Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I would like to see accidents of birth removed from admissions consideration.
Like natural intelligence?
No like the Jared Kushners of the world
Or the Barack Obamas, who got into Harvard Law with a below 3.3 average from Columbia (having oddly transferred there from Occidental). Or George W Bushes, for that matter.
Citation, please. Or what you typed is bullshit.
He graduated Magna Cum Laude and edited the Law review, and went on to have a coupla pretty important jobs, so clearly the admissions committee was correct in admitting him, right?
Nevertheless, he entered HLS from Columbia with only a 3.3. I had to have a 4.0 at a time when a 4.0 meant valedictorian or salutatorian. I was the former. He made the Law Review not on grades but by write-on with AA points added on as well. He was voted in as Editor NOT by grades, which is how it was done when I attended. And he was viewed as a very weak Editor. He did not even go on to clerk. Judges know who is write-on HLS law review and who is not. He made magna because Harvard had shifted from blind grading to open grading so he got brownie points in class for being AA. It once meant something to be on HLS law review by grades and to make editor that way. It now means very little. https://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html
Where in that article is is cited that he had a 3.3 GPA?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why is nobody talking about POTUS and his children going to Wharton Undergrad? Do you think they all have smarts in spite of self proclamation from the one and only of being "stable genius" (whatever that means)? As long as ivies continue to admit such people I have no problem if they admit URMs on Affirmative Action.
Take off the blinders - if Trump hasn't demonstrated genius over the course of his life no one has. Unconventional, but genius nonetheless.
Anonymous wrote:Why is nobody talking about POTUS and his children going to Wharton Undergrad? Do you think they all have smarts in spite of self proclamation from the one and only of being "stable genius" (whatever that means)? As long as ivies continue to admit such people I have no problem if they admit URMs on Affirmative Action.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I would like to see accidents of birth removed from admissions consideration.
Like natural intelligence?
No like the Jared Kushners of the world
Or the Barack Obamas, who got into Harvard Law with a below 3.3 average from Columbia (having oddly transferred there from Occidental). Or George W Bushes, for that matter.
Citation, please. Or what you typed is bullshit.
He graduated Magna Cum Laude and edited the Law review, and went on to have a coupla pretty important jobs, so clearly the admissions committee was correct in admitting him, right?
Nevertheless, he entered HLS from Columbia with only a 3.3. I had to have a 4.0 at a time when a 4.0 meant valedictorian or salutatorian. I was the former. He made the Law Review not on grades but by write-on with AA points added on as well. He was voted in as Editor NOT by grades, which is how it was done when I attended. And he was viewed as a very weak Editor. He did not even go on to clerk. Judges know who is write-on HLS law review and who is not. He made magna because Harvard had shifted from blind grading to open grading so he got brownie points in class for being AA. It once meant something to be on HLS law review by grades and to make editor that way. It now means very little. https://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html
Anonymous wrote:lol @ schools forsaking legacy admits and the constant stream of cash money that brings them.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I would like to see accidents of birth removed from admissions consideration.
Like natural intelligence?
No like the Jared Kushners of the world
Or the Barack Obamas, who got into Harvard Law with a below 3.3 average from Columbia (having oddly transferred there from Occidental). Or George W Bushes, for that matter.
Citation, please. Or what you typed is bullshit.
He graduated Magna Cum Laude and edited the Law review, and went on to have a coupla pretty important jobs, so clearly the admissions committee was correct in admitting him, right?
Nevertheless, he entered HLS from Columbia with only a 3.3. I had to have a 4.0 at a time when a 4.0 meant valedictorian or salutatorian. I was the former. He made the Law Review not on grades but by write-on with AA points added on as well. He was voted in as Editor NOT by grades, which is how it was done when I attended. And he was viewed as a very weak Editor. He did not even go on to clerk. Judges know who is write-on HLS law review and who is not. He made magna because Harvard had shifted from blind grading to open grading so he got brownie points in class for being AA. It once meant something to be on HLS law review by grades and to make editor that way. It now means very little. https://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html
Anonymous wrote:You'll never get rid of affirmative action. I worked in admissions for a year before grad school and we had no affirmative action...yet somehow they filled a summer program up with bottom percentile kids every year...all of them minority.![]()
And you'll never get rid of legacy, just like you'll never get rid of frats/srats...rich will always signal their parents went there. Further, so many legacies are back-doored in via bullsh*t sports they're not even good at.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I would like to see accidents of birth removed from admissions consideration.
Like natural intelligence?
Or being born to parents who value education and know how to provide reading and math experiences from an early age?
But these things build skills that are directly relevant to the actual business of elite undergraduate education. We send students to immerse themselves in a scholarly life.
 
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I would like to see accidents of birth removed from admissions consideration.
Like natural intelligence?
No like the Jared Kushners of the world
Or the Barack Obamas, who got into Harvard Law with a below 3.3 average from Columbia (having oddly transferred there from Occidental). Or George W Bushes, for that matter.
Citation, please. Or what you typed is bullshit.
He graduated Magna Cum Laude and edited the Law review, and went on to have a coupla pretty important jobs, so clearly the admissions committee was correct in admitting him, right?
Nevertheless, he entered HLS from Columbia with only a 3.3. I had to have a 4.0 at a time when a 4.0 meant valedictorian or salutatorian. I was the former. He made the Law Review not on grades but by write-on with AA points added on as well. He was voted in as Editor NOT by grades, which is how it was done when I attended. And he was viewed as a very weak Editor. He did not even go on to clerk. Judges know who is write-on HLS law review and who is not. He made magna because Harvard had shifted from blind grading to open grading so he got brownie points in class for being AA. It once meant something to be on HLS law review by grades and to make editor that way. It now means very little. https://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I would like to see accidents of birth removed from admissions consideration.
Like natural intelligence?
No like the Jared Kushners of the world
Or the Barack Obamas, who got into Harvard Law with a below 3.3 average from Columbia (having oddly transferred there from Occidental). Or George W Bushes, for that matter.
Citation, please. Or what you typed is bullshit.
He graduated Magna Cum Laude and edited the Law review, and went on to have a coupla pretty important jobs, so clearly the admissions committee was correct in admitting him, right?