Bill Overview
Title: HARVARD Act
Description: This bill requires an institution of higher education (IHE) that participates in federal student-aid programs and considers personality traits of applicants in making admission determinations to publicly disclose specified information related to personality traits. Personality traits refer to the patterns of an individual with respect to behaviors, thoughts, and emotions and may include patterns relating to humor, sensitivity, grit, leadership, integrity, helpfulness, courage, and kindness. Specifically, the IHE must make available on its public website and application materials (1) a statement informing applicants of the use of personality traits in making admission determinations, (2) the rationale for such use of personality traits, (3) a description of the process under which personality traits are considered, and (4) the standards and criteria used for rating personality traits.
Sponsors: Rep. Steel, Michelle [R-CA-48]
Target Audience
Population: Applicants to higher education institutions that consider personality traits in admissions
Estimated Size: 10000000
- The bill targets institutions of higher education that participate in federal student-aid programs and consider personality traits in admissions decisions.
- This potentially impacts all applicants to these institutions as they will gain more insight into the admissions criteria.
- The bill impacts how institutions manage and communicate their admissions processes.
- In 2020, there were about 20 million students enrolled in higher education in the United States.
- Not all institutions use personality traits in admissions, so not all students will be directly affected, but many competitive institutions likely do.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy includes applicants to higher education institutions in the US using personality traits for admissions. Not all institutions consider these traits, but those that do may align with competitive colleges and universities.
- The estimated population affected is 10 million applicants if we assume nearly half of US higher education institutions adopt this policy.
- The policy's primary costs will be related to disclosure requirements and possibly revising admissions processes, a feasible budget if it focuses on initial compliance and dissemination of information.
- Interviewees have varying levels of impact based on their interactions with these institutions, understanding of admissions processes, and reliance on federal student aid.
Simulated Interviews
High school student (Boston, MA)
Age: 18 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It sounds like a great step for more transparency.
- I feel nervous about how my personality might be judged.
- Having clear guidelines could help me tailor my application better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
College admissions counselor (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is going to make my job easier when advising students.
- Understanding the personality traits can balance out academic records.
- Need to ensure students don't just game the system
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Parents of college-bound students (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a parent, I want to understand what's evaluated.
- My concern is my child being judged subjectively.
- The need for transparent standards is crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
University student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's good science meets admission processes!
- As someone in this field, I see both opportunity and challenges in application.
- Could lead to more fair evaluation processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Gap year student preparing for college applications (New York, NY)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've been worried about not knowing what colleges want.
- This would definitely help me focus on highlighting my strengths.
- But what if I don't match their personality expectations?
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
University admissions officer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's about time we had clarity in broader admissions criteria.
- Concerned about student perceptions and if they become overly strategic.
- This could increase applications if transparency builds trust.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Graduate student and teaching assistant (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with my research interests.
- It might influence how future research data is interpreted.
- Good step for accountability in education policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Community college student preparing for transfer to a university (Seattle, WA)
Age: 20 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Scared about being unfairly evaluated on personality.
- This could clarify how transfers are seen in context.
- Might help me feel more accepted in the system.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
High school senior (Miami, FL)
Age: 18 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm excited and hopeful this policy might help level the playing field.
- Worry about being judged beyond academics though.
- Still, this transparency can aid underrepresented students.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Retired teacher and education advocate (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This adds an important layer to college prep programs I advise.
- Concern over resistance from institutions.
- Ultimately it may foster fairer college admission decisions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $4000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $6000000)
Year 2: $3500000 (Low: $2500000, High: $5500000)
Year 3: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $5000000)
Year 5: $2500000 (Low: $1500000, High: $4500000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- This policy could enhance transparency in college admissions regarding the use of personality traits.
- Institutions may incur costs for updating communications and disclosures, but these are generally low relative to total federal education spending.
- The impact on students and applicants revolves around informed decision-making rather than financial effects.
- The overall effect on federal finances is minimal since the requirements primarily impact institutions.