Harvard + other ivy schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s something capitalistic about admissions at top tier private schools. And the USA is at least as committed to capitalism as it is to democracy.

Capitalism is a merit-based system -- the best product prevails in the market. Giving preferences to less qualified students -- like government subsidies -- is the antithesis of capitalism.

Harvard is currently selecting the students that maximize returns to the school.

Harvard has always done that. It’s perception of who those students are has varied over the years.

[Anonymous]

I'll admit legacy is the only reason we donate money. Then again it's probably pissing it away because we don't donate enough to make any difference. But if I knew there was no legacy advantage I wouldn't donate a single penny no matter how much I enjoyed my time or appreciated the education I received. The school is already so rich and I cringe at that they still charge $70,000+ in tuition and we wouldn't qualify for financial aid either. If one of the kids did get in I don't know what we will do. I also have issues with some of the political correctness coming out of these schools today, and I thought it was bad enough in my day! And I'm no right wing radical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Following the articles about the Harvard lawsuit, I actually feel sick about how much preference is given to the elite - legacies, faculty children, big donors and athletes. Legacies are accepted at 5x the rate of unconnected applicants. Our most esteemed institutions work hard to maintain the status quo. I went to a state school for undergrad and then to Harvard for my PhD. Feeling kind of embarrassed to be associated with it these days. Anyone else?

Legacy applicants are likely to be more qualified than the balance of the applicant pool given the inherent advantages they enjoy having been lucky enough to be born to Harvard graduates. I don't quite understand how these preferred admissions are just now coming onto your radar since you allegedly graduated from Harvard as well.

PP said she got her PhD from Harvard. Grad admissions work differently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s something capitalistic about admissions at top tier private schools. And the USA is at least as committed to capitalism as it is to democracy.

Capitalism is a merit-based system -- the best product prevails in the market. Giving preferences to less qualified students -- like government subsidies -- is the antithesis of capitalism.

Harvard is currently selecting the students that maximize returns to the school.

Harvard has always done that. It’s perception of who those students are has varied over the years.

Its perception. Damned autocorrect always inserts the apostrophe.

[Anonymous]

It does seem greedy of Harvard with the largest endowment of any school to still be pandering so shamelessly for legacy donations and the scions of big names. Most of the information coming out of the law suit does not make Harvard look good. Democrats, Republicans- they are all the same. Just vested in perpetuating their own social status and keeping others down

[Anonymous]

I don't understand this animosity towards legacy admissions. We all know that even the richest colleges have to balance their classes with full pay kids so that they can admit lower SES kids. Given that no college can just admit only kids who qualify for need based aid, what's wrong if the college gives preference to full pay legacy kids over full pay non legacy kids. And let's face it. Most legacy kids are going to be full pay.

Are folks really arguing that even the full pay slots should not take legacy into account. That is stupid. Why not let in kids whose family have traditional links to the school, instead of just letting in a random rich kid provided of course that the legacy kids are qualified

Legacy admissions make more sense than most other preference based admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:actually no, being as I am an alum and my husband is as well (same school), I am hoping my kids get extra points for legacy admissions

I am too. You do know you have to give high six figures or low seven for legacy to actually count for anything? We didn't give that amount and DS didn't get in (but had all the stats).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand this animosity towards legacy admissions. We all know that even the richest colleges have to balance their classes with full pay kids so that they can admit lower SES kids. Given that no college can just admit only kids who qualify for need based aid, what's wrong if the college gives preference to full pay legacy kids over full pay non legacy kids. And let's face it. Most legacy kids are going to be full pay.

Are folks really arguing that even the full pay slots should not take legacy into account. That is stupid. Why not let in kids whose family have traditional links to the school, instead of just letting in a random rich kid provided of course that the legacy kids are qualified

Legacy admissions make more sense than most other preference based admissions

m

If historically the school has only admitted white applicants, legacies is then discrimination and favors the white as recent immigrants wouldn’t be legacies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand this animosity towards legacy admissions. We all know that even the richest colleges have to balance their classes with full pay kids so that they can admit lower SES kids. Given that no college can just admit only kids who qualify for need based aid, what's wrong if the college gives preference to full pay legacy kids over full pay non legacy kids. And let's face it. Most legacy kids are going to be full pay.

Are folks really arguing that even the full pay slots should not take legacy into account. That is stupid. Why not let in kids whose family have traditional links to the school, instead of just letting in a random rich kid provided of course that the legacy kids are qualified

Legacy admissions make more sense than most other preference based admissions

m

If historically the school has only admitted white applicants, legacies is then discrimination and favors the white as recent immigrants wouldn’t be legacies.

I don't think your assertion is necessarily true. From what I understand at the top colleges you are not actually paying the full price of the education because colleges like Harvard use some of their endowment to enrich the experience. Everyone at the wealthiest schools is subsidized in some way. I guess except the student's who have families that can donate $1M.

Now at Vassar for example, they have the highest number of Pell grant recipients and they do have to balance full pay with financial aid students. They almost go broke doing this, but I personally admire them for it. For a solid understanding of this, check out Malcolm Gladwell's podcast on the subject. http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/06-my-little-hundred-million. His chat with the Stanford president is fun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Following the articles about the Harvard lawsuit, I actually feel sick about how much preference is given to the elite - legacies, faculty children, big donors and athletes. Legacies are accepted at 5x the rate of unconnected applicants. Our most esteemed institutions work hard to maintain the status quo. I went to a state school for undergrad and then to Harvard for my PhD. Feeling kind of embarrassed to be associated with it these days. Anyone else?

There was a brief shining moment in American history from about 1950 until the turn of the century where it seemed like the US had turned the corner on rank elitism. Now, the country is just returning to form.

I attended one of the NYC magnets (Stu-Bx. Science-Brooklyn Tech) in the late 70's-early 80's. It was the very definition of a melting pot from all walks of life. I am amazed at the outcomes. That is the model that we need to adopt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Following the articles about the Harvard lawsuit, I actually feel sick about how much preference is given to the elite - legacies, faculty children, big donors and athletes. Legacies are accepted at 5x the rate of unconnected applicants. Our most esteemed institutions work hard to maintain the status quo. I went to a state school for undergrad and then to Harvard for my PhD. Feeling kind of embarrassed to be associated with it these days. Anyone else?

There was a brief shining moment in American history from about 1950 until the turn of the century where it seemed like the US had turned the corner on rank elitism. Now, the country is just returning to form.

Lol not sure what world you were living in...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is kind of sad to think how the top colleges help solidify elitism and preserve the class stratification we have in this country especially now that tuition is $$$. Very hypocritical given how college campuses tend to be so liberal and democratic. There is nothing especially democratic about admissions at the top tier schools.

This could be why U of Chicago is so popular now. Also u of C puts s big emphasis on undergrad education.
They get an F in ‘tuition’ though - 80k. They give good aid to the poor kids, but it shuts out the middle class some.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand this animosity towards legacy admissions. We all know that even the richest colleges have to balance their classes with full pay kids so that they can admit lower SES kids. Given that no college can just admit only kids who qualify for need based aid, what's wrong if the college gives preference to full pay legacy kids over full pay non legacy kids. And let's face it. Most legacy kids are going to be full pay.

Are folks really arguing that even the full pay slots should not take legacy into account. That is stupid. Why not let in kids whose family have traditional links to the school, instead of just letting in a random rich kid provided of course that the legacy kids are qualified

Legacy admissions make more sense than most other preference based admissions

You can’t be an ‘elite college’ and only let in kids whose parents went there. That’s ridiculous.
And why do you assume that everyone else that is admitted is rich?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Following the articles about the Harvard lawsuit, I actually feel sick about how much preference is given to the elite - legacies, faculty children, big donors and athletes. Legacies are accepted at 5x the rate of unconnected applicants. Our most esteemed institutions work hard to maintain the status quo. I went to a state school for undergrad and then to Harvard for my PhD. Feeling kind of embarrassed to be associated with it these days. Anyone else?

There was a brief shining moment in American history from about 1950 until the turn of the century where it seemed like the US had turned the corner on rank elitism. Now, the country is just returning to form.

I attended one of the NYC magnets (Stu-Bx. Science-Brooklyn Tech) in the late 70's-early 80's. It was the very definition of a melting pot from all walks of life. I am amazed at the outcomes. That is the model that we need to adopt.

Yes, because admission was based solely on merit and was race blind. During that time it was the only way for Jewish students to get the best education. But now the mayor of NYC wants to do away with the merit based system and move to quotas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Following the articles about the Harvard lawsuit, I actually feel sick about how much preference is given to the elite - legacies, faculty children, big donors and athletes. Legacies are accepted at 5x the rate of unconnected applicants. Our most esteemed institutions work hard to maintain the status quo. I went to a state school for undergrad and then to Harvard for my PhD. Feeling kind of embarrassed to be associated with it these days. Anyone else?

There was a brief shining moment in American history from about 1950 until the turn of the century where it seemed like the US had turned the corner on rank elitism. Now, the country is just returning to form.

I attended one of the NYC magnets (Stu-Bx. Science-Brooklyn Tech) in the late 70's-early 80's. It was the very definition of a melting pot from all walks of life. I am amazed at the outcomes. That is the model that we need to adopt.

Yes, because admission was based solely on merit and was race blind. During that time it was the only way for Jewish students to get the best education. But now the mayor of NYC wants to do away with the merit based system and move to quotas.

No, it was based solely on an entrance exam score. And that doesn’t naturally produce a melting pot when there’s significant educational and socioeconomic inequality prior to testing.

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/14/17458710/new-york-shsat-test-asian-protest