Why can't non top tier privates just increase rigor and test prep to remove the perceived gap?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Clearly you have no reading comprehension. How in the world was Jared Kushner's admission to Harvard based on legacy basis alone?

Show me the evidence of a person who got into a college "only" because he was a legacy. Presumably one would have had to be able to walk and read and write, even in the olden days.

[Anonymous]

https://www.ivycoach.com/the-ivy-coach-blog/ivy-league/history-legacy-admission/

[Anonymous]

Yes, thanks for the incredibly relevant link to 1919 admissions data. Very helpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, thanks for the incredibly relevant link to 1919 admissions data. Very helpful.

And it actually doesn’t show what the PP was trying to say-which is that legacy status could get anyone admitted to Harvard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are filling a niche. There are people who don’t want stress factories for their kids and there are kids who just couldn’t keep up at those types of schools. Prestige is all in the eye of the beholder. If you think happiness and success in life will come from getting admitted to a top 20 college then good for you. Lots of people don’t think that way and that is why these schools exist.

Love this answer. Thank you for your kind and thoughtful answer, which of course I completely agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are filling a niche. There are people who don’t want stress factories for their kids and there are kids who just couldn’t keep up at those types of schools. Prestige is all in the eye of the beholder. If you think happiness and success in life will come from getting admitted to a top 20 college then good for you. Lots of people don’t think that way and that is why these schools exist.

Love this answer. Thank you for your kind and thoughtful answer, which of course I completely agree.

+1

We were once in the elite school path but found our children weren’t thriving. Ended up moving them to a “next tier” less stressful environment - a school super focused on how children learn. Our kids lit up, excelled, And ultimately chose top tier college/university. Never regretted the decision. It’s true that there are different strokes for different folks and several different paths to success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are filling a niche. There are people who don’t want stress factories for their kids and there are kids who just couldn’t keep up at those types of schools. Prestige is all in the eye of the beholder. If you think happiness and success in life will come from getting admitted to a top 20 college then good for you. Lots of people don’t think that way and that is why these schools exist.

Love this answer. Thank you for your kind and thoughtful answer, which of course I completely agree.

+1

We were once in the elite school path but found our children weren’t thriving. Ended up moving them to a “next tier” less stressful environment - a school super focused on how children learn. Our kids lit up, excelled, And ultimately chose top tier college/university. Never regretted the decision. It’s true that there are different strokes for different folks and several different paths to success.

Our family has been in progressive independents from the start. This means our children have been sores the “elites.” They have several friends who have come to their school over time for. The various “big 3/5” and the story is the same - the environment in those communities is a good fit for some but not for all - and many of those who leave are exceptional students who thrive socio-emotipnal-adacemically better elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, thanks for the incredibly relevant link to 1919 admissions data. Very helpful.

And it actually doesn’t show what the PP was trying to say-which is that legacy status could get anyone admitted to Harvard.

Actually, the PP stated: "No one said legacy boosts don't exist anymore. It's just that they used to be even bigger."

I don't know how you can argue that the article doesn't support that exact point.