Turns out, Harvard students aren’t that smart after all

[Anonymous]

"In reality, 43% of Harvard’s white students are either recruited athletes, legacy students, on the dean’s interest list (meaning their parents have donated to the school) or children of faculty and staff (students admitted based on these criteria are referred to as ‘ALDCs’, which stands for ‘athletes’, ‘legacies’, ‘dean’s interest list’ and ‘children’ of Harvard employees). The kicker? Roughly three-quarters of these applicants would have been rejected if it weren’t for having rich or Harvard-connected parents or being an athlete.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/17/harvard-university-students-smart-iq

[Anonymous]

I didn't see any proof in the article that those applicants were not qualified or would have been rejected. Just a statement that said they would have with no support. Just because you are an athlete, a legacy or a teacher's child...does not mean you aren't smart or have the grades or test scores.
Did those things help them get in - sure - but no support for the other.

[Anonymous]

Listen, I knew a Harvard athlete. She scored 1600 on her SATs and was brilliant and offbeat. I don't think people who go to Harvard are special, but this weird anti-athlete sentiment on this board just smacks of insecurity from unathletic wannabes.

[Anonymous]

I mean, duh? Did anyone think that Harvard and the like were really selecting for the most intelligent students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean, duh? Did anyone think that Harvard and the like were really selecting for the most intelligent students?

+1, at least for the white applicants.

[Anonymous]

I once added up every category of “hook” reported by the Crimson and other sources for a recent incoming Harvard class, and it totaled well over 100%. I’m sure there are some kids with “double” hooks that were counted twice, (First-Gen/recruited athletes, URM/legacies, etc), but the fact remains that the majority of Harvard students have a “hook” of some kind.

Harvard admits the categories of kids it wants to admit, and because of the pool of applicants they get, it happens to be in the enviable position of being able to do that and still maintain high average stats. I have no problem with that, but people need to give up on the idea that it has anything to do with merit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn't see any proof in the article that those applicants were not qualified or would have been rejected. Just a statement that said they would have with no support. Just because you are an athlete, a legacy or a teacher's child...does not mean you aren't smart or have the grades or test scores.
Did those things help them get in - sure - but no support for the other.

+1. Likewise, the Harvard legacy student I know was also a valedictorian with a 1580.

As a general matter, "not qualified" is massively different from "would have been rejected" at a school with a 4% acceptance rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, duh? Did anyone think that Harvard and the like were really selecting for the most intelligent students?

+1, at least for the white applicants.

Oh really? Average SAT scores of admitted applicants by race at Harvard:

Asian-American 767
White 745
Hispanic American 718
Native American 712
African American 704

Source: The Harvard Crimson

[Anonymous]

This article is guardian clickbait, there is little useful new information or critical analysis put into it.

As others have pointed out, you can be both highly academically qualified and a legacy or a child of a donor, or an athlete. Or all 4!

I was interested in the "children of harvard employees". My BIL works for Harvard and has said that basically almost no employee kids are admitted, and it does not give an admissions boost. Do well-known faculty get admittance for children written into their contracts? Are we talking high level administration (like the children of Deans)? What say you DCUM?

[Anonymous]

The two two legacy kids I know who were admitted (from DC private schools) are both brilliant kids with tippy top scores. Turns out smart people have smart kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't see any proof in the article that those applicants were not qualified or would have been rejected. Just a statement that said they would have with no support. Just because you are an athlete, a legacy or a teacher's child...does not mean you aren't smart or have the grades or test scores.
Did those things help them get in - sure - but no support for the other.

+1. Likewise, the Harvard legacy student I know was also a valedictorian with a 1580.

As a general matter, "not qualified" is massively different from "would have been rejected" at a school with a 4% acceptance rate.

+2

Havard's SAT range is 1460 - 1570 considering it has also taken in student leaders like David Hogg with a SAT of 1270. Not many schools can top that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, duh? Did anyone think that Harvard and the like were really selecting for the most intelligent students?

+1, at least for the white applicants.

Oh really? Average SAT scores of admitted applicants by race at Harvard:

Asian-American 767
White 745
Hispanic American 718
Native American 712
African American 704

Source: The Harvard Crimson

I am doubling the scores for the 2021 percentiles, but that puts all the averages between 93rd-98th percentile, a difference of >5%.

https://blog.prepscholar.com/sat-percentiles-and-score-rankings

All. Equally. Qualified. Even by scores.

[Anonymous]

I have a relative who attended Harvard. Yeah, she was a legacy (her dad attended), but she also had a perfect SAT. And she was an athlete, though I don’t know if she was recruited or joined the team after enrolling. Either way, she’s incredibly bright and had every right to be there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The two two legacy kids I know who were admitted (from DC private schools) are both brilliant kids with tippy top scores. Turns out smart people have smart kids.

Then let’s get sperm from Nobel laureates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn't see any proof in the article that those applicants were not qualified or would have been rejected. Just a statement that said they would have with no support. Just because you are an athlete, a legacy or a teacher's child...does not mean you aren't smart or have the grades or test scores.
Did those things help them get in - sure - but no support for the other.

The study itself states that a significant portion of this group would not have gotten in without the preference.