Two of them went to Ivies. The others graduated over 75 years ago. Things are a little different now. Still, two others graduated from prestigious non-Ivy schools.
Obama graduated from Columbia and did his law degree at Harvard.
Nixon did his law degree at Duke.
Carter graduated from the US Naval Academy.
Clinton did his law degree at Yale, got a Rhodes scholarship and studied at Oxford .
Reagan graduated in 1932 and had a successful acting career for many years before entering politics.
I think the point was that none, including He Who Must Not Be Named, started their undergraduate career at an Ivy (or a peer), and all did very well for themselves. 2 from the last 55 years (Trump and Obama) graduated from an Ivy after transferring, while several obtained professional degrees at top rated schools. One would have to go back to JFK (and I don’t think any would argue that he got into Princeton or Harvard on merit) to find a US president who started his undergraduate studies at a top school.
eta: I blanked on 41 and 43, who of course started and finished at Yale, although my comment above on JFK would also, IMO apply to HW at least.
The Bush boys (W. and HW) started at Yale. Ford went to Michigan (not too shabby)
@bouders 75 years ago the Ivy League stranglehold on power was even more pronounced. If anything, it means much less today. And back then they had 50 percent admit rates.
But ok. Let’s play a few more. And it’s only in relation to a post about schools vs access to power. And not talking about law school or grad school. This thread was in relation to ug options.
Fine schools below. But not hpysm.
AOC. Boston University
Kamela Harris. Howard University
Hilary Clinton. Wellesley
Bernie Sanders. Brooklyn College transferred to U of C
Mike Pompeo. West Point
Joe Biden. U Del
Elizabeth Warren. U of Houston and GW
Very few of the Fortune 500 CEOs did either.
It doesn’t mean they aren’t the best schools. It just means that nothing is more important than personal effort. There’s no magic ticket. It’s based on the student and not the school.
Many students from Ivy League schools overachieve because of their brains and work ethic. Both would have served them well anywhere.
And look at the ug resumes of the profs at Ivy League schools. They all don’t go to hypsm and they are teaching the class.
Ok. I’m done fighting the battle. Good luck all.
Harvard takes developmental admits, including big donors. It’s the famous Z list.
One of the requirements of the Z List is that the student has to take a gap year. If @brainstormculture’s classmate isn’t taking a gap year, one would have to assume she got in based on her resume and not because of the big bucks.
@CottonTales, I plan on enjoying my college years and working very hard to achieve my goals. That being said, and since you mentioned it, Yale is definitely a “consolation prize” for my friend who’s only dream was and has always been, Harvard. I’m still hopeful for him so that he gets off the waiting list; though it’s highly doubtful.
Fact: the college admissions game, particularly at Ivies, is heavily skewed in favor of the 1%. If the “Varsity Blues” scandal has brought anything up to the surface it is exactly that.
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams
You are correct. I can’t believe I had a brain fart on that one.
I think you are mistaken – from what I can learn online, there are some students who are legacies or developmental admits who are Z-listed (offered deferred admission) — and that overall, there is a skew of Z-listed students toward that cohort (legacy, rich, and/or famous) … but absolutely no indication at all that all developmental admits are Z-listers. I think that’s just a spot for the segment of developmental admits that Harvard doesn’t want to take directly, for whatever reason.
I also am skeptical about the story of the billionaire daughter being accepted to 5 Ivies as a developmental admit — why would her parents, no matter how wealthy, contribute money to 5 Ivies? She can only attend one – and a donation combined with a REA application to Harvard would have yielded an early answer-- hence no particular reason to hedge bets with donations to other colleges. I’m sure that student had all sorts of advantages tied to her level of wealth & privilege… but it doesn’t really sound like she needed the added bump of a 7-figure check to make the cut.
@skieurope lol.
But bush sr did have to work a long time for the guys from eureka Whittier and Texas Tech to get his shot though.
And only lasted one term, beat by the poor kid from Arkansas who had to suffer the hardship of a Jesuit school. Lol.
@calmom, she didn’t apply REA anywhere. She only applied RD because she wanted to bump up her grades and GPA during the first semester of senior year. Oh, did I not mention that one of her relatives is affiliated with one of the Ivies too? It’s not Harvard.
I truly don’t understand why the reluctance here to admit the blatantly obvious. It’s like they said in Animal Farm, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” The 1% have it made. This is a fact no matter how you slice it.
When your friend attends his consolation prize - Yale in the fall there is a chance that he will live in one of the 2 new residential colleges that were built on a huge donation from a single family. Due to this donation Yale class expanded by 200 students or 13%. There is a good chance that if these colleges were not built your friend would not be admitted.
Yale usually admits children from this family. Do you believe it is fair or unfair?
I don’t think any of us know enough about that particular story to comment on it, but I do think in general that not all development admits need to write a check in advance to receive the benefits. There are certain family names that are so well known that I suspect most colleges will recognize the family’s wealth just from the name(s) on the app. For families like that, the colleges may well decide to bet on future donations by accepting that applicant.
@privatebanker And don’t forget how the standards have changed over the years. I wonder what the admit rate was to Wellesley when Clinton attended. Or BU when AOC attended?
@gallentjill You are so correct. My favorite is UCLA in 1984. 74% admissions rate.
I have no skin in this game, but it’s interesting that all it took was a contrary opinion for people to come running to the defense of these colleges in their admitted preferential treatment of the wealthiest of the wealthy. If Harvard wanted to avoid the appearance of impropriety, couldn’t they just use some of their endowment to fund the same lofty pursuits?
@randyerika some of us have been defending development admits for over three thousand posts now.
@RandyErika Yes of course. They are uniquely positioned to do so among colleges. The thing is the endowment is a function of years of almuni giving (legacy preference) and large gifts (development preference). It’s the reason for the preference. But H has enough but some like Brown only have a 3b endowment approx. one new building is 500mm. The top professors cost big bucks. The activities and the scholarships are enormous costs.
@Tanbiko, fair? Fairness would be simply this. Any college that accepts federal funding (that’s your tax dollars and mine), should be making their ‘secret sauce’ admissions formula known to everyone. Transparency would fairly inform anyone who chooses to apply to that institution knowing their true odds (not just the published acceptance rate). Regardless of what criteria are being used to fill the incoming freshman class, this ought to be public knowledge when federal funds are part of the equation. If Yale, or any of the Ivies, cannot, or will not, be transparent with specific admission numbers (how many billionaires, how many legacies, how many kids of faculty and staff, etc.), then they shouldn’t receive any federal funding, which is supposedly intended for needy applicants. The Ivies should just go the way of any other country club, yacht club or elite private organization admitting the 0.01% to 1%. Anything else is indeed unfair because young people -like my friends- will actually get bamboozled by the rhetoric that these institutions are “need-blind.” I’m 18 years old and I’ve quickly learned this isn’t the case. If anyone reading this thread wishes to believe otherwise, they should go work for Disney because they are living in a fantasy world.
Will the scandal make admissions at these schools any easier for Fall '19?
I would think it would take a while before schools implement new policies especially regarding athletic recruiting.