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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This article is guardian clickbait, there is little useful new information or critical analysis put into it.

As others have pointed out, you can be both highly academically qualified and a legacy or a child of a donor, or an athlete. Or all 4!

I was interested in the "children of harvard employees". My BIL works for Harvard and has said that basically almost no employee kids are admitted, and it does not give an admissions boost. Do well-known faculty get admittance for children written into their contracts? Are we talking high level administration (like the children of Deans)? What say you DCUM?

the only children of Harvard deans I've known did not attend the school or any other Ivy save one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article is guardian clickbait, there is little useful new information or critical analysis put into it.

As others have pointed out, you can be both highly academically qualified and a legacy or a child of a donor, or an athlete. Or all 4!

I was interested in the "children of harvard employees". My BIL works for Harvard and has said that basically almost no employee kids are admitted, and it does not give an admissions boost. Do well-known faculty get admittance for children written into their contracts? Are we talking high level administration (like the children of Deans)? What say you DCUM?

Yeah, very few children of faculty and staff are admitted even though many apply. My sibling is a member of the faculty there so I have some idea.

I agree that maybe it would be a bump to be the child of a Dean or one of the 20 "University Professors" who are the top tier chaired professors across the entire university (people like Amartya Sen, Larry Summers, Cass Sunstein, Michael Porter). But how many of those people have kids applying in any given year if there are only 20 of these professors? And most of them are old and tend to have kids who are already past college age by the time they achieve that distinction.

And the same goes for deans. There are only 15 deans at any time and their kids tend to be past college application age.

[Anonymous]

In the report children of faculty or staff was 321 over six years

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listen, I knew a Harvard athlete. She scored 1600 on her SATs and was brilliant and offbeat. I don't think people who go to Harvard are special, but this weird anti-athlete sentiment on this board just smacks of insecurity from unathletic wannabes.

the constant defense of athletes is kind of pathetic. They get an advantage sometimes a massive one. Pretending they don’t is a ridiculous attempt at gaslighting. Just own it. I’m sure you’re out there complaining about all the “unqualified” first gen or URMs getting in.

Are you the person who constantly uses "gaslighting" incorrectly? You were advised to stop that as you don't know what it means.

I generally agree with the premise of your post regardless.

[Anonymous]

We knew this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, duh? Did anyone think that Harvard and the like were really selecting for the most intelligent students?

+1, at least for the white applicants.

Oh really? Average SAT scores of admitted applicants by race at Harvard:

Asian-American 767
White 745
Hispanic American 718
Native American 712
African American 704

Source: The Harvard Crimson

Out of 800 per subject. Can’t do out of 1600 because it was out of 2400 some years.

On a test scored out of 1400, the average Asian-American got 767? I really find that hard to believe. Do you have a link?

[Anonymous]

My reply ended up above the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My dh has noticed this. His best team members are actually poorer students who went to regional colleges and know they have to work hard. The Ivy graduates aren't as motivated.

This is true. They turn out to be entitled workers who are a bit lazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This article is guardian clickbait, there is little useful new information or critical analysis put into it.

As others have pointed out, you can be both highly academically qualified and a legacy or a child of a donor, or an athlete. Or all 4!

I was interested in the "children of harvard employees". My BIL works for Harvard and has said that basically almost no employee kids are admitted, and it does not give an admissions boost. Do well-known faculty get admittance for children written into their contracts? Are we talking high level administration (like the children of Deans)? What say you DCUM?

This is true. I know several professors and high level admin at major unis, and being am employee guarantees absolutely nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article is guardian clickbait, there is little useful new information or critical analysis put into it.

As others have pointed out, you can be both highly academically qualified and a legacy or a child of a donor, or an athlete. Or all 4!

I was interested in the "children of harvard employees". My BIL works for Harvard and has said that basically almost no employee kids are admitted, and it does not give an admissions boost. Do well-known faculty get admittance for children written into their contracts? Are we talking high level administration (like the children of Deans)? What say you DCUM?

This is true. I know several professors and high level admin at major unis, and being am employee guarantees absolutely nothing.

It’s not. There is actual data.

321 applicants. 47% acceptance rate vs 7% for non faculty kids. If you work as a librarian it makes no difference but if you teach it does.

Every faculty and staff kid application went before the dean of admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article is guardian clickbait, there is little useful new information or critical analysis put into it.

As others have pointed out, you can be both highly academically qualified and a legacy or a child of a donor, or an athlete. Or all 4!

I was interested in the "children of harvard employees". My BIL works for Harvard and has said that basically almost no employee kids are admitted, and it does not give an admissions boost. Do well-known faculty get admittance for children written into their contracts? Are we talking high level administration (like the children of Deans)? What say you DCUM?

This is true. I know several professors and high level admin at major unis, and being am employee guarantees absolutely nothing.

It’s not. There is actual data.

321 applicants. 47% acceptance rate vs 7% for non faculty kids. If you work as a librarian it makes no difference but if you teach it does.

Every faculty and staff kid application went before the dean of admissions.

Not many staff have kids. Usually they leave after kids because they are over worked, underpaid, and unless they are hand picked for promotion, they are pushed out. Most staff are younger or older singles/childfree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article is guardian clickbait, there is little useful new information or critical analysis put into it.

As others have pointed out, you can be both highly academically qualified and a legacy or a child of a donor, or an athlete. Or all 4!

I was interested in the "children of harvard employees". My BIL works for Harvard and has said that basically almost no employee kids are admitted, and it does not give an admissions boost. Do well-known faculty get admittance for children written into their contracts? Are we talking high level administration (like the children of Deans)? What say you DCUM?

This is true. I know several professors and high level admin at major unis, and being am employee guarantees absolutely nothing.

It’s not. There is actual data.

321 applicants. 47% acceptance rate vs 7% for non faculty kids. If you work as a librarian it makes no difference but if you teach it does.

Every faculty and staff kid application went before the dean of admissions.

Not many staff have kids. Usually they leave after kids because they are over worked, underpaid, and unless they are hand picked for promotion, they are pushed out. Most staff are younger or older singles/childfree.

Staff in this context means people who teach at Harvard but not in the faculty of arts and sciences. That’s how Harvard admissions uses the term.

But sure I bow to your knowledge of who works at Harvard and why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My dh has noticed this. His best team members are actually poorer students who went to regional colleges and know they have to work hard. The Ivy graduates aren't as motivated.

This is true. They turn out to be entitled workers who are a bit lazy.

Yep! My experience as well. I'd rather have a scrapper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My dh has noticed this. His best team members are actually poorer students who went to regional colleges and know they have to work hard. The Ivy graduates aren't as motivated.

This is true. They turn out to be entitled workers who are a bit lazy.

Yep! My experience as well. I'd rather have a scrapper.

Same here. Like the others my rules for hiring are never hire someone you can’t exploit because they’re scrappers and never hire someone smarter than you.

[Anonymous]

I don't know why we care. Harvard can pick whomever they want. We can pick how/if we want to interact with Harvard.

On the athlete point - I for one went there, and the Varsity Club keeps asking us to provide internships. etc to the athletes. I am currently choosing not to do so, because I like undergraduate Stern better;they are hungrier and have better skills.Other people will choose to really lean into the alumni network,I know people will say "pulling an oar is hard work" and I don't disagree, but if you have to work on the client presentation on the weekend and someone has to proofread, the Stern kid will do what it takes and not think it is beneath him.