TMZ reporting Parkland leader David Hogg just got into Harvard

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1636 people. 1636.

Huh?

That's the year when some white religious males who cared about higher learning founded Harvard.

They would be ashamed of Hogg.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1636 people. 1636.

Huh?

That's the year when some white religious males who cared about higher learning founded Harvard.

They would be ashamed of Hogg.

Interesting. What other unsubstantiated thoughts and ideas can you pull out of your ass?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1636 people. 1636.

One thousand six hundred thirty six people? Well, it’s clear you didn’t go to Harvard. Commas are your friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1636 people. 1636.

Huh?

That's the year when some white religious males who cared about higher learning founded Harvard.

They would be ashamed of Hogg.

Interesting. What other unsubstantiated thoughts and ideas can you pull out of your ass?

That's the Harvard spirit, 2018 edition!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1636 people. 1636.

One thousand six hundred thirty six people? Well, it’s clear you didn’t go to Harvard. Commas are your friend.

Commas were invented by the white enemy to oppress us all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1636 people. 1636.

Huh?

That's the year when some white religious males who cared about higher learning founded Harvard.

They would be ashamed of Hogg.

Interesting. What other unsubstantiated thoughts and ideas can you pull out of your ass?

someone is finally on to this guy. (I suspect it's a guy).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard wants its brand on people who will have some combination of wealth, power, influence, and/or fame. Hard to predict which 17-18 year olds will end up in that category. Clear that there are lots of different paths (and inheritance is a well worn one). FWIW, few of “the chosen” end up THE CHOSEN, but Harvard does well enough wrt picking winners (as defined above) that it has sustained and enhanced its reputation for centuries. And its also-rans often do well and/or do good, which helps keep the school afloat and attracts talented new applicants. Where Harvard looks/what kinds of applicants it bets on changes over time (with its perception of how elites are formed in various fields/places), but ambition/self-confidence seem to play at least as much (probably more) of a role than brains in Harvard admissions. Of course Harvard would admit one of the most visible Parkland/MSD activists. Only questions were which one(s) and what she/he/they would make of the opportunity.

There were dozens of kids involved, and I'm sure the vast majority of them had both leadership and academic potential.

Why Harvard chose to admit someone with such a poor record of learning says a lot about Harvard in the 21st century -- it has lost way.

The kid has proved he is a leader, can think outside the box, has a positive impact on society.

Some of these perfect score, perfect gpa kids are just trained Robots. Then you have the privileged ones who will only care about increasing their $$$ value.

Thank goodness you are not on an admissions committee somewhere.

[Anonymous]

I love how much this kisses off test preppers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard wants its brand on people who will have some combination of wealth, power, influence, and/or fame. Hard to predict which 17-18 year olds will end up in that category. Clear that there are lots of different paths (and inheritance is a well worn one). FWIW, few of “the chosen” end up THE CHOSEN, but Harvard does well enough wrt picking winners (as defined above) that it has sustained and enhanced its reputation for centuries. And its also-rans often do well and/or do good, which helps keep the school afloat and attracts talented new applicants. Where Harvard looks/what kinds of applicants it bets on changes over time (with its perception of how elites are formed in various fields/places), but ambition/self-confidence seem to play at least as much (probably more) of a role than brains in Harvard admissions. Of course Harvard would admit one of the most visible Parkland/MSD activists. Only questions were which one(s) and what she/he/they would make of the opportunity.

There were dozens of kids involved, and I'm sure the vast majority of them had both leadership and academic potential.

Why Harvard chose to admit someone with such a poor record of learning says a lot about Harvard in the 21st century -- it has lost way.

The kid has proved he is a leader, can think outside the box, has a positive impact on society.

Some of these perfect score, perfect gpa kids are just trained Robots. Then you have the privileged ones who will only care about increasing their $$$ value.

Thank goodness you are not on an admissions committee somewhere.

Actually, I'm on an admission committee, and that's why we increasingly get foreign students.

Have a lovely 21st century.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard wants its brand on people who will have some combination of wealth, power, influence, and/or fame. Hard to predict which 17-18 year olds will end up in that category. Clear that there are lots of different paths (and inheritance is a well worn one). FWIW, few of “the chosen” end up THE CHOSEN, but Harvard does well enough wrt picking winners (as defined above) that it has sustained and enhanced its reputation for centuries. And its also-rans often do well and/or do good, which helps keep the school afloat and attracts talented new applicants. Where Harvard looks/what kinds of applicants it bets on changes over time (with its perception of how elites are formed in various fields/places), but ambition/self-confidence seem to play at least as much (probably more) of a role than brains in Harvard admissions. Of course Harvard would admit one of the most visible Parkland/MSD activists. Only questions were which one(s) and what she/he/they would make of the opportunity.

There were dozens of kids involved, and I'm sure the vast majority of them had both leadership and academic potential.

Why Harvard chose to admit someone with such a poor record of learning says a lot about Harvard in the 21st century -- it has lost way.

The kid has proved he is a leader, can think outside the box, has a positive impact on society.

Some of these perfect score, perfect gpa kids are just trained Robots. Then you have the privileged ones who will only care about increasing their $$$ value.

Thank goodness you are not on an admissions committee somewhere.

Actually, I'm on an admission committee, and that's why we increasingly get foreign students.

Have a lovely 21st century.

um... because they are full pay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard wants its brand on people who will have some combination of wealth, power, influence, and/or fame. Hard to predict which 17-18 year olds will end up in that category. Clear that there are lots of different paths (and inheritance is a well worn one). FWIW, few of “the chosen” end up THE CHOSEN, but Harvard does well enough wrt picking winners (as defined above) that it has sustained and enhanced its reputation for centuries. And its also-rans often do well and/or do good, which helps keep the school afloat and attracts talented new applicants. Where Harvard looks/what kinds of applicants it bets on changes over time (with its perception of how elites are formed in various fields/places), but ambition/self-confidence seem to play at least as much (probably more) of a role than brains in Harvard admissions. Of course Harvard would admit one of the most visible Parkland/MSD activists. Only questions were which one(s) and what she/he/they would make of the opportunity.

There were dozens of kids involved, and I'm sure the vast majority of them had both leadership and academic potential.

Why Harvard chose to admit someone with such a poor record of learning says a lot about Harvard in the 21st century -- it has lost way.

As a Harvard grad, I'd rather have attended school with him than some perfect SAT/GPA drone that would add nothing to my learning/social experience.

And this is why people have problem with Harvard grads .... you put more value on someone that can organize protests instead of someone that have the smarts to find middle ground and compromise.

Harvard is dead.

The future is MIT, Stanford, Tsinghua.

Good. I'm glad that you think that. So stop applying to Harvard and put your energy into getting into those schools. Debate closed!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1636 people. 1636.

Huh?

That's the year when some white religious males who cared about higher learning founded Harvard.

They would be ashamed of Hogg.

Would they also be ashamed of all the legacy students (with mediocre grades/scores) that got accepted during that timespan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1636 people. 1636.

One thousand six hundred thirty six people? Well, it’s clear you didn’t go to Harvard. Commas are your friend.

No it’s clear YOU didn’t go to Harvard. Whew this is funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard wants its brand on people who will have some combination of wealth, power, influence, and/or fame. Hard to predict which 17-18 year olds will end up in that category. Clear that there are lots of different paths (and inheritance is a well worn one). FWIW, few of “the chosen” end up THE CHOSEN, but Harvard does well enough wrt picking winners (as defined above) that it has sustained and enhanced its reputation for centuries. And its also-rans often do well and/or do good, which helps keep the school afloat and attracts talented new applicants. Where Harvard looks/what kinds of applicants it bets on changes over time (with its perception of how elites are formed in various fields/places), but ambition/self-confidence seem to play at least as much (probably more) of a role than brains in Harvard admissions. Of course Harvard would admit one of the most visible Parkland/MSD activists. Only questions were which one(s) and what she/he/they would make of the opportunity.

There were dozens of kids involved, and I'm sure the vast majority of them had both leadership and academic potential.

Why Harvard chose to admit someone with such a poor record of learning says a lot about Harvard in the 21st century -- it has lost way.

The kid has proved he is a leader, can think outside the box, has a positive impact on society.

Some of these perfect score, perfect gpa kids are just trained Robots. Then you have the privileged ones who will only care about increasing their $$$ value.

Thank goodness you are not on an admissions committee somewhere.

Actually, I'm on an admission committee, and that's why we increasingly get foreign students.

Have a lovely 21st century.

You might be on an admission committee but it's not Harvard's. By the way, we're talking about Harvard...not whatever school you represent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard wants its brand on people who will have some combination of wealth, power, influence, and/or fame. Hard to predict which 17-18 year olds will end up in that category. Clear that there are lots of different paths (and inheritance is a well worn one). FWIW, few of “the chosen” end up THE CHOSEN, but Harvard does well enough wrt picking winners (as defined above) that it has sustained and enhanced its reputation for centuries. And its also-rans often do well and/or do good, which helps keep the school afloat and attracts talented new applicants. Where Harvard looks/what kinds of applicants it bets on changes over time (with its perception of how elites are formed in various fields/places), but ambition/self-confidence seem to play at least as much (probably more) of a role than brains in Harvard admissions. Of course Harvard would admit one of the most visible Parkland/MSD activists. Only questions were which one(s) and what she/he/they would make of the opportunity.

There were dozens of kids involved, and I'm sure the vast majority of them had both leadership and academic potential.

Why Harvard chose to admit someone with such a poor record of learning says a lot about Harvard in the 21st century -- it has lost way.

The kid has proved he is a leader, can think outside the box, has a positive impact on society.

Some of these perfect score, perfect gpa kids are just trained Robots. Then you have the privileged ones who will only care about increasing their $$$ value.

Thank goodness you are not on an admissions committee somewhere.

Actually, I'm on an admission committee, and that's why we increasingly get foreign students.

Have a lovely 21st century.

um... because they are full pay?

Full pay AND amazing learning capacity.

Just think of it for a second. That Hogg boy couldn't even learn in his own native English.