Anonymous wrote:1636 people. 1636.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard wants its brand on people who will have some combination of wealth, power, influence, and/or fame. Hard to predict which 17-18 year olds will end up in that category. Clear that there are lots of different paths (and inheritance is a well worn one). FWIW, few of “the chosen” end up THE CHOSEN, but Harvard does well enough wrt picking winners (as defined above) that it has sustained and enhanced its reputation for centuries. And its also-rans often do well and/or do good, which helps keep the school afloat and attracts talented new applicants. Where Harvard looks/what kinds of applicants it bets on changes over time (with its perception of how elites are formed in various fields/places), but ambition/self-confidence seem to play at least as much (probably more) of a role than brains in Harvard admissions. Of course Harvard would admit one of the most visible Parkland/MSD activists. Only questions were which one(s) and what she/he/they would make of the opportunity.

There were dozens of kids involved, and I'm sure the vast majority of them had both leadership and academic potential.

Why Harvard chose to admit someone with such a poor record of learning says a lot about Harvard in the 21st century -- it has lost way.

As a Harvard grad, I'd rather have attended school with him than some perfect SAT/GPA drone that would add nothing to my learning/social experience.

And this is why people have problem with Harvard grads .... you put more value on someone that can organize protests instead of someone that have the smarts to find middle ground and compromise.

Anonymous wrote:

Harvard is dead.

The future is MIT, Stanford, Tsinghua.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard wants its brand on people who will have some combination of wealth, power, influence, and/or fame. Hard to predict which 17-18 year olds will end up in that category. Clear that there are lots of different paths (and inheritance is a well worn one). FWIW, few of “the chosen” end up THE CHOSEN, but Harvard does well enough wrt picking winners (as defined above) that it has sustained and enhanced its reputation for centuries. And its also-rans often do well and/or do good, which helps keep the school afloat and attracts talented new applicants. Where Harvard looks/what kinds of applicants it bets on changes over time (with its perception of how elites are formed in various fields/places), but ambition/self-confidence seem to play at least as much (probably more) of a role than brains in Harvard admissions. Of course Harvard would admit one of the most visible Parkland/MSD activists. Only questions were which one(s) and what she/he/they would make of the opportunity.

There were dozens of kids involved, and I'm sure the vast majority of them had both leadership and academic potential.

Why Harvard chose to admit someone with such a poor record of learning says a lot about Harvard in the 21st century -- it has lost way.

As a Harvard grad, I'd rather have attended school with him than some perfect SAT/GPA drone that would add nothing to my learning/social experience.

And this is why people have problem with Harvard grads .... you put more value on someone that can organize protests instead of someone that have the smarts to find middle ground and compromise.

Anonymous wrote:
And this is why people have problem with Harvard grads .... you put more value on someone that can organize protests instead of someone that have the smarts to find middle ground and compromise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard wants its brand on people who will have some combination of wealth, power, influence, and/or fame. Hard to predict which 17-18 year olds will end up in that category. Clear that there are lots of different paths (and inheritance is a well worn one). FWIW, few of “the chosen” end up THE CHOSEN, but Harvard does well enough wrt picking winners (as defined above) that it has sustained and enhanced its reputation for centuries. And its also-rans often do well and/or do good, which helps keep the school afloat and attracts talented new applicants. Where Harvard looks/what kinds of applicants it bets on changes over time (with its perception of how elites are formed in various fields/places), but ambition/self-confidence seem to play at least as much (probably more) of a role than brains in Harvard admissions. Of course Harvard would admit one of the most visible Parkland/MSD activists. Only questions were which one(s) and what she/he/they would make of the opportunity.

There were dozens of kids involved, and I'm sure the vast majority of them had both leadership and academic potential.

Why Harvard chose to admit someone with such a poor record of learning says a lot about Harvard in the 21st century -- it has lost way.

As a Harvard grad, I'd rather have attended school with him than some perfect SAT/GPA drone that would add nothing to my learning/social experience.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard wants its brand on people who will have some combination of wealth, power, influence, and/or fame. Hard to predict which 17-18 year olds will end up in that category. Clear that there are lots of different paths (and inheritance is a well worn one). FWIW, few of “the chosen” end up THE CHOSEN, but Harvard does well enough wrt picking winners (as defined above) that it has sustained and enhanced its reputation for centuries. And its also-rans often do well and/or do good, which helps keep the school afloat and attracts talented new applicants. Where Harvard looks/what kinds of applicants it bets on changes over time (with its perception of how elites are formed in various fields/places), but ambition/self-confidence seem to play at least as much (probably more) of a role than brains in Harvard admissions. Of course Harvard would admit one of the most visible Parkland/MSD activists. Only questions were which one(s) and what she/he/they would make of the opportunity.

There were dozens of kids involved, and I'm sure the vast majority of them had both leadership and academic potential.

Why Harvard chose to admit someone with such a poor record of learning says a lot about Harvard in the 21st century -- it has lost way.

Anonymous wrote:Harvard wants its brand on people who will have some combination of wealth, power, influence, and/or fame. Hard to predict which 17-18 year olds will end up in that category. Clear that there are lots of different paths (and inheritance is a well worn one). FWIW, few of “the chosen” end up THE CHOSEN, but Harvard does well enough wrt picking winners (as defined above) that it has sustained and enhanced its reputation for centuries. And its also-rans often do well and/or do good, which helps keep the school afloat and attracts talented new applicants. Where Harvard looks/what kinds of applicants it bets on changes over time (with its perception of how elites are formed in various fields/places), but ambition/self-confidence seem to play at least as much (probably more) of a role than brains in Harvard admissions. Of course Harvard would admit one of the most visible Parkland/MSD activists. Only questions were which one(s) and what she/he/they would make of the opportunity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This kid is going to have really high arrogance and a lack of self awareness about his low IQ. Not a good combo around highest IQ kids in the world. Wicked smart Harvard kids are going to quickly realize he’s a lightweight media creation.

Ha ha! Half the class are full of athletes, rich kids who coasted in prep schools and daddy or granpy money is why they got in, harvard easy grading.....the smart kids are at MIT where u can’t buy your way in.

Harvard is the lucky school that got David Hogg, not the other way around.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congrats to him. Where did the bald girl end up? Hope she also made it to a good school. Brave, smart kids

Edna Chavez ended up at the New School of South Florida, Florida’s state Honors LAC (Like St. Maty’s Of mD or William and Mary)

Anonymous wrote:Congrats to him. Where did the bald girl end up? Hope she also made it to a good school. Brave, smart kids

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With Hogg and the Islamic south Asian kid who wrote blm 100 times for his Stanford essay, I can see middle school parents start to get their kids starting social justice clubs and groups by the thousands across the country.

It’s a great hook.

I found find your comment so distasteful. What this kid and his classmates went through I wouldn't ever want my kids to experience even if it meant they would get automatically accepted into Harvard. He heard the screams and anguish of his classmates. He tried to escape and flee but luckily a janitor told him to turn back and hide. He hid with other students in a closet like sitting ducks hoping not to get slaughtered. He was texting with his little sister hoping she didn't get killed either.
Then to be strong enough to lead a youth movement against gun violence is remarkable.

He certainly didn't do it for a hook.

I didn’t say he did it for a hook - I said other parents will get their kids to start clubs and movements for the hook.

I noticed you didn’t care to write about the Muslim blm kid, who i mentioned as well.

Immigration/asylum justice clubs for kids in border states would be opportune hooks.