Anonymous wrote:I once added up every category of “hook” reported by the Crimson and other sources for a recent incoming Harvard class, and it totaled well over 100%. I’m sure there are some kids with “double” hooks that were counted twice, (First-Gen/recruited athletes, URM/legacies, etc), but the fact remains that the majority of Harvard students have a “hook” of some kind.

Harvard admits the categories of kids it wants to admit, and because of the pool of applicants they get, it happens to be in the enviable position of being able to do that and still maintain high average stats. I have no problem with that, but people need to give up on the idea that it has anything to do with merit.

It never had anything to do with grade merit or test merit and it shouldn't.

Some of the development people any maybe some of the legacy will be not that bright. But most legacy kids will be all that based on the upbringing they probably had.

Anonymous wrote: ... never hire someone smarter than you

they should fire you (you obviously do not work at your own company)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Entitlement is when you are less qualified and feel you have to bring in non-merit characteristics to demand you be admitted.

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

That, right there, is my definition of "entitlement".

DP Because being a particular race inherently has no merit.

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

“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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Entitlement is when you are less qualified and feel you have to bring in non-merit characteristics to demand you be admitted.

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

That, right there, is my definition of "entitlement".

DP Because being a particular race inherently has no merit.

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

No, an athlete has demonstrated merit and adding the descriptor “relatively mediocre (dreadful grammar BTW)” isn’t relevant as the PP’s point addressed the idea of non-merit characteristics. One could also argue that being a legacy applicant has some merit in that it increases alumni engagement which leads to an increase in donations which benefit all students.

and this is how white people twist themselves into logical contortions to justify their advantages.

first, regarding legacies, their only 'merit' is who their parents are. that is no different than a URM. and the tie between legacy admits and donations is speculative on your part.

Regarding athletes, we're talking about college and not a sports team, so what does being an athlete have to do with anything?

but, even accepting that, we're also talking about harvard. their sports teams, in almost all cases, are subpar compared to other universities. the typical harvard recruit wouldn't make the team at another college. Put more simply, being recruited to play football at harvard makes you roughly the 1000th best football player in the country for your year. How is this 'merit'?

you don't like the term 'relatively mediocre"? I was trying to be kind. How about shitty instead? In every other discipline, whether it be the arts, science, music, etc. Harvard expects a student to be the very top of their peer group (they literally rank kids on extracurriculars with the question - do you have national recognition?). Only in athletics does Harvard reward poor performance.

Are you from the US? Just because you don think they are important doesn't mean that college sports matter to students and alumni. Even at an Ivy, more students will turn out for a rivalry game that any academic event and more alumni will care about who won The Game than anything else that will happen on campus.

i am. the number of students who attend one rivalry game in one sport doesn't justify anything. besides, if that's your justification for athletes, then limit it to the few sports and everyone else fends for themselves.

I would also think plenty of alumni and prospective students want to support or attend a college with racial and ethnic diversity. So if that's your standard, it's fine too.

Look, I think Harvard and other schools should be able to take students based on URM, first gen, legacy, athletics, etc. My problem is people who try to draw artificial distinctions between these things. and say this one is justified and this one isn't. They're either all good or all bad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Entitlement is when you are less qualified and feel you have to bring in non-merit characteristics to demand you be admitted.

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

That, right there, is my definition of "entitlement".

DP Because being a particular race inherently has no merit.

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

“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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Entitlement is when you are less qualified and feel you have to bring in non-merit characteristics to demand you be admitted.

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

That, right there, is my definition of "entitlement".

DP Because being a particular race inherently has no merit.

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

No, an athlete has demonstrated merit and adding the descriptor “relatively mediocre (dreadful grammar BTW)” isn’t relevant as the PP’s point addressed the idea of non-merit characteristics. One could also argue that being a legacy applicant has some merit in that it increases alumni engagement which leads to an increase in donations which benefit all students.

and this is how white people twist themselves into logical contortions to justify their advantages.

first, regarding legacies, their only 'merit' is who their parents are. that is no different than a URM. and the tie between legacy admits and donations is speculative on your part.

Regarding athletes, we're talking about college and not a sports team, so what does being an athlete have to do with anything?

but, even accepting that, we're also talking about harvard. their sports teams, in almost all cases, are subpar compared to other universities. the typical harvard recruit wouldn't make the team at another college. Put more simply, being recruited to play football at harvard makes you roughly the 1000th best football player in the country for your year. How is this 'merit'?

you don't like the term 'relatively mediocre"? I was trying to be kind. How about shitty instead? In every other discipline, whether it be the arts, science, music, etc. Harvard expects a student to be the very top of their peer group (they literally rank kids on extracurriculars with the question - do you have national recognition?). Only in athletics does Harvard reward poor performance.

Are you from the US? Just because you don think they are important doesn't mean that college sports matter to students and alumni. Even at an Ivy, more students will turn out for a rivalry game that any academic event and more alumni will care about who won The Game than anything else that will happen on campus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Entitlement is when you are less qualified and feel you have to bring in non-merit characteristics to demand you be admitted.

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

That, right there, is my definition of "entitlement".

DP Because being a particular race inherently has no merit.

But having a campus with a representative racial balance does, in the opinion of the colleges.

Because all kids want to go to college with at least some people like them. It’s why more white kids don’t apply to excellent HBCs. It’s a problem when it is not balanced.

Main point is: The colleges think that has merit, and they get to decide.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Entitlement is when you are less qualified and feel you have to bring in non-merit characteristics to demand you be admitted.

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

That, right there, is my definition of "entitlement".

One's family wealth or skin color is non-merit. Something not because the student did anything to have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Entitlement is when you are less qualified and feel you have to bring in non-merit characteristics to demand you be admitted.

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

That, right there, is my definition of "entitlement".

DP Because being a particular race inherently has no merit.

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

No, an athlete has demonstrated merit and adding the descriptor “relatively mediocre (dreadful grammar BTW)” isn’t relevant as the PP’s point addressed the idea of non-merit characteristics. One could also argue that being a legacy applicant has some merit in that it increases alumni engagement which leads to an increase in donations which benefit all students.

and this is how white people twist themselves into logical contortions to justify their advantages.

first, regarding legacies, their only 'merit' is who their parents are. that is no different than a URM. and the tie between legacy admits and donations is speculative on your part.

Regarding athletes, we're talking about college and not a sports team, so what does being an athlete have to do with anything?

but, even accepting that, we're also talking about harvard. their sports teams, in almost all cases, are subpar compared to other universities. the typical harvard recruit wouldn't make the team at another college. Put more simply, being recruited to play football at harvard makes you roughly the 1000th best football player in the country for your year. How is this 'merit'?

you don't like the term 'relatively mediocre"? I was trying to be kind. How about shitty instead? In every other discipline, whether it be the arts, science, music, etc. Harvard expects a student to be the very top of their peer group (they literally rank kids on extracurriculars with the question - do you have national recognition?). Only in athletics does Harvard reward poor performance.

The hardest part of Harvard, or any Ivy is getting in. Any kid from a good high school with good grades and decent scores can do the work. That is not to say it’s fair that legacies and athletes have an advantage but I would bet that the vast majority do just fine academically.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Entitlement is when you are less qualified and feel you have to bring in non-merit characteristics to demand you be admitted.

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

That, right there, is my definition of "entitlement".

DP Because being a particular race inherently has no merit.

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

No, an athlete has demonstrated merit and adding the descriptor “relatively mediocre (dreadful grammar BTW)” isn’t relevant as the PP’s point addressed the idea of non-merit characteristics. One could also argue that being a legacy applicant has some merit in that it increases alumni engagement which leads to an increase in donations which benefit all students.

I don't know. My white, non athlete, non faculty offspring kid got in despite not being a preference case, but instead chose to attend what most would consider a "lesser" Ivy where they are in fact a legacy. I'm sure that as a result, people who don't know her well are grumbling that she only got into that "lesser" Ivy "because" she's a legacy. It annoys her, as she chose the other school because it's got a different vibe that appeals to her more, but she was "good enough" to get admitted to the most competitive schools in the country, and btw, finds it equally annoying that people think prestige is the end all - be all. She is extremely happy with her decision.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Entitlement is when you are less qualified and feel you have to bring in non-merit characteristics to demand you be admitted.

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

That, right there, is my definition of "entitlement".

DP Because being a particular race inherently has no merit.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Entitlement is when you are less qualified and feel you have to bring in non-merit characteristics to demand you be admitted.

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

That, right there, is my definition of "entitlement".

DP Because being a particular race inherently has no merit.

Anonymous wrote:Entitlement is when you are less qualified and feel you have to bring in non-merit characteristics to demand you be admitted.

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

That, right there, is my definition of "entitlement".