In May, we wrote “Why All the Ivies Agree on SATs (Except Columbia).” Since then, Columbia has joined Harvard and the rest of the Ivies in returning to standardized test requirements, citing “a multi-year faculty review” through which it “determined that test scores, among other factors, were a useful indicator of potential student success,” echoing the findings of peer schools.

But these colleges weren’t the first to drop standardized test requirements. Many graduate programs had already dropped their general GRE requirement throughout the late 2010s amid concerns about cost, access, diversity, and predictive value.

Harvard graduate programs have varied in their approach to testing. In principle, that variation makes sense: a law school, school of design, medical school, and quantum PhD program may need different evidence of academic readiness.

But without a stated academic rationale, it’s hard to tell whether testing policy reflects a program’s academic demands or shifting public opinion on testing.

Harvard Law School’s standardized testing change shows what it can look like to articulate how admissions policy is tied to academic goals. In 2017, HLS announced it would begin accepting the general GRE as an alternative to the LSAT as part of a strategy to expand access to international applicants and to reach students from STEM backgrounds.

In the announcement, HLS said its decision was supported by an internal study, conducted under American Bar Association Standards for Legal Education, which found the GRE to be “an equally valid predictor of first-year grades” as the LSAT. The study wasn’t publicly released, but the school did publicly explain both why it was changing the policy and why it believed the change was compatible with academic success in its curriculum.

Around this same time, many Harvard PhD programs began dropping their general GRE requirements. In 2017, GSAS removed its school-wide GRE requirement after an “inquiry” from the Astronomy department “about the validity of the GRE General Test as a tool for measuring PhD student success.” Departments could then decide whether to require, allow, or reject general GRE scores. Today, 18 PhD programs require them, 28 list them as optional, and 24 don’t accept them at all.

There may be good reasons for that variation. For highly specialized programs, other measures — advanced coursework, GRE subject test scores, writing samples, research experience, even indicators a student can read a full book — may reveal more about an applicant’s preparation and potential to academically excel. If those measures comprehensively answer the questions a program is trying to assess, the value of requiring an additional test may become less obvious.

Without a clear explanation, the academic logic, if any, is left to inference. If a program no longer requires a test because other evidence better identifies the strongest applicants, that conclusion and how it was reached are valuable to share. If “optional” scores still help admissions identify stronger applicants, that’s useful to articulate explicitly too — as Harvard’s mathematics PhD program does, noting on its website that applicants without optional GRE Math Subject Test scores have “one less data point” and may be at a “disadvantage.”

What matters most is often not whether a test is required, optional, or not accepted, but whether the program clearly explains how it reached that conclusion and what it means for applicants trying to put their best foot forward.

Ask 1636

Send us your Harvard and higher education questions!

Q: What are the numbers behind this statement from the Big Idea in last week’s Weekly Briefing? You wrote: “white respondents were the most likely to describe racism at Harvard as somewhat or very widespread, followed by Asian respondents, then by Black respondents.”

That statement comes from The Crimson’s 2026 Senior Survey, but The Crimson didn’t disclose the underlying numerical breakdown. The article summarizing the survey says: “About 30 percent of respondents also said racism was somewhat or very widespread at Harvard, with 53 percent describing it as uncommon. White students were most likely to describe racism as widespread, followed by Asian and then Black students.”

If you find our newsletter valuable, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to support 1636 Forum’s mission.

FYIs

Ned Price To Remain Interim IOP Director as Search for Permanent Director Continues

  • Ned Price (MPA ‘10) will remain interim director of the Harvard Kennedy School’s (HKS) Institute of Politics (IOP) for two more months, after his original term was set to expire at the end of June. Beth Myers, who has co-led the IOP with Price since December, will leave at the end of the month as planned.

  • In the same email, HKS chief of staff Robert Berschinski said the IOP hopes to have a new director in place by the fall semester.

  • The Crimson previously reported that former Massachusetts lieutenant governor Kerry Healey (AB ’82) and former “Meet the Press” executive producer Betsy Fischer Martin had advanced to the final stage of the search.

  • The search committee, which includes HKS staff, former IOP fellows, and Shorenstein Center director and HKS professor Nancy Gibbs, will recommend candidates to HKS Dean Jeremy Weinstein (PhD ‘03), who will make the final hiring decision.

House Judiciary Committee Requests Harvard Records on Epstein Ties

  • Rep. Jamie Raskin (AB ’83, JD ‘87), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, sent Harvard a letter requesting the University turn over records by July 1 on donations made by Jeffrey Epstein and his affiliates, as well as Epstein-related faculty relationships, research funding, and admissions influence.

  • In his letter to President Alan Garber (AB ’76, PhD ’82), Raskin wrote that Harvard’s prior Epstein investigation was “at best incomplete, and at worst deliberately misleading,” and said the Committee is examining how Epstein may have used Harvard relationship to “sanitize and shield his reputation.”

  • Harvard previously conducted an investigation into its ties with Epstein in 2020. In November 2025, the University launched a new review into president emeritus Larry Summers (Phd ‘82) and other Harvard affiliates’ ties to Jeffrey Epstein following the government’s release of 20,000+ Epstein files.

  • Separately, Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) will not remove Leslie Wexner’s name from its main building or the Wexner-Sunshine Lobby after the University determined that “legal obligations” prohibit denaming. HKS will instead consider ways to “contextualize this part of our history.” Wexner said he was unaware of the legal obligations preventing the denaming: “My wife’s the lawyer . . . They sent us an agreement — I’m sure paper was passed, but no one ever asked about it. I never inquired about it.”

FAS Unveils New Administrative Model Amid Restructuring Process, Opens Internal Hiring Searches

  • Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) has shared the latest iteration of a new administrative model that will cluster departments and centers into groups with shared administrative functions.

  • The plan, developed with help from McKinsey & Company, is part of its effort to address its longstanding $350+ million structural deficit.

  • According to materials obtained by The Crimson from FAS Dean of Administration and Finance Warren Petrofsky’s town hall with Harvard staff, nearly 40 Arts & Humanities units would form 15 groups; 32 Sciences units would form 12 groups; and 35 Social Sciences units would form 16 groups, though some groupings appear to still be changing.

  • FAS has opened internal searches for seven new high-level administrative roles under the new model, including managing directors of department and center administration, and divisional finance managers.

  • The school has already decided it will lay off its three divisional administrative deans (not its , and up to 25% layoffs are expected later this summer. FAS divisional academic deans David Cutler (AB ‘87; Social Science), Sean Kelly (Arts & Humanities), and David Johnston (Science) will remain in their roles. At the town hall, Petrofsky said staff may be reassigned through “direct placement into a position, opportunities to choose between a changed role or a layoff, the ability to apply for available jobs, or a straight layoff.”

ED and DOJ Expand Partnership To Enforce Civil Rights in Schools

  • The Department of Education (ED) announced that its Office for Civil Rights (OCR) will deepen its civil rights enforcement partnership with the Department of Justice (DOJ), using an interagency agreement to coordinate investigations and enforcement and “continue holding schools accountable for compliance with Federal civil rights laws and increase civil rights protections for students.”

  • Under the agreement, ED will retain “all statutory authorities and functions,” while the agencies will use DOJ’s “enforcement powers” and the “expertise and capacity of both agencies” to evaluate, investigate, and resolve civil rights complaints involving schools.

  • DOJ already played a role in ED OCR enforcement: prior to this announcement, OCR could still refer cases to DOJ for judicial proceedings. Last month, DOJ filed an amended complaint in its admissions-records lawsuit against Harvard, adding allegations tied to a parallel ED OCR Title VI compliance review seeking anonymized, applicant-level admissions data from the University.

More News

More News at Harvard

  • The Crimson: “Education Secretary Linda McMahon Urges Harvard To ‘Take the Yale Example’ in Congressional Testimony”

  • The Crimson: “HSDM to Transfer Cambridge Dental Practice to Private Owner, End Faculty Practice”

  • The FAS Current: “New FAS chief of human resources named”

More News Beyond Harvard

Keep Reading

Read Past Editions