Join for FREE,
and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions,
Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky
welcome messages (like this one!)
I don't know how they would figure out the cooperative/competitive nature of kids from their high school apps.
Collaborative and cooperative spirit
The core of the MIT spirit is collaboration and cooperation; you can see it all over the Institute. Many of the problem sets (our affectionate term for homework) at MIT are designed to be worked on in groups, and cross-department labs are very common. MIT is known for its interdisciplinary research. If you enjoy working alone all the time, that’s completely valid, but you might not be particularly happy at MIT.
t's not a simple either the paper counts or doesn't count. It's a good achievement and EC that contributes to the overall decision. It's more looking for a consistent pattern across the full application than looking for a single isolated achievement. As you noted, it can be difficult to draw conclusions from a single isolated event. However, I certainly would not assume he "tagged along" and "just put his name on the paper." I doubt Princeton admissions would make this assumption as well. Princeton admissions would likely be influenced by how he described the experience at Rutgers and related research in his essays, interview, and possibly LOR.
There is no way to estimate that they had a 20% chance of admission from the available information. According to https://admission.princeton.edu/how-apply/admission-statistics , Princeton applicants with a perfect 4.0 GPA only have an 8% rate of admission. If the Glen Ridge kids instead had a 3.9x GPA, then the average admit rate drops to 6%. Do you think you have enough information to determine how much greater chance each Glen Ridge applicant has than the average 4.0 GPA Princeton applicant?
As usual, outsiders guessing at the admission qualifications of the applicants cannot see important (to super selective colleges) components like essays and recommendations of the specific applicants and the rest of the applicant pool. So it is hard to really know, as opposed to falling back on preset assumptions.
]What do legacy and donor-kid students (as opposed to perhaps their parents and their donations, for whose kids the college admission preferences are effectively like an aristocratic inheritance) add to the campus over other students?
Indeed, strictly looking on the basis of personal academic merit, legacy and donor-kid students may have the least of all students of comparable academic achievement, since they are much more likely to have come from highly advantaged families (with attendant support and help in achieving to the top of one's potential) than "unhooked" students. For comparison, recruited athletes with comparable academic achievement had to achieve to a high level in a sport as well. URMs are somewhat more likely to have encountered barriers to climb over to reach a given level of achievement, compared to others of similar SES.
For example, in the wake of the lawsuit, the majority of all races of entering freshman at Harvard said they had a favorable view of racially-conscious affirmative action programs. The specific numbers were 6% of Black students had an unfavorable view, and 26% of Asian students had an unfavorable view. Senior survey numbers were similar.
$150k Income - $15k taxes, $250k savings, $250k in primary home
Caltech -- $63k Cost to Parents
MIT -- $37k Cost to Parents
Harvard -- $17k Cost to Parents
$65k Income - $5k taxes, $100k savings, Rent home
Caltech -- $11k Cost to Parents
MIT -- $8k Cost to Parents
Harvard -- $0 Cost to Parents
Well the costs that @Data10 pulled are selective, I don't think they are intentionally misleading.
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