Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Development cases? What percentage? I bet single digits. Legacy admits constitute a crazy amount -- 30% at Harvard as of 2011 (not sure it remained the same for more recent admissions cycles).
How could being a legacy hurt?

Most legacies get in because they have the grades, test scores, and accomplishments to independently achieve admission on their own merit, like the previous poster who provided their child's impressive stats. I have heard that, in some cases, it is actually more difficult for an independently accomplished and qualified legacy of one top-25 school to be admitted to another top-25 school, because the other school(s) (who want healthy yield stats) work under the assumption that the legacy will likely prefer the parent's alma mater over them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are wrong, once you get in, one has to work very hard to flunk out. This is well known. Just google Harvard grade inflation. It is a shame, well not really, the name on the degree is more important vs gpa.

I've heard this too, but with more subtlety and nuance. The way you write it, it comes off as a cheap and easy thing that jealous folk like to say. I'm sure that's not you, but that's the image that comes across, just so you know.

In reality, most of the kids who do get into Harvard are the super-strivers that everybody on this board loves to mock as "psychotic." Sure, once these kids get into Harvard--and they no longer have to captain 3 sports teams and run 12 clubs while they're taking 12 APs--college might look easy by comparison. Even Harvard is going to be easy compared to their high school, resume-building lives.

But the development snowflake with no work ethic is going to be in for a shock. Yes, you still do have to write well there, and you have to pass the tests. That's why Harvard will only take development cases who can at least somewhat hold their own in a student body of "psychotic strivers."

That's what sickens me - that stupid assed effort to be a save the world type who shows leadership skills just to look good to someone else.

Anonymous wrote:Thanks, PP. You must be proud of her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are wrong, once you get in, one has to work very hard to flunk out. This is well known. Just google Harvard grade inflation. It is a shame, well not really, the name on the degree is more important vs gpa.

I've heard this too, but with more subtlety and nuance. The way you write it, it comes off as a cheap and easy thing that jealous folk like to say. I'm sure that's not you, but that's the image that comes across, just so you know.

In reality, most of the kids who do get into Harvard are the super-strivers that everybody on this board loves to mock as "psychotic." Sure, once these kids get into Harvard--and they no longer have to captain 3 sports teams and run 12 clubs while they're taking 12 APs--college might look easy by comparison. Even Harvard is going to be easy compared to their high school, resume-building lives.

But the development snowflake with no work ethic is going to be in for a shock. Yes, you still do have to write well there, and you have to pass the tests. That's why Harvard will only take development cases who can at least somewhat hold their own in a student body of "psychotic strivers."

That's what sickens me - that stupid assed effort to be a save the world type who shows leadership skills just to look good to someone else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are wrong, once you get in, one has to work very hard to flunk out. This is well known. Just google Harvard grade inflation. It is a shame, well not really, the name on the degree is more important vs gpa.

I've heard this too, but with more subtlety and nuance. The way you write it, it comes off as a cheap and easy thing that jealous folk like to say. I'm sure that's not you, but that's the image that comes across, just so you know.

In reality, most of the kids who do get into Harvard are the super-strivers that everybody on this board loves to mock as "psychotic." Sure, once these kids get into Harvard--and they no longer have to captain 3 sports teams and run 12 clubs while they're taking 12 APs--college might look easy by comparison. Even Harvard is going to be easy compared to their high school, resume-building lives.

But the development snowflake with no work ethic is going to be in for a shock. Yes, you still do have to write well there, and you have to pass the tests. That's why Harvard will only take development cases who can at least somewhat hold their own in a student body of "psychotic strivers."

Anonymous wrote:13:12 Just curious: Did the people writing recommendations have ties to the school?

Anonymous wrote:
You are wrong, once you get in, one has to work very hard to flunk out. This is well known. Just google Harvard grade inflation. It is a shame, well not really, the name on the degree is more important vs gpa.

Anonymous wrote:Elite colleges know something that many straight A high school students (and their parents) haven't figured out yet: academic success is only one measure of an applicant's potential. Harvard and other schools of that ilk aren't merely looking for kids who are going to succeed as college students, but who are going to make their mark as adults through interesting/meaningful/lucrative pursuits that reinforce the school's reputation, feeds its endowment, and inspires other awesome people to apply to Harvard et al too.

As my husband and I help our kids through the college process, I try to imagine being an admissions officer, looking for signs of authenticity in a sea of club presidencies, real vs. lightweight AP courses, regional sports awards, and my personal favorite, "service projects" performed by kids who have never worked a day their in the lives. At least with legacies and athletes, these schools know what they're getting. But all the cookie cutter star students must be very, very difficult to differentiate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Development cases? What percentage? I bet single digits. Legacy admits constitute a crazy amount -- 30% at Harvard as of 2011 (not sure it remained the same for more recent admissions cycles).
How could being a legacy hurt?

I bet 1-5% of an entering class, depending on the college. There just aren't enough multi-millionares' kids who can also handle the workload at a highly competitive universities. Harvard is *not* going to accept a kid who is guaranteed to flunk out, no matter what some of you think.

do you know how hard it is to flunk out of harvard?

in a soft major hyp would be much easier than a flagship state school.

not everyone at harvard takes math 55.

Anonymous wrote:11:34 This is just plain wrong. I personally know the parents of two Ivy athlete recruits, one from the DC area and one from out of state, and their SAT/ACT score thresholds were lower. It was discussed by the coaches, the pressure to attain the threshold is fierce. Your child might be in college with athletic recruits from DC area schools, but does he/she discuss their test scores? One recruit who hesitated at an offer was told by the coach that she was preferred over another candidate because her scores were higher. And they just made the cutoff.