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.

How little you know.

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

++ 1000

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.

except that most minorities were left out

the only decade where they made progress was late 80s/90s

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

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.

It is what the people have chosen and who they have chosen to lead.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This post was started by a troll! Alumni are well aware of the legecay tip and the Harvard students walking around with buildings/foundations/professorships sharing their last names.

Capitalism with inheritances which could be considered tips is not meritocratic .
We have very few self made people in America— people who themselves transcend multiple socio-economic barriers.

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.

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.

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.

DH and I were both Harvard grads (public school kids, first in the family in each case). Our DC thought legacy advantage was appalling and no wanted part of it. Got into a peer institution EA, so we never had to sort out our feelings about it.

I’m ambivalent about it. OTOH, I was first gen in my family to go to college FT (vs PT night school, while also working). So it feels kinda effed up that legacy becomes problematic just when the alumns with kids who might benefit from it stop being from “elite” families. OTOH, Harvard was life-changing for DH and I in a way it wouldn’t have been for DC, who grew up within those changed lives. So I certainly get the “give this kind of transformative experience to someone who needs it more than your already privileged kid” logic.

Meanwhile, tuition has gotten so ridiculously expensive that, even without legacy, rich kids will continue to be grossly over represented at these schools.

I went to Harvard for undergrad and have 2 high school kids. I will not be encouraging them to apply. My experience there was fine but nothing amazing. I think it is way over hyped and there are stronger undergrad schools out there.

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?