Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The smartest kids at HYPS who earned their way in all put their perfect or near perfect ACT/SAT scores on their LinkedIn and on their resume. The students like Hogg obviously don't.

LinkedIn? Fricking LinkedIn? Are you serious? Next you'll be telling us about geniuses on MySpace.

You can have LinkedIn. Young Mr. Hogg can demonstrate his worth on CNN.

Anonymous wrote:While you all are here for days spewing jealousy and disbelief over D Hogg’s admissions he leveraged his social media following to bring the Holocaust Museum 40K new followers in the last 24 hours.

He is a leader and cultural influencer. You may not get it but his reach and ability to inspire others to act is worth far more than another couple hundred points on the SAT.

-mom of senior who scored 1560 on the SAT

Anonymous wrote:Too dumb to get into a backwater U of California campus, yet gets into Harvard? Hilarious.

Anonymous wrote:The smartest kids at HYPS who earned their way in all put their perfect or near perfect ACT/SAT scores on their LinkedIn and on their resume. The students like Hogg obviously don't.

Anonymous wrote:DS goes to Harvard and entered as a top stat kid. Courses are not a cake walk particularly in history, english, and government. If Hogg can't hack the writing component, he will struggle to find classroom success.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The kid has proved he is a leader, can think outside the box, has a positive impact on society.

Some of these perfect score, perfect gpa kids are just trained Robots. Then you have the privileged ones who will only care about increasing their $$$ value.

Thank goodness you are not on an admissions committee somewhere.

Actually, I'm on an admission committee, and that's why we increasingly get foreign students.

Have a lovely 21st century.

um... because they are full pay?

Full pay AND amazing learning capacity.

Just think of it for a second. That Hogg boy couldn't even learn in his own native English.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The kid has proved he is a leader, can think outside the box, has a positive impact on society.

Some of these perfect score, perfect gpa kids are just trained Robots. Then you have the privileged ones who will only care about increasing their $$$ value.

Thank goodness you are not on an admissions committee somewhere.

Actually, I'm on an admission committee, and that's why we increasingly get foreign students.

Have a lovely 21st century.

You might be on an admission committee but it's not Harvard's. By the way, we're talking about Harvard...not whatever school you represent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The kid has proved he is a leader, can think outside the box, has a positive impact on society.

Some of these perfect score, perfect gpa kids are just trained Robots. Then you have the privileged ones who will only care about increasing their $$$ value.

Thank goodness you are not on an admissions committee somewhere.

Actually, I'm on an admission committee, and that's why we increasingly get foreign students.

Have a lovely 21st century.

um... because they are full pay?

Full pay AND amazing learning capacity.

Just think of it for a second. That Hogg boy couldn't even learn in his own native English.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The kid has proved he is a leader, can think outside the box, has a positive impact on society.

Some of these perfect score, perfect gpa kids are just trained Robots. Then you have the privileged ones who will only care about increasing their $$$ value.

Thank goodness you are not on an admissions committee somewhere.

Actually, I'm on an admission committee, and that's why we increasingly get foreign students.

Have a lovely 21st century.

You might be on an admission committee but it's not Harvard's. By the way, we're talking about Harvard...not whatever school you represent.

Hint: Was Hogg admitted by Stanford?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The kid has proved he is a leader, can think outside the box, has a positive impact on society.

Some of these perfect score, perfect gpa kids are just trained Robots. Then you have the privileged ones who will only care about increasing their $$$ value.

Thank goodness you are not on an admissions committee somewhere.

Actually, I'm on an admission committee, and that's why we increasingly get foreign students.

Have a lovely 21st century.

You might be on an admission committee but it's not Harvard's. By the way, we're talking about Harvard...not whatever school you represent.