Exclusion is tradition at these schools. By 1926, Harvard moved away from admissions based strictly on academics to evaluating potential students on a number o

Exclusion is tradition at these schools. By 1926, Harvard moved away from admissions based strictly on academics to evaluating potential students on a number of qualifiers meant to reveal their "character." A report released that year by an admissions committee endorsed a limit of 1,000 freshman per class — allowing a shift in policy, as Harvard could no longer admit every student who achieved a certain academic cutoff. Here's how Karabel sums up the new changes approved in 1926, which would effectively allow the Harvard administration to limit its Jewish student population: The committee decisively rejected an admissions policy based on scholarship alone, stating that "it is neither feasible nor desirable to raise the standards of the College so high that none but brilliant scholars can enter" while stipulating that "the standards ought never to be so high for serious and ambitious students of average intelligence." When the faculty formally approved the report eight days later, Lowell was further elated, for they also approved measures making the admissions process even more subjective. In particular, the faculty called on [Committee on Admissions chairman Henry Pennypacker] to interview as many applicants as possible to gather additional information on "character and fitness and the promise of the greatest usefulness in the future as a result of a Harvard education." Henceforth, declared the faculty, a passport-sized photo would be "required as an essential part of the application for admissions." http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ivy-leagues-history-of-discriminating-against-jews-2014-12 http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ivy-leagues-history-of-di... disclosure: I am a Princeton alum and applicant interviewer. There is definitely a strong element of self-perpetuation at these schools, for better or for worse.