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.

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

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?

Ivy athletes do have to qualify under the Academic Index, and each team has to hit an average. If one athlete on a team is at the lowest end, someone else has to be at the highest end to balance that. There is no wiggle room.

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.

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.

No the issue is that 43% of the white applicants who got in were donors, legacies or otherwise connected--so that means it's even harder for white applicants who are not.

Yes, this might mean the 57% of us who got in with no hooks are reasonably intelligent!

Anonymous wrote:A) It's the Guardian; B) its a free-lance writer; C) it's speculation; D) no stats were given - if they had been you would know that the athletes and those legacies that get in have just as high scores as the unhooked kids. In other words, this is a very stupid piece. If you want stats go read the litigation records.

That is completely inaccurate. Athletes in particular had lower academic ratings. I’ve read the study.

Read it for yourself:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w26316

“ The admissions advantage for recruited athletes appears to be even stronger. Admitted athletes have significantly worse credentials than non-ALDC admits, and in some cases, non-ALDC applicants.”


“ Recruited athlete admits are universally weaker than non-ALDC admits on these ratings. This is not surprising, given that we know athletes are stronger on the athletic rating. But for some race and rating combinations, the differences are striking. At most, 28% of white athlete admits receive a 2 or higher on the academic rating. In contrast, 89% of white non-ALDC admits receive a 2 or higher on the academic rating. 78% of Asian American non-ALDC admits receive a 2 or higher on the extracurricular rating, while at most 12% of admitted Asian American athletes receive a similarly high extracurricular rating.”

“ Being a recruited athlete essentially guarantees admission even for the least-qualified applicants. A similar calculation, but in reverse, emphasizes the advantage athletes receive. An athlete who has an 86% probability of admission—the average rate among athletes—would have only a 0.1% chance of admission absent the athlete tip.”

You can disagree with the study but don’t mid characterize it.

A) It's the Guardian; B) its a free-lance writer; C) it's speculation; D) no stats were given - if they had been you would know that the athletes and those legacies that get in have just as high scores as the unhooked kids. In other words, this is a very stupid piece. If you want stats go read the litigation records.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't see any proof in the article that those applicants were not qualified or would have been rejected. Just a statement that said they would have with no support. Just because you are an athlete, a legacy or a teacher's child...does not mean you aren't smart or have the grades or test scores.
Did those things help them get in - sure - but no support for the other.

The study itself states that a significant portion of this group would not have gotten in without the preference.

It does not follow that they were not "qualified." H has more qualified applicants than it can accept.

Looking at Harvard is a bit of red herring, since Harvard, at least historically, can pick the cream of the crop from each category. Yes, they are admitting slightly less qualified kids than if they simply went by grades and test scores, but (setting aside the David Hogg types) the kids they are admitting are still highly qualified. The interesting question is how these same policies trickle down through the college rankings, since the top few schools can sweep up the most qualified kids in the categories in which those kids are fewer in number.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't see any proof in the article that those applicants were not qualified or would have been rejected. Just a statement that said they would have with no support. Just because you are an athlete, a legacy or a teacher's child...does not mean you aren't smart or have the grades or test scores.
Did those things help them get in - sure - but no support for the other.

The study itself states that a significant portion of this group would not have gotten in without the preference.

Well, yes. What did you expect?

This is Harvard's situation: they get thousands of applicants with top scores and grades and interesting backgrounds. They have to resort to preferences to admit students. The alternative is just do a blind lottery. Put all the applicants above a basic threshold requirement for admissions into a lottery and randomly select names. Harvard could do that but they chose not to. They have their reasons for legacies and athletes and children of famous/connected families. It doesn't mean it's fair but I'm not sure where fairness comes into it.

Folks, anecdotes don’t make it a rule (a common reality)! But then you are excused since you didn’t go to H.

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.

No the issue is that 43% of the white applicants who got in were donors, legacies or otherwise connected--so that means it's even harder for white applicants who are not.

Not surprised. I went to NCS back in the 90's and the girls who went there had a lot of $$ and legacy connections, but were NOT the smartest in the class.

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.

sidedoor