<p>read at your own risk!!</p>
<p>does harvard have any “bad kids” or dumb people that got in by luck? it just seems to me that every school should inherently have a few of these. </p>
<p>what about other ivies?</p>
<p>“bad kids” or dumb people that got in by luc"</p>
<p>every ivy has these</p>
<p>usually they are from one of the following reasons:</p>
<p>you name is Bush, or some other legacy, or your parents are high up in government/media/entertainment</p>
<p>you are a recruited athlete</p>
<p>you have tons and tons of money and will buy a dorm as an alum</p>
<p>you were the one the adcom read while drunk and half-asleep</p>
<p>Every school has these.</p>
<p>Some people just look much better on paper than they really are. It happens.</p>
<p>I know, it happens. It makes no sense. And then you look at kids who got rejected for no reason, whose spots are taken by the kids you mentioned.</p>
<p>There are also recruited athletes who’d never get in if it weren’t for that – and then once they get to school, they never actually play for the team. They’re admissions mistakes in my book.</p>
<p>Hanna- I had a conversation with Dr. Mcgrath-Lewis, who is the director of undergrad admissions, and just this topic was brought up, ie a recruited athlete not even playing once they are admitted. She stated that Harvard does not consider them to be an “admissions mistake” because they do not want to confine people or pigeonhole them when they attend. Students do not get admitted who are unable to do the work. That’s what it comes down to. Maybe playing a sport is a tip factor and one year, the soccer team needs more players so soccer players attractive to the admissions committee. But there are plenty applicants to choose from, its not like unqualified applicants are getting in just because they play a sport. Plus, isn’t it really unreasonable to force someone to play a sport or for that matter, participate in any activity once they come to college? The point of going to college is to graduate. If studying is all that one student does, so be it.</p>
<p>And yes, sometimes I think “why did this person get in!!!” I have had that reaction with 2 prefrosh I’ve met this year, one of whom I think is quite possibly the most annoying person I’ve ever met in my life. I can’t stand to have a 5 minute conversation with her! But obvi there was some reason she was admitted and I have to respect that, I can’t judge her as being “unworthy”…who am I to judge?!</p>
<p>but they could have admitted someone who could do the work. . . better.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Naturally Harvard doesn’t. I do.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Of course not. That isn’t the issue. The point of the Harvard admissions process is to get a class full of kids with “distinguishing excellences” that they contribute to the community and to the world, not to get a class that can all pass with a B+ average. If your “distinguishing excellence” is water polo (which I don’t think adds very much to the community anyway, but they think it does, and that’s another thread), and you never play water polo again once you enroll, then you’re not offering anything better than the 15,000 rejected applicants who could also have passed with a B+, had they been admitted. Some of those 15,000+ have distinguishing excellences that they WOULD have contributed to the Harvard community, and they were waitlisted and lost to Princeton (or wherever) in favor of this former water polo player.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>If studying is all that one Harvard student does, he better be a summa cum laude superstar, or else he’s squandering opportunities that another student could take fuller advantage of, which is my definition of an admissions mistake.</p>
<p>Edited to add: jono said in one sentence what I said in three paragraphs. That’s the point.</p>
<p>I personally love stupid people. They are usually a lot more fun and entertaining than smart people. In fact, most of my friends don’t have honors classes, so the prospect of keeping some of these people around at college sounds pretty good to me.</p>