The Class of 2026’s senior survey results are in.
The Crimson’s annual senior survey is non-mandatory, with about 40% participation this year but one of the few recurring snapshots we get of student life at Harvard.
Few recent classes experienced as many major institutional flashpoints as the Class of 2026: October 7th and the Harvard Yard encampment, three university presidents, Harvard’s clash with the federal government, and its pushes to re-center academics and recommit to open inquiry and constructive dialogue (OICD).
Despite this, many results look familiar. Seniors still funneled into consulting, finance, and tech; Economics remained the most popular concentration; and grade inflation and compression continued.
We took a closer look at the data to tease out its surprises — findings that complicate historical trends, Harvard’s stated priorities and recent initiatives, and broader narratives about higher education. Here are three.
52% of Jewish respondents said antisemitism was somewhat or very widespread on campus, compared to 11% of the class overall who said the same.
Why it’s surprising: The perception gap between Jewish students and their peers is far wider than last year. In 2025, 15.7% of Jewish respondents and 12.4% of the class overall described antisemitism as widespread, compared to 52% of Jewish respondents and 11% overall this year. This widening gap comes even as Harvard has begun implementing recommendations from its Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias Task Force.
The Crimson didn’t share what percent of Muslim or Arab students viewed Islamophobia as widespread compared to their peers. In 2025, 31% of all respondents said Islamophobia was widespread, compared to 29.8% in 2026.
Only 28% of seniors said they had never refrained from expressing political beliefs in class because of how they thought classmates would react. About 44% said they’ve refrained sometimes or frequently, and another 28% said they’ve done so at least once.
Why it’s surprising: Though the question is worded differently, this data is roughly in line with what Class of 2024 seniors reported in spring 2024 — the year the Israel-Hamas war began and campus later saw the Harvard Yard encampment. That year, only 33% of graduating seniors said they felt free to express personal feelings and beliefs about controversial topics. But since then, Harvard has made Open Inquiry and Constructive Dialogue a major institutional focus, launched required anti-bias training for all community members, expanded pluralism training for teaching fellows (TFs) and student-facing staff, and supported new student programming to strengthen intellectual vitality on campus — all aimed at making classrooms more conducive to open inquiry.
White respondents were the most likely to describe racism at Harvard as somewhat or very widespread, followed by Asian respondents, then by Black respondents.
Why it’s surprising: Students who historically reported the highest rates of personal racial marginalization are not the students most likely to describe racism as widespread on campus today. In the Class of 2016 (the last time a similar question was asked), 68% of Black respondents, 49% of East Asian respondents, and 44% of Latino respondents said they had felt marginalized because of their race at Harvard.
32% of Government concentrators said they wouldn’t pursue the concentration again, compared to most seniors (79%) who said they would. Government had the highest dissatisfaction rate among Harvard’s most popular concentrations, including Economics, Computer Science, Applied Math, and Social Studies.
Why it’s surprising: Government concentrators’ dissatisfaction rate is notably high, despite being one of Harvard’s most popular concentrations. Senior satisfaction with all concentrations has generally been stable in the high 70s to low 80s over the past decade, including in 2026. Government has also long been one of Harvard’s largest concentrations — around 10 and 12% of survey respondents in 2025 and 2026, respectively — so its lower satisfaction rate affects a relatively large share of students.
We’ll be digging into these more over the coming weeks — reach out with any specific questions you’d like us to explore.
Ask 1636
Send us your Harvard and higher education questions!
Q: What’s the difference between Radcliffe College and the Radcliffe Institute?
Radcliffe College was Harvard’s affiliated women’s college. Chartered in 1894, it remained a separate institution for decades before becoming increasingly integrated with Harvard College in the 1970s. In 1999, it formally merged with Harvard.
The Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study is what came out of that merger. The Institute doesn’t enroll students or grant degrees, but instead provides funding and support for about 50 scholars across disciplines annually through programs like the Radcliffe Fellowship and Radcliffe-Salata Climate Justice Fellowship.
If you find our newsletter valuable, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to support 1636 Forum’s mission.
FYIs
Harvard Falls to Third Overall in Nature Index Research Output Rankings
Harvard lost its top academic institution ranking in the Nature Index for the first time since 2015, the earliest year for which the Index has comparable data. In the overall rankings — which include universities, government agencies, and healthcare institution — it came in third behind the Chinese Academy of Sciences (1) and Zhejiang University (2), both in China.
Chinese institutions now hold nine of the top 10 spots overall, up from eight last year.
Among individual research categories, Harvard ranked first in health sciences and social sciences but didn’t make the top 10 in applied sciences, biological sciences, chemistry, earth and environmental sciences, or physical sciences.
This year’s rankings also reflect changes to Nature’s methodology. The Index added applied science and social science journals, and also began classifying disciplines at the article level rather than just journal level. Even so, Harvard’s Nature Index output increased 0.6%, but the database itself grew 10.8%, meaning Harvard gained output but lost ground relative to others.
Nature notes that trends in the Index "should not be used in isolation to infer changes in funding or science policies,” but that they "provide a good window into how the balance of global research power is evolving.”
DOJ Amends Title VI Antisemitism Complaint Against Harvard, Adds New Count and Raises HHS Funding Exposure
The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed an amended complaint in its Title VI lawsuit against Harvard, adding another Title VI count and potentially raising Harvard’s financial exposure by nearly $700 million.
The original complaint alleged two main failures: “deliberate indifference” to antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias, and “selective failure to enforce campus policies against demonstrators.” The amended complaint adds a new Title VI count alleging that “Harvard’s invidious discrimination against Jewish and Israeli students was manifested through the fostering and incubation of a hostile campus environment.”
In its March 2026 complaint, DOJ alleged Harvard was set to receive more than $2.615 billion under active Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) grants; the amended complaint now alleges “since October 7, 2023, Harvard Corporation will receive more than $3.3 billion” from HHS alone.
DOJ does not expressly seek to claw back that entire amount, but the amended complaint asks the court to declare Harvard’s noncompliance with Title VI “since October 7, 2023, up to the present day, or for some portion of that time,” and to rescind and award restitution for grant payments made during any period of noncompliance.
HMS Seeks Community Feedback on OMB Proposed Rule That Could Expand Federal Power Over Grants
The proposed OMB rule includes changes throughout a grant’s lifecycle, such as:
Award conditions: Federal awards could not be used to “fund, promote, encourage, subsidize, or facilitate” DEI policies or practices that violate federal anti-discrimination laws, “gender ideology,” or gender transition procedures for individuals under 19.
International elements: Agencies would have to apply a “domestic-first framework,” when designing research and development programs and evaluating applications. It would allow international elements only if they are “justified, consistent with program objectives, and in the national interest of the United States.” OMB’s rule would also prohibit federal funds from supporting collaborations with “covered foreign countries” or “covered foreign entities,” absent an exception.
Applicant qualification: Agencies could consider expanded risk factors when reviewing applicants, including “activities or initiatives that are inconsistent with Federal civil rights laws” and, for universities, “compliance with foreign gift and contract disclosure requirements” under Section 117 of the Higher Education Act.
Final award approval: Senior political appointees would conduct “pre-issuance review” of proposals tentatively selected for funding to determine whether they are “consistent with applicable law, Federal agency priorities, and the national interest.”
Grant termination: Agencies would have broader authority to suspend or terminate active awards “found to be inconsistent with program goals or agency priorities,” or is otherwise no longer in the Federal Government’s interest.”
Several of OMB’s proposed changes track arguments the federal government made in district court after Harvard sued over the termination of more than $2.2 billion in federal grants and contracts. There, the government argued that it could terminate Harvard’s grants under grant contract provisions based on agency discretion, changing federal priorities, and Harvard’s alleged failure to address antisemitism on campus — rather than through Title VI procedures.
HMS Dean George Daley (AB ’82, MD ’86) said he shares the community’s “deep concern” about the rule’s potential impact on HMS’s biomedical research and asked community members to submit feedback for Harvard’s public comment. OMB aims to implement a final regulation in October.
Columbia University To Reinstate Standardized Testing Requirement for Fall 2027 Applicants
This week, Columbia University announced that it will reinstate its standardized testing requirement for first-year and transfer undergraduate applicants for the 2027-2028 admissions cycle. Columbia will remain test optional for the upcoming cycle.
Columbia said its decision follows “a multi-year faculty review,” through which it “determined that test scores, among other factors, were a useful indicator of potential student success.” The School of General Studies maintains separate undergraduate admissions policies.
As we noted in a recent Weekly Briefing Big Idea, every other Ivy has already announced a return to standardized testing by Fall 2027. Harvard reinstated its requirement in March 2024, following research from Opportunity Insights, a research lab led by Harvard professor Raj Chetty (AB ‘00, PhD ‘03). Opportunity Insights found “SAT and ACT scores have substantial predictive power for academic success in college” and the tests as “an important tool to identify promising students at less-well-resourced high schools.”
Separately, Chetty has launched Opportunity Capital, an investment fund where he serves as CEO that uses “big data and new statistical methods” that invests in scaling workforce training and “other programs that increase people’s earnings and promote economic mobility.”
More News
More News at Harvard
Heterodox Academy (HxA): “Heterodox Academy Announces Recipients of 2026 Open Inquiry Awards” — feat. Harvard Kennedy School professor Tarek Masoud, who won HxA’s Courage Award for his Middle East Dialogues (MED) series where Masoud models respectful, rigorous debates with guests of different viewpoints on the conflict in the Middle East.
The Crimson: "When Harvey Mansfield Took On Harvard’s A’s” — feat. Government professor Harvey Mansfield (AB ’53, PhD ’61)
Princetonians for Free Speech: “Harvard’s Viewpoint Diversity Initiative: A Good Idea That Could Still Go Wrong” — by Manhattan Institute legal policy fellow Tal Fortgang
More News Beyond Harvard
Wall Street Journal: “Five Things to Know About Colleges Reinstating the SAT”
The Daily Californian: “‘Reaching a crisis point’: UC Berkeley humanities professors lower expectations for assigned readings”
FIRE: “FIRE Survey: Law Professors Report Widespread Self-Censorship and Fear of Speaking Freely”
Wall Street Journal: “Economists Weigh In on the Future of Work and AI” — feat. Harvard professors David Deming (PhD ‘16), Jason Furman (AB ‘92, PhD ‘04), Raffaella Sadun, and Rebecca Henderson (PhD ‘88)
AEI Center for the Future of the American University: “Curricular Reform at Elite Universities” — by Solveig Gold and former Princeton Professor Joshua Katz
The Atlantic: “Actually, the SAT Was Necessary After All”
Berlin Review: “What is Jewish About Jewish Anti-Zionism?” — by History professor Derek Penslar
Macroscience: “The Six Camps of Metascience: A field guide for policymakers (and everyone who cares about American science)” — by Institute of Progress co-founder and co-CEO Caleb Watney and former NASA executive Jenn Gustetic
San Francisco Chronicle: “Stanford lays out plans for the biggest medical facility in its history”
Wall Street Journal: “University Endowments Are About to Strike It Big on the SpaceX IPO”
JNS: “Anti-Zionist Jewish professors seek inclusion in Columbia antisemitism settlement”
The Cornell Daily Sun: “Kotlikoff Addresses Campus Politics At 2026 State of the University Address”
Brown Daily Herald: “Corporation increases deficit with $1.95 billion budget for fiscal year 2027”
Brown Daily Herald: “Faculty vote to establish co-chair model for faculty meetings”
The New Yorker: “Eight Predictions for the Future of Higher Education”
New York Times: “Pro-Palestinian Activists at U. of Michigan Face Conspiracy Charges”
STAT: “Scientists see promise in NIH proposal to cap number of grants they receive”
Knight Columbia: “A Nongovernmental Disbursement Structure to Fund Research” – by Cornell Law professor Michael Dorf
Michael Horn's Substack: “Building an AI-Ready America: Higher Education in the Age of AI” — by HGSE Professor Michael Horn
Sasha Gusev’s Substack: “Thoughts on AI in Academia” — by HMS Professor Sasha Gusev