One would think HYPS would be in the best position to do away with legacy preferences considering their large endowments and name recognitions globally.
I am falling down laughing at the idea of a couple of rich kids somehow diluting Harvard's brand Lady Meow. They don't dilute the brand- they ARE the brand. Not that everyone at Harvard is rich- but that the "je ne sais quoi" of Harvard (vs. Harvey Mudd, or Rice, or U Chicago, or any number of universities which have a fantastic collection of incredible faculty and wonderful students) includes the presence of rich kids. In some eras, they were dumb rich kids. In other eras, they were smart rich kids. Not as smart as the kids Harvard was trying to use quota's against (smart Asians, smart Jews, smart urban/ethnics) but "smart enough". In our current era, the rich kids need something besides squash and sailing, hence all those do-gooder trips to dig latrines and paint the walls of orphanages. And of course, starting your own NGO at the age of 16.
Harvard with NO rich kids? Would legions of families in ordinary suburbs and towns and cities across America be shlepping their kids to music class and debate try-outs and traveling soccer and having their kid go without adequate sleep (ironic, since most of these well meaning attempts will fail to get the kid into Harvard) be motivated were it not for the presence of the rich kids?
They would most certainly not! My kid can go to U Conn or SMU or Villanova if they want to hang out with the sons and daughters of lawyers and pediatricians and VP's of Community Lending at the local bank. But oligarchs and billionaires and the many children and grandchildren of a Saudi Prince with a sovereign wealth fund behind him?
That's a different league. That's Harvard, baby.
(or at least this is what people think as ludicrous as it seems when I put it in writing. Villanova attracts plenty of rich kids. But not Harvard-rich. That's a direct quote from someone I know pretty well who is neither stupid about college admissions, nor a vapid social climber).
@DeepBlue86 If you really believe that there aren’t plenty, and I mean plenty, of cases of unprepared kids who got into these schools as a result of virtue-signaling by admissions and then couldn’t handle it
@DeepBlue86 - On the one hand, this represents a lot of progress; on the other, there's still a meaningful difference (for which undoubtedly there are many reasons).
I wish more statistics were available from which one could draw clearer conclusions.
That 3% is not far off the roughly 2% difference between men and women's grad rates at HYPS (women having the higher rate). What does that say about the difficulties men have in college, as a group?
Your data presentation is highly selective and misleading. First of all, to compare MIT/Caltech, as schools that don't consider legacy status, with a single school, Harvard, that considers legacy status and that happens to have the single largest endowment, is just disingenuous. Most elite colleges, including the Ivies, have legacy preferences. For a fairer comparison, you at least need to include schools like Brown, or Penn, or Northwestern, or Hopkins
@hebegebe Re the 2% rate male to female difference, it would be worthwhile determining how many of those men left to pursue startups in the hopes of being the next Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg.
I too see legacy preference and URM preference to be the two sides of the same coin. It's hard to justify being for one and against the other.
- diversity (the average rich person is more diverse than the average non-rich person. rich people have the time and money to have diverse experiences, that's the hard truth).