The judge had a particular matter to evaluate, and so the focus was on that. Harvard did not arrive where it has on mere shallow, empty reputation. Keep in mind that I am not a great fan of H, for reasons I cannot go into at this time. Rest assured that my reasons are several, however. Ranking and reputation are partly ephemeral, but private institutions (not limited to H), as well as the finest of the publics, have created and sustained academic commodity along with financial and social. It hardly means that H has some lock on academic excellence (in its students, in its product, in its publications) versus other elites, large and small, but it also does not mean that its enrolled students are devoid of intellect and worth. H particularly likes to funnel high-performing graduates into its professional schools, and they have other reasons, as well, to make sure that there is a core of academic producers every application year in the freshman class.
Methinks your numbers are a bit off. It should be 100% of their admissions relates to self-interest. (And, as long as they aren’t breaking any laws, there is nothing wrong with that.)
Harvard can have their cake and eat it too. They have the luxury of choosing both extremely smart, accomplished kids and applicants from families with lots of money.
Case in point. Close friend’s H freshman kid whose family also happens to be a 1%er. The family was invited to a VIP dinner banquet at H with a few hundred other wealthy families. After explaining all the great things they are doing and plan to do with their endowment, they asked each family for a minimum $25,000 to add to their coffers. I’m sure some families gave much more but that one dinner probably generated another $5,000,000 (200 x 25K) minimum for the college.
The bottom line to me is that Harvard can have it all, world class student body combined with wealthy donors and families to keep the machine running. Like it or not, these are some of the things that make Harvard the college it is.
THIS x 3:
Maybe Harvard isn’t limiting its admission tips to just fencing.
The 2019 men’s water polo class was announced today and One of the recruits lists , RB, is possibly an alum tip given he graduated high school in 2018 and his curious stats compared to the other admitted players… He played for the Stanford club C team while all other previous year admits to Harvard that played for this club were on the Stanford A club team, which won multiple national championships. The other four announced are exceptional, very high stats CA players with long histories.
https://www.gocrimson.com/sports/mwaterpolo/2018-19/releases/20190508sc18it
@notigering – Re: your point of "They recruit and fund a tiny handful of exceptional low SES and/or underrepresented minorities that (conveniently) soon find the canyon pointed directly at them. . . "
Yes, this does occur. But many private secondary and post-secondary schools also employ what is (literally) called a “Middle-Class Initiative” as well. I know; we are one of those families.
https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/1/18311548/college-admissions-secrets-myths
“The mess which is elite college admissions, from a former Dean of Admissions at an elite LAC”
Interesting tie in from another thread to the topic of this thread.
I didn’t find the article very enlightening. It smacks very much of Rachel Toor’s book, College Confidential, in its bitterness and cynicism. When one’s viewpoint has been so degraded, objectivity and balance – and thus credibility – are lost. Or, let’s put it this way, if one is determined to be a purist/idealist going in, one is sure to be scandalized in just about any profession or environment, at some point. And then the fall is so much harder and seemingly poisonous.
I haven’t met a lot of private high school students who were admitted to the top elites with “fluff” in their high school studies. (His word.) Based on knowledge of the high standards of performance at elite colleges, I defend the stronger percentages of admissions from private high schools. At some private high schools there are many, many academic opportunities beyond “a standard program,” and those additional opportunities directly and indirectly prepare students for the rigors of certain private colleges.
He also hugely generalizes about teachers at privates vs. at publics. Overall, yes, public school students will get less individual attention by recommenders, by the counseling office, etc. However, a true star (I’ve met several from public high schools) who is intellectually, socially, and emotionally head and shoulders above her or his peers, WILL be noticed by perceptive teachers and WILL receive extraordinary and deserved recommendations. I’ve counseled several, over several years, who have been cross-admits to a number of elites.
Princeton’s recently admitted class of 2023: 18% first gen. 11% children of alumni.
I agree with you, but he was talking specifically about private schools that provide no grades at all (like St. Ann’s in Brooklyn, I assume https://saintannsny.org/about/dont-grades/)
I’ve never seen their transcripts, so I have no idea if they are full of fluff or not, but I would imagine that it would make it difficult to judge students in the context of their school with no academic measuring stick. Still, St. Ann’s does extremely well with college placement. https://saintannsny.org/divisions-and-offices/college-office-2/student-honors-achievements/
For comparison, there are probably around 30 million people in the US who are not BA/BS graduates of the age to be parents of high school or college students, versus 93,000 living Princeton alumni of all ages (probably around 15,000 of whom are of the age to be parents of high school or college students).
So the legacies are over a thousand times better represented than first-generation-to-college students at Princeton.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
Reopening thread. The topic of a government’s responsibility for wealth creation or distribution is not germane to this thread, so I have deleted several posts. Additionally, let’s move past how/why/if a college should create a diverse (however defined) class. Not only is it OT, it’s covered on many other threads.
Inside Higher Ed summary of Boston Globe article: https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2019/05/12/donors-endowed-coaching-positions-programs-which-children-applied
As smarmy as is may be, I’d rather see a development admit be up front about it.
Wealth brings influence…the rich get richer…
Yale actually has a specific endowment set up for lacrosse, with a $$ goal set. Legit.
In any giving, where one gives $xx and a level of giving is called some name, that may just be a category name.
But here we go again. The Globe gives no idea what other facts, but suggesting something is rotten in Denmark. People jump!
Would that someone could come up with more real details, not filtered by a media person. Wish we knew who these parents and kids are, more about their relationship with Yale (eg, many original donors to this LAX fund were lacrosse players when at Yale.)
More than just a leading, and misleading, “But not known is what the Globe reported about the children of donors then applying to and being admitted to those colleges,” as if that’s an OMG!
The headline is click bait. Thought control? After all, some leap to conclusions…
The parents gave between $100k and 2 million dollars prior to their child’s enrollment. That is substantially less than a regular developmental donor and of course in some cases personally benefited to coaches financially by boosting their salaries due to the endowed chair. The gifts by an applicant ( or her family) prior to enrollment seem highly likely to have at the very least influenced, or just outright purchased, the slot both in the class and on the team. Why a college with a 30 billion dollar endowment and mediocre athletic teams permits this is a great mystery.
Did you want the name of the golf player or soccer girl?
Why defend the indefensible? These colleges should know better. They should avoid the appearance of impropriety, even if the practices are legal. Donations to fund FA, or a building, or endow a professorship may serve some public interest, but donations to endow a coaching position? What public interest do they serve? Should they be tax-deductible, especially with donors receiving valuable benefits in return? The arrangement may not be quid pro quo, but there’s certainly the appearance of impropriety.
Yes. Who are these parents?
Are they alums, like those who founded the lax endowment? Did you look at the goals of this endowment? It passed muster for what it is.
You seem to he be saying. “There’s smoke! The Boston Globe told me so!!” It’s a brief, suggestive article, no more.
You give and at the $xxx level, they say to you, how do you want this recorded? At 2 mil (or whatever ) you may get the choice of calling it endowing a position. Tell me what more you know, for certain.
The Boston globe has identified at least 6 students enrolled in Yale after their parents endowed coaching positions there. Unlike the other thread, this is both unrelated to Mr. Singer, and also legal if unsavory. Yale has defended the practice.