Harvard has a secret back door for ultra-rich kids with lousy grades

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White donating 20 million to Harvard to get in bad.

Black getting cause black is bad

Asian unless Harvard 100 percent Asian unfair.

Athletes are bad

Hispanic getting in bad

It is all nonsense. Each group only wants their own group in. No one cares if fair they just want their group to have an advantage

how about fair clear transparent rules for everyone?

So you want the government to step in and dictate these rules?

Yes just like the government is providing them funding and humongous tax benefit

This is such BS. No the government is not "providing them funding". The are funding research though grants awarded to individual academics who apply for it, and for which they get the results.

Technology Transfer is the means by which research findings are transferred to the private sector for potential development into products and processes. Products developed from university technology transfer include the gene splicing technology that effectively created the biotechnology industry, new Internet search engines, and improved building materials.

Since the 1980 enactment of the Bayh-Dole Act, the federal government has allowed universities and other nonprofit organizations to patent and retain title to inventions created from research funded by the government. Universities, in turn, must:
• offer to license the rights to innovations to industry;
• use any remaining income, minus the costs of technology management expenses, for scientific research or education;
• share any future income from the patent with the inventor; and
• provide the federal government a nonexclusive, irrevocable license to the invention.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED517263.pdf

As for the tax benefit, every church, charity, country club, PAC, the NRA, the ACLU, the boy scouts, and more receive the same tax treatment. Should we get to tell them what to do? Because I would be up for that.

But if not then stop making that silly point.

WTF right there in bold.

Also government tells those organizations not to discriminate.
In fact this year, Supreme Court ordered colleges not to use race in admission.
Government do tell them what not to do.

Trying to reply respectfully here... not sure if there is a language barrier making it harder for you to understand.

The federal government does not fund private colleges. Researchers for colleges apply for grants for specific research, and if those grants are awarded, the government and private sector benefit. They get something in return. It's not budgeted money they get to use for whatever they wish. Read what I quoted and the linked PDF if you care to understand. It's like being hired for a job.

And yes, the colleges need to follow laws in admissions, as interpreted by the supreme court. Not sure why that is even brought up. This thread is about Z-list type admissions of legacies, donors, development admits, and the like.

WTF are you talking about it's right there

"the federal government supports about 60 percent of the research performed at universities. In 2009, that amounted to the federal government supporting about $33 billion of universities’ total annual R&D spending of $55 billion."

Stop sending my tax to the universities and they can do whatever they want

Again, you fail to understand they are not sending money to the universities. They are hiring them. These universities are where the great research and the great minds are. You don’t get a quid pro quo because they have the best research scientists.

You get the benefit of this funded research. You, your family, your neighbors, me…. The Internet, we are now using is a result of it. Plus millions of other innovations in technology, healthcare, aerospace, etc. etc. etc. they pay for the right for private industry to use it, not for you to get to say who they get to admit.

I’m sorry you don’t understand the distinction. I suspect it may be you do understand, but don’t want to admit it because it doesn’t support your narrative. It’s irrelevant though, because that’s the way it works, and it is not going to change.

Denying your own source lol

No, I am not denying my own source. I am denying that you understand it.

[Anonymous]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardvedder/2018/04/08/there-are-really-almost-no-truly-private-universities/

Enough of BS.
Cut all the support and funding from my tax money, then they can do whatever they want to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What does Harvard University do when faced with well-connected applicants — the children of mega-donors or other highly influential people — who have less-than-ideal SAT scores and GPAs?

The put them on the Z-List, according to a college admissions coach.

That means the students are advised to matriculate after taking a gap year, making them so-called “data ghosts” — meaning their lackluster academic statistics are not reported in the incoming freshman class.

That way Harvard doesn’t take a hit to its stellar academic averages — or institutional rankings.

“If Harvard doesn’t want the student hurting their US News and World Report ranking with their GPA and test scores, they admit them through the Z list,” Brian Taylor, managing partner of Manhattan-based college admissions firm Ivy Coach, told The Post. (While Harvard’s Law and Medical Schools both pulled out of US News and World Report’s college rankings, the university at large has not.)

“It often means that the student really doesn’t qualify for admission on their own.”

Although Harvard is the only school with a so-called “Z-List,” Taylor said other elite schools exploit similar loopholes to get students with inconvenient stats in the door.
The most common way is exploiting the transfer process.

Because US News and World Report doesn’t count transfer students’ statistics in their ranking calculations, some schools funnel in lower-performing students that way.

According to Taylor, Cornell exploits a “guaranteed transfer” system in which applicants with sub-par test scores or GPAs are told to do their freshman year of college elsewhere then re-apply.

If they maintain a certain grade point average during their freshman year — typically a B-average — they’re guaranteed admission to Cornell as a second-year transfer student.

“I don’t think it’s right that Cornell does that. It’s not fair to their peer institutions,” Taylor said.

https://nypost.com/2023/11/06/news/harvards-secret-backdoor-for-ultra-rich-under-qualified-kids/

I don't think the Cornell info is correct. Lot of 'regular family' stellar stat kids are TO. They didn't just make the first cut but are given the option to come back if they maintain decent grades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardvedder/2018/04/08/there-are-really-almost-no-truly-private-universities/

Enough of BS.
Cut all the support and funding from my tax money, then they can do whatever they want to do.

Can’t argue with stupid.

[Anonymous]

Lol. Some of y'all think it's a meritocracy. Some of y'all think excellent performance in college is what matters.

Nope.

[Anonymous]

This has to be such a tiny number of students it's not even worth caring about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:isn't this what one of the Obama kids did?

No. Malia Obama took a year break, but was admitted for fall the first year. She just smartly chose to take a year off, because it was 2016 when she graduated HS. Taking a year off meant her dad would not longer be in the White House when she started college, and I suspect she wanted to enjoy college being a bit more out of the spotlight (or at least as much as you can when you still have secret service agents with you everywhere you go).

And Malia Obama is not a "George W bush" getting into an Ivy by legacy but not really that smart. She's a smart kid, parents were both top Harvard Law grads.

Yup I'm sure the name 'Obama' played a huge role.

I'm certain it did. However, she had the resume to be competitive even if it were Name Blind application. The Obama kids are really smart and excelled at school. They are NOT a GWB situation where he definately only got in because of family name---he did not have the grades. Obama girls were A students at Sidwell. Both parents were tops at Harvard Law. Smart parents tend to push their kids to excel, yes with tons of privilege along the way, but the kids do work hard.

did they reveal their grades and SAT scores?

Yeah---Barack graduated Top 15% of Harvard Law. That's revealing "Grades". Despite what you want to think, he's extremely smart. Despite what you are implying, Harvard and the likes are not just accepting a URM without the academics to support that.

I meant the daughters.
Looks to me got in backdoor and had easy major - visual and environment studies

plenty of kids at Ivies major in "easy majors" which for you likely means non-stem. Malia had interest in Visual studies since she was much younger, had interned on tv shows, etc. So she was just following her passion, something many parents allow their kids to do, especially parents with money.

Yup that's a nice easy major and good field when you have a big shot daddy with connections.

Majority that succeed in that field have connections, it's how the industry works

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White donating 20 million to Harvard to get in bad.

Black getting cause black is bad

Asian unless Harvard 100 percent Asian unfair.

Athletes are bad

Hispanic getting in bad

It is all nonsense. Each group only wants their own group in. No one cares if fair they just want their group to have an advantage

how about fair clear transparent rules for everyone?

So you want the government to step in and dictate these rules?

Yes just like the government is providing them funding and humongous tax benefit

This is such BS. No the government is not "providing them funding". The are funding research though grants awarded to individual academics who apply for it, and for which they get the results.

Technology Transfer is the means by which research findings are transferred to the private sector for potential development into products and processes. Products developed from university technology transfer include the gene splicing technology that effectively created the biotechnology industry, new Internet search engines, and improved building materials.

Since the 1980 enactment of the Bayh-Dole Act, the federal government has allowed universities and other nonprofit organizations to patent and retain title to inventions created from research funded by the government. Universities, in turn, must:
• offer to license the rights to innovations to industry;
• use any remaining income, minus the costs of technology management expenses, for scientific research or education;
• share any future income from the patent with the inventor; and
• provide the federal government a nonexclusive, irrevocable license to the invention.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED517263.pdf

As for the tax benefit, every church, charity, country club, PAC, the NRA, the ACLU, the boy scouts, and more receive the same tax treatment. Should we get to tell them what to do? Because I would be up for that.

But if not then stop making that silly point.

WTF right there in bold.

Also government tells those organizations not to discriminate.
In fact this year, Supreme Court ordered colleges not to use race in admission.
Government do tell them what not to do.

Trying to reply respectfully here... not sure if there is a language barrier making it harder for you to understand.

The federal government does not fund private colleges. Researchers for colleges apply for grants for specific research, and if those grants are awarded, the government and private sector benefit. They get something in return. It's not budgeted money they get to use for whatever they wish. Read what I quoted and the linked PDF if you care to understand. It's like being hired for a job.

And yes, the colleges need to follow laws in admissions, as interpreted by the supreme court. Not sure why that is even brought up. This thread is about Z-list type admissions of legacies, donors, development admits, and the like.

+1

This Funded research is done at universities with grad students (and some undergrads) assisting. That means the work is being done at a high level, with highly motivated and qualified people, and it's being done at minimal cost (Grad students make very low pay yet have every incentive to put in 120% and do their best work). Now imagine you had to hire someone in industry to do this work---would cost a ton more to make it happen if you don't have all the PHD candidates working for free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This has to be such a tiny number of students it's not even worth caring about.

It’s 3% of the class. You could argue that about any group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White donating 20 million to Harvard to get in bad.

Black getting cause black is bad

Asian unless Harvard 100 percent Asian unfair.

Athletes are bad

Hispanic getting in bad

It is all nonsense. Each group only wants their own group in. No one cares if fair they just want their group to have an advantage

how about fair clear transparent rules for everyone?

So you want the government to step in and dictate these rules?

Yes just like the government is providing them funding and humongous tax benefit

This is such BS. No the government is not "providing them funding". The are funding research though grants awarded to individual academics who apply for it, and for which they get the results.

Technology Transfer is the means by which research findings are transferred to the private sector for potential development into products and processes. Products developed from university technology transfer include the gene splicing technology that effectively created the biotechnology industry, new Internet search engines, and improved building materials.

Since the 1980 enactment of the Bayh-Dole Act, the federal government has allowed universities and other nonprofit organizations to patent and retain title to inventions created from research funded by the government. Universities, in turn, must:
• offer to license the rights to innovations to industry;
• use any remaining income, minus the costs of technology management expenses, for scientific research or education;
• share any future income from the patent with the inventor; and
• provide the federal government a nonexclusive, irrevocable license to the invention.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED517263.pdf

As for the tax benefit, every church, charity, country club, PAC, the NRA, the ACLU, the boy scouts, and more receive the same tax treatment. Should we get to tell them what to do? Because I would be up for that.

But if not then stop making that silly point.

WTF right there in bold.

Also government tells those organizations not to discriminate.
In fact this year, Supreme Court ordered colleges not to use race in admission.
Government do tell them what not to do.

Trying to reply respectfully here... not sure if there is a language barrier making it harder for you to understand.

The federal government does not fund private colleges. Researchers for colleges apply for grants for specific research, and if those grants are awarded, the government and private sector benefit. They get something in return. It's not budgeted money they get to use for whatever they wish. Read what I quoted and the linked PDF if you care to understand. It's like being hired for a job.

And yes, the colleges need to follow laws in admissions, as interpreted by the supreme court. Not sure why that is even brought up. This thread is about Z-list type admissions of legacies, donors, development admits, and the like.

WTF are you talking about it's right there

"the federal government supports about 60 percent of the research performed at universities. In 2009, that amounted to the federal government supporting about $33 billion of universities’ total annual R&D spending of $55 billion."

Stop sending my tax to the universities and they can do whatever they want

Not sure about you, but I personally don't want to live in a world where we don't have the benefits from all the research done at universities (for medical, science, and all other topics). Research done at universities is "cheap" vs having it done in industry. Universities are also where some of the best and brightest minds are for doing this research---they certainly aren't there for the pay (even at the professor level) , they are there because they love the research and work best in that situation. we as a society benefit greatly from this research, much of it groundbreaking.

As a PP stated, please also stop giving tax breaks to churches, NRA, etc. Because apparently we now get to dictate taxes and beneficiaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White donating 20 million to Harvard to get in bad.

Black getting cause black is bad

Asian unless Harvard 100 percent Asian unfair.

Athletes are bad

Hispanic getting in bad

It is all nonsense. Each group only wants their own group in. No one cares if fair they just want their group to have an advantage

how about fair clear transparent rules for everyone?

So you want the government to step in and dictate these rules?

Yes just like the government is providing them funding and humongous tax benefit

This is such BS. No the government is not "providing them funding". The are funding research though grants awarded to individual academics who apply for it, and for which they get the results.

Technology Transfer is the means by which research findings are transferred to the private sector for potential development into products and processes. Products developed from university technology transfer include the gene splicing technology that effectively created the biotechnology industry, new Internet search engines, and improved building materials.

Since the 1980 enactment of the Bayh-Dole Act, the federal government has allowed universities and other nonprofit organizations to patent and retain title to inventions created from research funded by the government. Universities, in turn, must:
• offer to license the rights to innovations to industry;
• use any remaining income, minus the costs of technology management expenses, for scientific research or education;
• share any future income from the patent with the inventor; and
• provide the federal government a nonexclusive, irrevocable license to the invention.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED517263.pdf

As for the tax benefit, every church, charity, country club, PAC, the NRA, the ACLU, the boy scouts, and more receive the same tax treatment. Should we get to tell them what to do? Because I would be up for that.

But if not then stop making that silly point.

WTF right there in bold.

Also government tells those organizations not to discriminate.
In fact this year, Supreme Court ordered colleges not to use race in admission.
Government do tell them what not to do.

Trying to reply respectfully here... not sure if there is a language barrier making it harder for you to understand.

The federal government does not fund private colleges. Researchers for colleges apply for grants for specific research, and if those grants are awarded, the government and private sector benefit. They get something in return. It's not budgeted money they get to use for whatever they wish. Read what I quoted and the linked PDF if you care to understand. It's like being hired for a job.

And yes, the colleges need to follow laws in admissions, as interpreted by the supreme court. Not sure why that is even brought up. This thread is about Z-list type admissions of legacies, donors, development admits, and the like.

+1

This Funded research is done at universities with grad students (and some undergrads) assisting. That means the work is being done at a high level, with highly motivated and qualified people, and it's being done at minimal cost (Grad students make very low pay yet have every incentive to put in 120% and do their best work). Now imagine you had to hire someone in industry to do this work---would cost a ton more to make it happen if you don't have all the PHD candidates working for free.

But you don’t understand. It’s worth it if it means my kid has a 2% better chance of being admitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every school has this.

This. My view on this is that if these kids, who pay full price and their parents make a nice gift, allow kids who need a full scholarship to be there, be there, then whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White donating 20 million to Harvard to get in bad.

Black getting cause black is bad

Asian unless Harvard 100 percent Asian unfair.

Athletes are bad

Hispanic getting in bad

It is all nonsense. Each group only wants their own group in. No one cares if fair they just want their group to have an advantage

how about fair clear transparent rules for everyone?

So you want the government to step in and dictate these rules?

Yes just like the government is providing them funding and humongous tax benefit

This is such BS. No the government is not "providing them funding". The are funding research though grants awarded to individual academics who apply for it, and for which they get the results.

Technology Transfer is the means by which research findings are transferred to the private sector for potential development into products and processes. Products developed from university technology transfer include the gene splicing technology that effectively created the biotechnology industry, new Internet search engines, and improved building materials.

Since the 1980 enactment of the Bayh-Dole Act, the federal government has allowed universities and other nonprofit organizations to patent and retain title to inventions created from research funded by the government. Universities, in turn, must:
• offer to license the rights to innovations to industry;
• use any remaining income, minus the costs of technology management expenses, for scientific research or education;
• share any future income from the patent with the inventor; and
• provide the federal government a nonexclusive, irrevocable license to the invention.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED517263.pdf

As for the tax benefit, every church, charity, country club, PAC, the NRA, the ACLU, the boy scouts, and more receive the same tax treatment. Should we get to tell them what to do? Because I would be up for that.

But if not then stop making that silly point.

WTF right there in bold.

Also government tells those organizations not to discriminate.
In fact this year, Supreme Court ordered colleges not to use race in admission.
Government do tell them what not to do.

Trying to reply respectfully here... not sure if there is a language barrier making it harder for you to understand.

The federal government does not fund private colleges. Researchers for colleges apply for grants for specific research, and if those grants are awarded, the government and private sector benefit. They get something in return. It's not budgeted money they get to use for whatever they wish. Read what I quoted and the linked PDF if you care to understand. It's like being hired for a job.

And yes, the colleges need to follow laws in admissions, as interpreted by the supreme court. Not sure why that is even brought up. This thread is about Z-list type admissions of legacies, donors, development admits, and the like.

WTF are you talking about it's right there

"the federal government supports about 60 percent of the research performed at universities. In 2009, that amounted to the federal government supporting about $33 billion of universities’ total annual R&D spending of $55 billion."

Stop sending my tax to the universities and they can do whatever they want

Not sure about you, but I personally don't want to live in a world where we don't have the benefits from all the research done at universities (for medical, science, and all other topics). Research done at universities is "cheap" vs having it done in industry. Universities are also where some of the best and brightest minds are for doing this research---they certainly aren't there for the pay (even at the professor level) , they are there because they love the research and work best in that situation. we as a society benefit greatly from this research, much of it groundbreaking.

As a PP stated, please also stop giving tax breaks to churches, NRA, etc. Because apparently we now get to dictate taxes and beneficiaries.

Sure so they can do research with federal funding and at the same time have fair admission for the citizens

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White donating 20 million to Harvard to get in bad.

Black getting cause black is bad

Asian unless Harvard 100 percent Asian unfair.

Athletes are bad

Hispanic getting in bad

It is all nonsense. Each group only wants their own group in. No one cares if fair they just want their group to have an advantage

how about fair clear transparent rules for everyone?

So you want the government to step in and dictate these rules?

Yes just like the government is providing them funding and humongous tax benefit

This is such BS. No the government is not "providing them funding". The are funding research though grants awarded to individual academics who apply for it, and for which they get the results.

Technology Transfer is the means by which research findings are transferred to the private sector for potential development into products and processes. Products developed from university technology transfer include the gene splicing technology that effectively created the biotechnology industry, new Internet search engines, and improved building materials.

Since the 1980 enactment of the Bayh-Dole Act, the federal government has allowed universities and other nonprofit organizations to patent and retain title to inventions created from research funded by the government. Universities, in turn, must:
• offer to license the rights to innovations to industry;
• use any remaining income, minus the costs of technology management expenses, for scientific research or education;
• share any future income from the patent with the inventor; and
• provide the federal government a nonexclusive, irrevocable license to the invention.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED517263.pdf

As for the tax benefit, every church, charity, country club, PAC, the NRA, the ACLU, the boy scouts, and more receive the same tax treatment. Should we get to tell them what to do? Because I would be up for that.

But if not then stop making that silly point.

WTF right there in bold.

Also government tells those organizations not to discriminate.
In fact this year, Supreme Court ordered colleges not to use race in admission.
Government do tell them what not to do.

Trying to reply respectfully here... not sure if there is a language barrier making it harder for you to understand.

The federal government does not fund private colleges. Researchers for colleges apply for grants for specific research, and if those grants are awarded, the government and private sector benefit. They get something in return. It's not budgeted money they get to use for whatever they wish. Read what I quoted and the linked PDF if you care to understand. It's like being hired for a job.

And yes, the colleges need to follow laws in admissions, as interpreted by the supreme court. Not sure why that is even brought up. This thread is about Z-list type admissions of legacies, donors, development admits, and the like.

WTF are you talking about it's right there

"the federal government supports about 60 percent of the research performed at universities. In 2009, that amounted to the federal government supporting about $33 billion of universities’ total annual R&D spending of $55 billion."

Stop sending my tax to the universities and they can do whatever they want

Not sure about you, but I personally don't want to live in a world where we don't have the benefits from all the research done at universities (for medical, science, and all other topics). Research done at universities is "cheap" vs having it done in industry. Universities are also where some of the best and brightest minds are for doing this research---they certainly aren't there for the pay (even at the professor level) , they are there because they love the research and work best in that situation. we as a society benefit greatly from this research, much of it groundbreaking.

As a PP stated, please also stop giving tax breaks to churches, NRA, etc. Because apparently we now get to dictate taxes and beneficiaries.

Sure so they can do research with federal funding and at the same time have fair admission for the citizens

They do. Fair admissions isn't whatever you think suits your kid best. Your kid can go to college and get a degree. No one is preventing that. It truly does NOT matter where the degree comes from in most cases.

[Anonymous]

Seems no different than schools using second semester admit process (Colby, middlebury and other Slacs). Cornell also had admission program where they use the transfer in at sophomore year. My nieces did both. One was second semester at a Slav and the other transferred from Slac to Cornell.