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

[Anonymous]

Wow, prepscholar showing average SAT at Northeastern is only 55 pts less than Harvard!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, prepscholar showing average SAT at Northeastern is only 55 pts less than Harvard!

Not only is Northeastern only 55 pts less than Harvard, it's HIGHER than UVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Entitlement is when you are less qualified and feel you have to bring in non-merit characteristics to demand you be admitted.

"non-merit characteristics". Why do you get to decide what constitutes merit to Harvard?

That, right there, is my definition of "entitlement".

DP Because being a particular race inherently has no merit.

Then being a relatively mediocre athlete or the kid of an alum has no merit either.

“Relatively mediocre athlete”? Are you speaking of Division 1 Harvard? Those kids are not “relatively mediocre” even if most of them are not good enough to play basketball at Duke or Kentucky.

Giving a preference to legacy is done to support endowment growth, the lifeblood of a college and primary job of a college president.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes, I am. If you stop bootlicking athletes and actually look at them, they aren't at the top of the recruiting lists. They aren't the best athletes of their year. They're fine compared to the average non-athlete, but they're being rewarded for a skill level that no other applicant is rewarded. The average violinist who make all-state orchestra doesn't get a second look. You make all-county in baseball and Harvard will look at you because that's who they can get.

You don't know that legacy preference actually supports endowment growth. It's a cute story, but we have evidence that removing legacy would not hamper it. MIT has a $27 billion endowment and doesn't give a legacy preference. UT Austin has has a $30 billion endowment and doesn't give a legacy preference. If anything, eliminating legacy preference would increase donations because you're broadening your alumni base.

DP. You sound pretty unhinged and ignorant. Do you honestly think admissions at Harvard should exactly match your narrow preferences? The fact is that Harvard has to make choices. And they do it in ways that define merit in ways that are never going to match whatever weirdly narrow definition of merit you think that you, personally, should be able to define.

Also, Harvard's performing art students aren't anywhere near the exalted caliber you seem to think they are. If they were that good, they'd be at Juilliard. Their performing arts students are like athletic admits in a lot of ways, frankly: excellent students who bring another dimension to the campus but who aren't good enough to go to the truly great institutions for the arts (or athletics). You are just stuck in your anti-athlete fantasy world.

Finally I will also note that by raging against legacy admits you are hurting minority students, not just wealthy white students. Personally I think it is ridiculous (though sadly not surprising) that the first time that minority and not-wealthy students can benefit broadly from legacy preference, people want to take it away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Entitlement is when you are less qualified and feel you have to bring in non-merit characteristics to demand you be admitted.

"non-merit characteristics". Why do you get to decide what constitutes merit to Harvard?

That, right there, is my definition of "entitlement".

DP Because being a particular race inherently has no merit.

Then being a relatively mediocre athlete or the kid of an alum has no merit either.

“Relatively mediocre athlete”? Are you speaking of Division 1 Harvard? Those kids are not “relatively mediocre” even if most of them are not good enough to play basketball at Duke or Kentucky.

Giving a preference to legacy is done to support endowment growth, the lifeblood of a college and primary job of a college president.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes, I am. If you stop bootlicking athletes and actually look at them, they aren't at the top of the recruiting lists. They aren't the best athletes of their year. They're fine compared to the average non-athlete, but they're being rewarded for a skill level that no other applicant is rewarded. The average violinist who make all-state orchestra doesn't get a second look. You make all-county in baseball and Harvard will look at you because that's who they can get.

You don't know that legacy preference actually supports endowment growth. It's a cute story, but we have evidence that removing legacy would not hamper it. MIT has a $27 billion endowment and doesn't give a legacy preference. UT Austin has has a $30 billion endowment and doesn't give a legacy preference. If anything, eliminating legacy preference would increase donations because you're broadening your alumni base.

No, you clearly do not know what you are talking about, or your are being dishonest. Your reliance on use of pejorative terminology is also indicative of the weakness of your position.

To dispense your points quickly:

- Around 7% of high school athletes play a sport in college. I am sure your understanding of math informs that 7% is not "mediocre":

https://scholarshipstats.com/varsityodds#:~:text=Overall%20a%20little%20over%207,at%20NCAA%20Division%20I%20schools.

- Mentioning large endowments of schools that don't currently give legacy preference offers zero proof that it does not benefit those that do. That's a strawman fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You clearly do not know what you are talking about.

PS - no family member is an athlete or a legacy, I do have a kid at an Ivy solely on academics, so no dog in this fight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Entitlement is when you are less qualified and feel you have to bring in non-merit characteristics to demand you be admitted.

"non-merit characteristics". Why do you get to decide what constitutes merit to Harvard?

That, right there, is my definition of "entitlement".

DP Because being a particular race inherently has no merit.

Then being a relatively mediocre athlete or the kid of an alum has no merit either.

“Relatively mediocre athlete”? Are you speaking of Division 1 Harvard? Those kids are not “relatively mediocre” even if most of them are not good enough to play basketball at Duke or Kentucky.

Giving a preference to legacy is done to support endowment growth, the lifeblood of a college and primary job of a college president.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes, I am. If you stop bootlicking athletes and actually look at them, they aren't at the top of the recruiting lists. They aren't the best athletes of their year. They're fine compared to the average non-athlete, but they're being rewarded for a skill level that no other applicant is rewarded. The average violinist who make all-state orchestra doesn't get a second look. You make all-county in baseball and Harvard will look at you because that's who they can get.

You don't know that legacy preference actually supports endowment growth. It's a cute story, but we have evidence that removing legacy would not hamper it. MIT has a $27 billion endowment and doesn't give a legacy preference. UT Austin has has a $30 billion endowment and doesn't give a legacy preference. If anything, eliminating legacy preference would increase donations because you're broadening your alumni base.

DP. You sound pretty unhinged and ignorant. Do you honestly think admissions at Harvard should exactly match your narrow preferences? The fact is that Harvard has to make choices. And they do it in ways that define merit in ways that are never going to match whatever weirdly narrow definition of merit you think that you, personally, should be able to define.

Also, Harvard's performing art students aren't anywhere near the exalted caliber you seem to think they are. If they were that good, they'd be at Juilliard. Their performing arts students are like athletic admits in a lot of ways, frankly: excellent students who bring another dimension to the campus but who aren't good enough to go to the truly great institutions for the arts (or athletics). You are just stuck in your anti-athlete fantasy world.

Finally I will also note that by raging against legacy admits you are hurting minority students, not just wealthy white students. Personally I think it is ridiculous (though sadly not surprising) that the first time that minority and not-wealthy students can benefit broadly from legacy preference, people want to take it away.

I'm the original ignorant poster. I agree. Harvard should be able to admit whoever they want on whatever criteria they want - academics, athletics, URM, legacy, first-gen, etc. What I think is silly is athletic/legacy boosters decrying URM hooks as lacking 'merit' while trying to claim that their hooks are justified. They're either all ok or none of them are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Entitlement is when you are less qualified and feel you have to bring in non-merit characteristics to demand you be admitted.

"non-merit characteristics". Why do you get to decide what constitutes merit to Harvard?

That, right there, is my definition of "entitlement".

DP Because being a particular race inherently has no merit.

Then being a relatively mediocre athlete or the kid of an alum has no merit either.

“Relatively mediocre athlete”? Are you speaking of Division 1 Harvard? Those kids are not “relatively mediocre” even if most of them are not good enough to play basketball at Duke or Kentucky.

Giving a preference to legacy is done to support endowment growth, the lifeblood of a college and primary job of a college president.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes, I am. If you stop bootlicking athletes and actually look at them, they aren't at the top of the recruiting lists. They aren't the best athletes of their year. They're fine compared to the average non-athlete, but they're being rewarded for a skill level that no other applicant is rewarded. The average violinist who make all-state orchestra doesn't get a second look. You make all-county in baseball and Harvard will look at you because that's who they can get.

You don't know that legacy preference actually supports endowment growth. It's a cute story, but we have evidence that removing legacy would not hamper it. MIT has a $27 billion endowment and doesn't give a legacy preference. UT Austin has has a $30 billion endowment and doesn't give a legacy preference. If anything, eliminating legacy preference would increase donations because you're broadening your alumni base.

No, you clearly do not know what you are talking about, or your are being dishonest. Your reliance on use of pejorative terminology is also indicative of the weakness of your position.

To dispense your points quickly:

- Around 7% of high school athletes play a sport in college. I am sure your understanding of math informs that 7% is not "mediocre":

https://scholarshipstats.com/varsityodds#:~:text=Overall%20a%20little%20over%207,at%20NCAA%20Division%20I%20schools.

- Mentioning large endowments of schools that don't currently give legacy preference offers zero proof that it does not benefit those that do. That's a strawman fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You clearly do not know what you are talking about.

PS - no family member is an athlete or a legacy, I do have a kid at an Ivy solely on academics, so no dog in this fight.

So you only need to be in the 93rd percentile to play sports in college? I had no idea the number was that high. Thanks for making my point. Do you only need to be in the 93rd percentile on your SAT (that's a 1360)?

So, on the legacy admissions, let me understand this since I don't know what I'm talking about.

The argument (with no support whatsoever) is that legacy preference leads to higher donations leads to greater endowment and that is the sole and overriding concern of a college president.

I've seen nothing that makes me think this is true and the actual data may be hard to come by. But you know who does have the data? College presidents.

I note that MIT and Texas, both colleges with presidents, who supposedly care about the endowment over everything else, choose to leave all this money on the table and not give a preference to legacies. Seems to me to be a real world example that someone out there doesn't think the two are tied. And they're not the only ones. Amherst just said they were doing away with legacy admissions. I would think the president of Amherst (or CalTech or Johns Hopkins) would consider this point with the reams of donation data and surveys that they have of their alumni. And they decided to eliminate it.

Look I'm just a stupid person, but at least I try to think through the problem, rather than just asserting my gut feeling and claiming that I'm right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: ... never hire someone smarter than you

they should fire you (you obviously do not work at your own company)

notice you didn't have any problem with the exploitation . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: So you only need to be in the 93rd percentile to play sports in college? I had no idea the number was that high. Thanks for making my point. Do you only need to be in the 93rd percentile on your SAT (that's a 1360)?

WTF are you talking about now?

You said "mediocre". 93rd percentile is not the definition of mediocre by any reasonable math. I am truly here with my jaw on my desk by this comment.

Anonymous wrote: So, on the legacy admissions, let me understand this since I don't know what I'm talking about.

The argument (with no support whatsoever) is that legacy preference leads to higher donations leads to greater endowment and that is the sole and overriding concern of a college president.

I've seen nothing that makes me think this is true and the actual data may be hard to come by. But you know who does have the data? College presidents.

I note that MIT and Texas, both colleges with presidents, who supposedly care about the endowment over everything else, choose to leave all this money on the table and not give a preference to legacies. Seems to me to be a real world example that someone out there doesn't think the two are tied. And they're not the only ones. Amherst just said they were doing away with legacy admissions. I would think the president of Amherst (or CalTech or Johns Hopkins) would consider this point with the reams of donation data and surveys that they have of their alumni. And they decided to eliminate it.

Again, none of this disproves the point that this is why they do it. You can have the opinion that they shouldn't do it, or that it is unfair, or ineffective, but your point remains a strawman.

Anonymous wrote: Look I'm just a stupid person, but at least I try to think through the problem, rather than just asserting my gut feeling and claiming that I'm right.

I will not comment on any of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: So you only need to be in the 93rd percentile to play sports in college? I had no idea the number was that high. Thanks for making my point. Do you only need to be in the 93rd percentile on your SAT (that's a 1360)?

WTF are you talking about now?

You said "mediocre". 93rd percentile is not the definition of mediocre by any reasonable math. I am truly here with my jaw on my desk by this comment.

Anonymous wrote: So, on the legacy admissions, let me understand this since I don't know what I'm talking about.

The argument (with no support whatsoever) is that legacy preference leads to higher donations leads to greater endowment and that is the sole and overriding concern of a college president.

I've seen nothing that makes me think this is true and the actual data may be hard to come by. But you know who does have the data? College presidents.

I note that MIT and Texas, both colleges with presidents, who supposedly care about the endowment over everything else, choose to leave all this money on the table and not give a preference to legacies. Seems to me to be a real world example that someone out there doesn't think the two are tied. And they're not the only ones. Amherst just said they were doing away with legacy admissions. I would think the president of Amherst (or CalTech or Johns Hopkins) would consider this point with the reams of donation data and surveys that they have of their alumni. And they decided to eliminate it.

Again, none of this disproves the point that this is why they do it. You can have the opinion that they shouldn't do it, or that it is unfair, or ineffective, but your point remains a strawman.

Anonymous wrote: Look I'm just a stupid person, but at least I try to think through the problem, rather than just asserting my gut feeling and claiming that I'm right.

I will not comment on any of this.

I originally used the phrase 'relatively mediocre' and was told it was grammatically awful. My point is and always has been that among the athletes who play college sports, these guys aren't that special so why are you treating them as such. And your point reinforces that. Being in the 93rd percentile is nice, but should you be rewarded with automatic entry into a college with a sub 5% acceptance rate?

Again, if you showed up with 93rd percentile SAT scores, what do you think the chances are of getting admitted?

I honestly don't care if Harvard prefers athletes. They can do what they want. Put those people shouldn't look down their noses at anyone else who gets an admissions advantage because Harvard has determined it is something they value. They didn't 'earn' it nor did they deserve admission. The reality is that Harvard decided that they have a need, they fill it and the honest truth is that without it, they probably wouldn't have gotten in.

On the legacy point, you keep asserting it's true, but that's not an argument. It's a theory. Harvard might think it's true, but counterfactuals exists that at least call that into question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I originally used the phrase 'relatively mediocre' and was told it was grammatically awful. My point is and always has been that among the athletes who play college sports, these guys aren't that special so why are you treating them as such. And your point reinforces that. Being in the 93rd percentile is nice, but should you be rewarded with automatic entry into a college with a sub 5% acceptance rate?

Spin all you want, and grammar notwithstanding, we all know what "mediocre" means, and it makes you wrong on the facts. Also, that 7% is for all colleges, div I, II & III, and the D1 ivies get way better the bottom of that percentile. So yes, I think if they have that special skill, and are in the "academically qualified" bucket, Harvard should be allowed to admit them if Harvard wants to.

Anonymous wrote:Again, if you showed up with 93rd percentile SAT scores, what do you think the chances are of getting admitted?

That 93rd percentile is for all colleges, and if you understand even basic math that would mean being in the 93rd percentile academically would get me in contention for 93% of the seats at all colleges. It's so, so simple.

I honestly don't care if Harvard prefers athletes. They can do what they want. Put those people shouldn't look down their noses at anyone else who gets an admissions advantage because Harvard has determined it is something they value. They didn't 'earn' it nor did they deserve admission. The reality is that Harvard decided that they have a need, they fill it and the honest truth is that without it, they probably wouldn't have gotten in.

That is true for every admittee at every selective college on the planet. They have some thing or combination of things the college wants.

On the legacy point, you keep asserting it's true, but that's not an argument. It's a theory. Harvard might think it's true, but counterfactuals exists that at least call that into question.

I am not claiming it works - and in fact I am not a fan of legacy admissions and the policies effectiveness can be debated (see link below). But this is why the colleges say they do it, and I think they get to decide and not you or I.

https://theconversation.com/why-do-colleges-use-legacy-admissions-5-questions-answered-169450

If William Fitzsimmons believes that legacy preferences are “essential to Harvard’s well-being", then Harvard should use them. If Logan Powell, believes that legacy admissions are very involved in mentoring and internship experiences for current students, then Brown should use them. And so on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Entitlement is when you are less qualified and feel you have to bring in non-merit characteristics to demand you be admitted.

"non-merit characteristics". Why do you get to decide what constitutes merit to Harvard?

That, right there, is my definition of "entitlement".

DP Because being a particular race inherently has no merit.

Then being a relatively mediocre athlete or the kid of an alum has no merit either.

“Relatively mediocre athlete”? Are you speaking of Division 1 Harvard? Those kids are not “relatively mediocre” even if most of them are not good enough to play basketball at Duke or Kentucky.

Giving a preference to legacy is done to support endowment growth, the lifeblood of a college and primary job of a college president.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes, I am. If you stop bootlicking athletes and actually look at them, they aren't at the top of the recruiting lists. They aren't the best athletes of their year. They're fine compared to the average non-athlete, but they're being rewarded for a skill level that no other applicant is rewarded. The average violinist who make all-state orchestra doesn't get a second look. You make all-county in baseball and Harvard will look at you because that's who they can get.

You don't know that legacy preference actually supports endowment growth. It's a cute story, but we have evidence that removing legacy would not hamper it. MIT has a $27 billion endowment and doesn't give a legacy preference. UT Austin has has a $30 billion endowment and doesn't give a legacy preference. If anything, eliminating legacy preference would increase donations because you're broadening your alumni base.

DP. You sound pretty unhinged and ignorant. Do you honestly think admissions at Harvard should exactly match your narrow preferences? The fact is that Harvard has to make choices. And they do it in ways that define merit in ways that are never going to match whatever weirdly narrow definition of merit you think that you, personally, should be able to define.

Also, Harvard's performing art students aren't anywhere near the exalted caliber you seem to think they are. If they were that good, they'd be at Juilliard. Their performing arts students are like athletic admits in a lot of ways, frankly: excellent students who bring another dimension to the campus but who aren't good enough to go to the truly great institutions for the arts (or athletics). You are just stuck in your anti-athlete fantasy world.

Finally I will also note that by raging against legacy admits you are hurting minority students, not just wealthy white students. Personally I think it is ridiculous (though sadly not surprising) that the first time that minority and not-wealthy students can benefit broadly from legacy preference, people want to take it away.

I'm the original ignorant poster. I agree. Harvard should be able to admit whoever they want on whatever criteria they want - academics, athletics, URM, legacy, first-gen, etc. What I think is silly is athletic/legacy boosters decrying URM hooks as lacking 'merit' while trying to claim that their hooks are justified. They're either all ok or none of them are.

I’d get rid of all hooks but the reality is the handicap for URM is much greater than that for athletes or legacies. I wish America was actually focused on a meritocracy and not some demented social engineering experiment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d get rid of all hooks but the reality is the handicap for URM is much greater than that for athletes or legacies. I wish America was actually focused on a meritocracy and not some demented social engineering experiment.

What you need to understand is that the people who run the colleges believe that achieving racial balance in admissions is the only way to have a true meritocracy.

You can disagree with them, and when you run a college you can change it, but they believe it and act with only good intentions and they desire exactly what you state you desire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Entitlement is when you are less qualified and feel you have to bring in non-merit characteristics to demand you be admitted.

"non-merit characteristics". Why do you get to decide what constitutes merit to Harvard?

That, right there, is my definition of "entitlement".

DP Because being a particular race inherently has no merit.

Then being a relatively mediocre athlete or the kid of an alum has no merit either.

“Relatively mediocre athlete”? Are you speaking of Division 1 Harvard? Those kids are not “relatively mediocre” even if most of them are not good enough to play basketball at Duke or Kentucky.

Giving a preference to legacy is done to support endowment growth, the lifeblood of a college and primary job of a college president.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes, I am. If you stop bootlicking athletes and actually look at them, they aren't at the top of the recruiting lists. They aren't the best athletes of their year. They're fine compared to the average non-athlete, but they're being rewarded for a skill level that no other applicant is rewarded. The average violinist who make all-state orchestra doesn't get a second look. You make all-county in baseball and Harvard will look at you because that's who they can get.

You don't know that legacy preference actually supports endowment growth. It's a cute story, but we have evidence that removing legacy would not hamper it. MIT has a $27 billion endowment and doesn't give a legacy preference. UT Austin has has a $30 billion endowment and doesn't give a legacy preference. If anything, eliminating legacy preference would increase donations because you're broadening your alumni base.

DP. You sound pretty unhinged and ignorant. Do you honestly think admissions at Harvard should exactly match your narrow preferences? The fact is that Harvard has to make choices. And they do it in ways that define merit in ways that are never going to match whatever weirdly narrow definition of merit you think that you, personally, should be able to define.

Also, Harvard's performing art students aren't anywhere near the exalted caliber you seem to think they are. If they were that good, they'd be at Juilliard. Their performing arts students are like athletic admits in a lot of ways, frankly: excellent students who bring another dimension to the campus but who aren't good enough to go to the truly great institutions for the arts (or athletics). You are just stuck in your anti-athlete fantasy world.

Finally I will also note that by raging against legacy admits you are hurting minority students, not just wealthy white students. Personally I think it is ridiculous (though sadly not surprising) that the first time that minority and not-wealthy students can benefit broadly from legacy preference, people want to take it away.

I'm the original ignorant poster. I agree. Harvard should be able to admit whoever they want on whatever criteria they want - academics, athletics, URM, legacy, first-gen, etc. What I think is silly is athletic/legacy boosters decrying URM hooks as lacking 'merit' while trying to claim that their hooks are justified. They're either all ok or none of them are.

If that's your actual point, you are doing an appallingly bad job at making it.

[Anonymous]

How many of you here who support Harvard giving admission to all kinds of special categories willing, when your life is on the line, to be operated by a surgeon or represented by a lawyer who went to college due to admission in one such category? If you were in Rittenhouse’s shoes, would you be happey to be defended by a lawyer from one of the special categories?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many of you here who support Harvard giving admission to all kinds of special categories willing, when your life is on the line, to be operated by a surgeon or represented by a lawyer who went to college due to admission in one such category? If you were in Rittenhouse’s shoes, would you be happey to be defended by a lawyer from one of the special categories?

it's been like this for years at Harvard and elsewhere. you probably have already been operated on by a surgeon or represented by a lawyer who fits that description. you just didn't know.