We've updated the Topics page of our website to better organize and share our expert content. Read more about it here.
High acceptance rate of children of politicians at Ivies
Riversider
789 replies90 threadsRegistered User Member
Listen to Tucker Carlson. https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/32837-study-with-merit-based-college-admissions-53-of-incoming-students-would-be-replaced
67 replies This discussion has been closed.
Replies to: High acceptance rate of children of politicians at Ivies
It's no surprise that when I clicked on the OP's link, the "article" was accompanied by an ad for the John Birch Society. The study itself had absolutely nothing to say about "Ivies," except to the extent that the Ivies almost certainly represented 4% of the colleges in the study (but probably a little less than 4% of the students). The study really had nothing to say regarding what the article's author and Tucker Carlson were ranting about -- children of Democratic politicians getting admitted to Harvard. (News flash: Children of Republican politicians go to Harvard, too.)
Harvard and MIT and others are happy to admit they could fill the class x times over. But they are not looking for the flat metric of rack and stack. How does one get through CC without realizing...?
Al Gore is how many decades ago? You think things haven't evolved?
And as for transparent, sheesh, people can't seem to get the hang of reading what the colleges DO say and show. Some prefer hearsay, supposition, and 2nd hand guesses.
Meanwhile, the world -- even the English-speaking world -- has any number of high-quality colleges and universities with different admissions systems, some completely transparent, some less so. Practically all of them give more weight to academics alone than Harvard does, and many of them use to criterion other than the scoring on a single-take high-risk test. If that's the sort of college you prefer, go there.
@JHS
Harvard’s prestige is just another excellent example of how power begets power, money begets money. Nothing new since time immemorial.
Yes, I accept that my statement is a gross simplification, but I would say neither Harvard nor Stanford are the best universities in the country, let alone the world, they are the most well-known/hardest to get in, that didn’t make them into the best. It is impossible to say any given school is the best. Human ingenuity comes in many forms and the breakthroughs come from many fronts, fortunately.
For the last 150 years, most scientific breakthroughs didn’t come from Harvard. But we are digressing.
Elite colleges are so competitive, reflected by the “varsity blues” kind of scandals, as well as children of politicians’ and super riches (which often overlap, these days) are all clambering in. We discussed ad nauseam race and money’s roles in elite college admission, why not also discuss power’s role a little? Why it is perfectly ok to discuss affirmative action of race, but not the de facto affirmative action of power?
100 years ago, Harvard was all male, almost all white, and deeply concerned too many Jews were being admitted. Almost no one would consider the Harvard administration of 80-100 years as a good example of how a university should be run.
Is someone going to tell me that Harvard college is less attractive because you may have to rub shoulders with Xi Jinping's daughter, Malia Obama, or Benazir Bhutto?
Don't fall prey to "I heard it somewhere, so it must be true." Or it's sister, "I read (or heard) it somewhere, so it is true." You could dig deeper than that.
But odd that you disbelieve what colleges do say and yet proclaim things like that it's "who you know." I don't think you know that, with certainty.
It is only a lie if he also suggested that in comparison to much heavier objects, like the entire bird the feather came from.
But since most people associate feathers as being lighter than assumed other objects, that statement with no comparison objects for other criteria is highly misleading, like how politicians and others sometimes say something that is technically true but very misleading.