Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
I attended one of the NYC magnets (Stu-Bx. Science-Brooklyn Tech) in the late 70's-early 80's. It was the very definition of a melting pot from all walks of life. I am amazed at the outcomes. That is the model that we need to adopt.
Yes, because admission was based solely on merit and was race blind. During that time it was the only way for Jewish students to get the best education. But now the mayor of NYC wants to do away with the merit based system and move to quotas.
Anonymous wrote: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.
I attended one of the NYC magnets (Stu-Bx. Science-Brooklyn Tech) in the late 70's-early 80's. It was the very definition of a melting pot from all walks of life. I am amazed at the outcomes. That is the model that we need to adopt.
Anonymous wrote:I don't understand this animosity towards legacy admissions. We all know that even the richest colleges have to balance their classes with full pay kids so that they can admit lower SES kids. Given that no college can just admit only kids who qualify for need based aid, what's wrong if the college gives preference to full pay legacy kids over full pay non legacy kids. And let's face it. Most legacy kids are going to be full pay.
Are folks really arguing that even the full pay slots should not take legacy into account. That is stupid. Why not let in kids whose family have traditional links to the school, instead of just letting in a random rich kid provided of course that the legacy kids are qualified
Legacy admissions make more sense than most other preference based admissions
Anonymous wrote: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.
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.
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.
Anonymous wrote:mAnonymous wrote:I don't understand this animosity towards legacy admissions. We all know that even the richest colleges have to balance their classes with full pay kids so that they can admit lower SES kids. Given that no college can just admit only kids who qualify for need based aid, what's wrong if the college gives preference to full pay legacy kids over full pay non legacy kids. And let's face it. Most legacy kids are going to be full pay.
Are folks really arguing that even the full pay slots should not take legacy into account. That is stupid. Why not let in kids whose family have traditional links to the school, instead of just letting in a random rich kid provided of course that the legacy kids are qualified
Legacy admissions make more sense than most other preference based admissions
If historically the school has only admitted white applicants, legacies is then discrimination and favors the white as recent immigrants wouldn’t be legacies.
mAnonymous wrote:I don't understand this animosity towards legacy admissions. We all know that even the richest colleges have to balance their classes with full pay kids so that they can admit lower SES kids. Given that no college can just admit only kids who qualify for need based aid, what's wrong if the college gives preference to full pay legacy kids over full pay non legacy kids. And let's face it. Most legacy kids are going to be full pay.
Are folks really arguing that even the full pay slots should not take legacy into account. That is stupid. Why not let in kids whose family have traditional links to the school, instead of just letting in a random rich kid provided of course that the legacy kids are qualified
Legacy admissions make more sense than most other preference based admissions
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
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Harvard has always done that. It’s perception of who those students are has varied over the years.
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?
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: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.