Dear WSJ, Why must you torture us?

This article has a cute title.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/knowing-the-13-secret-steps-into-harvard-doesnt-make-it-any-easier-1540752653

Who doesn't want to get into Harvard?  However, in trying to be cute it states things in such a manner that it almost makes the cardinal sin in statistical reasoning:  confusing correlation and causation!

It's second step comes closest to crossing the line:

Step 2: Scrap that. Move to New York City or Boston.

... Applicants from two dockets—the greater New York City and Boston areas—had admit rates of 11.3% and 12.8%, respectively, for the class of 2018. That’s roughly double the rates for other dockets.

I think the author realizes that actually moving to these cities wouldn't double your chances.  The second reason he offers seems to imply this understanding:

Those dockets are chaired by Harvard’s two top admissions officials, and happen to be areas with concentrated alumni and donor communities.

There are likely tons of other reasons why, of course.  NYC and Boston are extremely wealthy areas compared with the rest of the country and full of highly educated parents.  Wealth and a parent's education can give an applicant a big advantage.  The cities are also full of resources for unique educational opportunities.  How much do you think the influence of the two top officials explains the high rate of admission, compared to the other factors?  How could we test that?


I'd love to help you understand how to use data visualization to communicate clearly, and to understand it well for business, and in particular, for the relevant section of the GMAT.  Please don't be a stranger!  Get in touch with me here.