncledrew]

Harvard using a true lottery would be a self-inflicted wound. A lot of Harvard's value is because it's Harvard. Harvard lowering their perception/brand/prestige is a lose-lose for themselves and the students/alumni (note: actual students, not prospective students).

Think about it this way: the nature of the game is like investing - it's about Harvard picking winners. Harvard is like the well-known VC that can say they funded <this many> unicorns, and being a part of Harvard means being associated with success. Harvard may take some waivers on higher-risk/less-fortunate students for diversifying investments, but it's only one piece of the portfolio. Selectivity is a key ingredient to their ROI, endowment fund, and social capital. Harvard is a private university and cares about their private equity and capital in a way that is different from public universities.

[rland]

This is the problem I have with higher education. It is not about the effectiveness of the education, but the signal of effectiveness. "Social Capital" is a zero sum game. If someone gains social capital, another must lose. Actual education, on the other hand, is not.

It's really a shame.

[telotortium]

A lottery is still easily able to be used here - Harvard could publish the slots and the number of people to admit to each of them, and then perform a lottery based on that.

[subjectHarold]

The idea of lotteries is not new. This problem is addressed in most solutions by weighting for factors.

The issue with the current system is that it produces the lack of diversity that you are describing because it optimises for things that only rich people have access to. If you go to a shit school, something that no child really has control over, you won't have extracurriculars, you might not have sports, there are no violins...this upper middle-class idea of "diversity" is weak and decadent.

[nybble41]

It sounds like you want to destroy exactly those things which make Harvard a desirable school in the name of making sure everyone has a equal chance to go there. The strict admissions requirements are really the whole point; that's how they preserve their culture and their reputation. Do away with all that and Harvard becomes just another school. There are already plenty of schools you can go to that don't care about extracurriculars; we don't to turn Harvard into yet another one.

[subjectHarold]

The reason that extracurriculars are valuable is because they are worth doing in and of themselves. You play an instrument because you enjoy it and to give enjoyment to others...not because it will get you into college. By devaluing those experiences, you achieve the banality that you appear to fear so much. In fact, it is really quite tragic that you think that way. Life is to be enjoyed, you can do things as ends in themselves, for their own sake...not because Harvard thinks it is important. Do you make friends based on their extracurricular activities? Do you have to check with Harvard to see if a certain kind of music is enjoyable? It is a ludicrous and quite empty way to look at life.

[nybble41]

> Do you make friends based on their extracurricular activities?

Actually, people very frequently become friends through shared extracurricular activities; existing friendships are also a significant factor in choosing activities to participate in. This is all perfectly normal, and choosing extracurriculars for their own sake is the exception, not the rule. It's important to enjoy the activity yourself, of course, but don't dismiss the value that shared interests and backgrounds bring to any relationship.

> Do you have to check with Harvard to see if a certain kind of music is enjoyable?

I don't particularly care what Harvard thinks because I'm not trying to get into Harvard. I don't think it's out of line, however, for them to reinforce both the academic and social aspects of their culture by selecting for prospective students who already share these values—or at least demonstrate both ability and willingness to make an effort to fit in.