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

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Entitlement is when you are less qualified and feel you have to bring in non-merit characteristics to demand you be admitted.
[/quote]

"non-merit characteristics".  Why do you get to decide what constitutes merit to Harvard?

That, right there, is my definition of "entitlement".[/quote]

DP  Because being a particular race inherently has no merit.
[/quote]

Then being a relatively mediocre athlete or the kid of an alum has no merit either. [/quote]

“Relatively mediocre athlete”?  Are you speaking of Division 1 Harvard?  Those kids are not “relatively mediocre” even if most of them are not good enough to play basketball at Duke or Kentucky.

Giving a preference to legacy is done to support endowment growth, the lifeblood of a college and primary job of a college president.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.[/quote]

Yes, I am. If you stop bootlicking athletes and actually look at them, they aren't at the top of the recruiting lists. They aren't the best athletes of their year. They're fine compared to the average non-athlete, but they're being rewarded for a skill level that no other applicant is rewarded. The average violinist who make all-state orchestra doesn't get a second look. You make all-county in baseball and Harvard will look at you because that's who they can get.

You don't know that legacy preference actually supports endowment growth. It's a cute story, but we have evidence that removing legacy would not hamper it. MIT has a $27 billion endowment and doesn't give a legacy preference. UT Austin has has a $30 billion endowment and doesn't give a legacy preference. If anything, eliminating legacy preference would increase donations because you're broadening your alumni base.[/quote]

DP. You sound pretty unhinged and ignorant. Do you honestly think admissions at Harvard should exactly match your narrow preferences? The fact is that Harvard has to make choices. And they do it in ways that define merit in ways that are never going to match whatever weirdly narrow definition of merit you think that you, personally, should be able to define.

Also, Harvard's performing art students aren't anywhere near the exalted caliber you seem to think they are. If they were that good, they'd be at Juilliard. Their performing arts students are like athletic admits in a lot of ways, frankly: excellent students who bring another dimension to the campus but who aren't good enough to go to the truly great institutions for the arts (or athletics). You are just stuck in your anti-athlete fantasy world.

Finally I will also note that by raging against legacy admits you are hurting minority students, not just wealthy white students. Personally I think it is ridiculous (though sadly not surprising) that the first time that minority and not-wealthy students can benefit broadly from legacy preference, people want to take it away. [/quote]

I'm the original ignorant poster.  I agree.  Harvard should be able to admit whoever they want on whatever criteria they want - academics, athletics, URM, legacy, first-gen, etc. What I think is silly is athletic/legacy boosters decrying URM hooks as lacking 'merit' while trying to claim that their hooks are justified. They're either all ok or none of them are.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics