right arrow
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04

High acceptance rate of children of politicians at Ivies

124»

Replies to: High acceptance rate of children of politicians at Ivies

  • lookingforwardlookingforward 34107 replies377 threadsRegistered User Senior Member
    edited July 24
    "but it was never about academics for them." How do you substantiate this? Or that, "They need to spend much more time winnowing the mass of unconnected kids with often better qualifications." I don't think you can prove this. In contrast, I've been on the inside, slogged through it all, see how the reality doesn't match the extraordinary (unfounded) certainty from some on CC that this is all a self serving sham.

    Nor do you know unconnected kids often have better qualifications. Fact is, the vast majority of high stats kids, with ECs that impress on CC, do not put forth great or compelling apps. supps, and plenty don't have informative LoRs. When they answer a Why Us, it stumbles. Face it, the standards are high for all. The tippy tops are culling 90+ percent. Of all types.
    edited July 24
    · Reply · Share
  • jzducoljzducol 734 replies12 threadsRegistered User Member
    I think one thing most people, especially the public don't get is that in the US the elite private college admission is NOT about the students its about the institutional priorities. Those may coincide with the sense of merit but majority of the times they do not. As long as the colleges do not break the law, there is not much you can do to these private institutions who had enjoyed great success with their time tested admissions formula.
    · Reply · Share
  • roethlisburgerroethlisburger 2806 replies154 threadsRegistered User Senior Member
    @JHS
    Re Harvard's "featherweight" legacy preference: The real relevant comparison is not to the average non-legacy applicant, but to the average applicant from families as sophisticated and affluent as the families of Harvard alumni. I haven't gone over all of the lawsuit discovery data like some of the posters here. For years various people confirmed that Harvard tracked its acceptance rate for Yale and Princeton legacies (who received no preferential consideration in the admissions process) as a sort of control group for measuring the effect of its preferential consideration of Harvard legacies. The difference in admission rate was very small, and not necessarily significant. There was clearly some sort of embedded preference for the children of affluent, educationally sophisticated families, but Harvard legacy status was indeed a featherweight beyond that.

    This is factually incorrect. The Hurwitz study proved the legacy benefit was large and substantial, under exactly that same type of analysis.
    · Reply · Share
  • lookingforwardlookingforward 34107 replies377 threadsRegistered User Senior Member
    I thought Hurwitz had no access to applications-?
    · Reply · Share
  • katliamomkatliamom 12808 replies167 threadsRegistered User Senior Member
    edited July 24
    I'm no more upset about the high acceptance rate of politicians' kids at Harvard than I am at the high rate of politicians at the local country club. Harvard - and country clubs - know which side of the toast the butter can be found. ;0 I might be persuaded to be more miffed if I saw a study that showed the amount of federal tax dollars going to Harvard vs. the top public schools. As it is, this debate is silly and ages-old. Yes, Harvard has made admissions changes (Jews! Women! African Americans!) but basically it's run in the way it's always been run: through the largesse of very wealthy and/or powerful people. To be shocked that their children may have a leg up in admissions is imply to be naive. Or disingenuous. Possibly both.
    edited July 24
    · Reply · Share
  • roethlisburgerroethlisburger 2806 replies154 threadsRegistered User Senior Member
    edited July 24
    but basically it's run in the way it's always been run: through the largesse of very wealthy and/or powerful people. To be shocked that their children may have a leg up in admissions is imply to be naive. Or disingenuous. Possibly both.
    At least one poster in this thread seems adamant wealth, power, and legacy status plays little role in admissions decisions. Do they fall into the naïve or disingenuous category or both?
    edited July 24
    · Reply · Share
  • MaineLonghornMaineLonghorn 38418 replies2104 threadsSuper Moderator Super Moderator
    MODERATOR'S NOTE:

    On that note, I'm closing the thread.
    · Reply · Share
This discussion has been closed.

Recent Activity