<p>I can’t remember the story exactly, but he basically discovered the opportunity himself by accident. It changed his life. He actually had a pretty disfunctional family.</p>
<p>I knew very few people I would characterize as “rich” even when I was at Harvard in the 70s. I know they were there, but the vast majority came from the middle class.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is a different way to look at this. First of all, the explosion of applicants at Harvard over the past decades does not necessary mean that there has been a similar increase in the group of students who stand a real chance of admission. Let’s face it … as we speak, there might 30,000 valedictorians who are told by their GC or friends and families that they are a shoo-in at Harvard. Look at the “reports” in April and the long lists of “throw your hat in the ring applications” presented by applicants. Ten, twelve, if not twenty applications are becoming common. </p>
<p>We know that Fitz likes to state that Harvard could have admitted a class that is 2-3 times the 2,000+ they did admit. Could that not be a proxy for stating that 24,000 are more or less decapitated as soon as the first page is read? Should be we not believe that there are more or less 1,000 students that all but NON-rejectable for countless reasons? </p>
<p>The problems with all the statistical analyses based on the single metric of SAT (such as about everything that seems to make a point in that unscientic freshman survey) is that it misses dozens of other “elements” that DO make the difference. Should we not assume that legacies, with the history and background of theie parents, have had a headstart of about … 17 to 18 years, with the RIGHT choices of nannies, private schools, or simply well-chosen public schools that are quasi private schools? Should we not accept that people who “know” have been able to differentiate what Harvard tends to favor and tends to … disregard? </p>
<p>And lastly should we not accept that Harvard is neither blind, deaf, nor dumb? They do get reports from their faculty and can measure the participation of students during their years in Cambridge and the many that follow? After centuries of being at it, Harvard knows what it wants in students. And it so happens that groups of priviledge are more attuned to what transpires at the school in terms of admissions. The narrow focus on a single metric will only distort that real image. </p>
<p>On a last note, should we not wonder why so many are still determined to continue to apply to a school that shows so little love to the type of students they are and where they are considered to be poor fits? </p>
<p>I used SAT scores because it was mentioned in the link I referenced. Included was SAT scores for legacies which I found interesting.</p>
<p>“We know that Fitz likes to state that Harvard could have admitted a class that is 2-3 times the 2,000+ they did admit. Could that not be a proxy for stating that 24,000 are more or less decapitated as soon as the first page is read? Should be we not believe that there are more or less 1,000 students that all but NON-rejectable for countless reasons?”</p>
<p>I kind of like this analysis.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the interesting part. I have read that Harvard for whatever reason puts almost 3000 people on waitlist. I remember congratulating my D on making it couple of years ago only to be told, “Its no big deal, there are at least 10 others in my school on the list”.</p>
<p>None of them made it of course!</p>
<p>Fwiw, one could also look at the huge WL has a sign that H applicants are not really slotted from 1 to 2200 according to some determined scale. Since the school expects to lose about 400 to 500 admitted students, it might seek to replace that student who shows promise in Russian Lit or the oboe player or that offensive linemen who likes to quote Proust. The school will look in the vast list of deferred to find that person who came close to matching the one that got away in May. When that attrition does not leave holes, there is little WL movement. And neither does it happen when more students accept the offer of H and create some logistic nightmare. </p>
<p>All in all, it is safe to assume that the angular students trump the ones that --unfortunately-- have too many counterparts that look too much like them. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have no doubt that many of those are legacies = soft rejection.</p>
<p>I have a couple of comments on this topic.</p>
<p>First, to go back to the first page: there is essentially no chance that any court will find that legacy preference is unlawful for private universities–unless some secret Protocols of the Board of Harvard is unearthed that states that the purpose of legacy admissions is to practice racial discrimination. The justifications for legacy preference, while debatable, will survive any court challenge (again, at least for private universities).</p>
<p>Second, an element of the legacy situation that I think is often left out is why legacy students want to attend the legacy school. It is not entirely because they think they will have an advantage in admissions; rather, it is often because their parents really liked it, and they have had personal exposure to the school that makes them think they will like it as well. You could study this at HYP by seeing how many legacy SCEA admits accept before the RD round elsewhere. Both of my kids did so (at Yale), and I know other legacy kids did so as well.</p>
<p>Finally, I think a lot of the discussions of this and related topics reveals differences in philosophy on how important SAT scores should be in admissions decisions. If you have two very similar students, except that one is a legacy, and one has a higher SAT, how much higher should that SAT score have to be in order to trump the legacy status?</p>
<p>"Second, an element of the legacy situation that I think is often left out is why legacy students want to attend the legacy school. It is not entirely because they think they will have an advantage in admissions; rather, it is often because their parents really liked it, and they have had personal exposure to the school that makes them think they will like it as well. "</p>
<p>I agree completely with this. It’s to a school’s CREDIT that a lot of legacies want to go there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Once a certain SAT score is achieved, does a higher score really matter?</p>
<p>^^Exactly. Once an applicant is safely above the median, do scores even matter at that level? (I’m guessing very little.)</p>
<p>Well, you wouldn’t know it from a lot of the whining on CC about how so-and-so the next block over got in with an SAT score that was lower than his own kid’s. </p>
<p>I think a university with only 2400s would be better than one with only 2100s.</p>
<p>^ Not sure if the 2400>2100 was sarcastic or not, but that is obviously quite a non-starter if reality matters. It would take an extremely small school to accept only students who scored 2400. A glorified Deep Springs or an isolated offshoot campus for the really smart students at Caltech? Perhaps that is what Cornell should do with its island in the middle of New York! </p>
<p>Regardless of the feasibility, this school could hardly be called an university if it has any relation to the term … universe. I can imagine what Big Bang Theory might look like if put on massive steroids. 
</p>
<p>When it comes to legacy admissions, there is another angle to consider. Let’s say we’d compare a student whose fanily has been a part of the school for decades and a reasonable contributor via donations and presence, and a goat herder from Bhutan or farmer from Idaho. The latter have had no contacts whatsover with the school to date. Despite the claims (justified in my opinion) that diversity is a good thing, might we not consider how devastating the news would be for the student who might be groomed to attend the school preferred by his family? The faraway students might be disappointed but the student with closer ties will probably be subject to a heightened scrutiny in terms of reactions to his results. Admitting one over the others might be the “path of least resistance” for the adcoms, but can we blame them when the school admits to rely on evaluating the demonstrated interest? </p>
<p>On a personal note, when I look at my cohort, it is a fact that the legacies were, by far, the most engaged students while at school, and thereafter. While they were not the only one canvassing the campus or a donor list, I saw them as much more interested in the amelioration of the school in general than your average Joe. And the difference with subgroups of students who considered such participation silly was striking. </p>
<p>All in all, schools expect a diverse group of students to bring something … diverse to the school. While we cannot draw gross conclusions about how it turns out, chances are that the adcoms can look at the history of their past admissions to predict how a group of students will react to the school dynamics. </p>
<p>The key must be finding the right balance. And one might consider that an acceptance of 30 percent also means that 7 out of 10 applicants will be highly disappointed, and perhaps have very annoyed parents or grandparents. </p>
<p>There is enough room for legacies at these universities. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are suggesting that the school admit a student because his/her parents may have a tiger-parent-like focus on him/her attending that school?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>i suspect an ulterior motive. Almost all of the kids I mentioned (none of them legacies) went on to schools in the top 10 to 20 (2 to Stanford, 3 to Yale, 2 to Penn, 1 to Williams that I know of). The kids do tend to hold a grudge for an outright rejection when they are considered top caliber and Harvard would lose out in grad school applications.</p>
<p>On a side note, I am guessing 70% were Asian. 
</p>
<p>TPG, I believe that many have acknowledged the “soft landing” as it helps many: GC feel flattered when their kids are not rejected and that opens the door to the (mythical or true) narrative of “let me call them. I have some pull.” Parents at the cocktail hour can smile and answer “What happened with HYPS” with a “Well, WE were not rejected” and stop short of details. The kids keep some hope. For most, it is a better alternative than being rejected. And when one realizes that the number of late admits is small, all should be well. </p>
<p>Fwiw, there have been years of massive WL admits in the turbulent years when Harvard was using its 800 lbs size to pressure the “underlings” such as Duke. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not really, according to my definition of Tiger Parents, but I can see how someone could interpret what I wrote with such a twist. </p>
<p>Fwiw, I was more leaning to the type of story we saw a few years ago. Do you remember the OpEd about the student whose family had donated buildings to Cornell, and how hard the rejection felt when she remembered walking by “her” buildings. I realize that it is easy to categorize it as misguided entitlement, but I think that bad news for this type of students is felt harder than by students who apply to a dozen schools without much attachment (except for the prestige) and, at times, little rhyme or reason – safe and except the latest USNews or Hunt’s PI. </p>
<p>Speaking of Hunt’s PI, does Princeton replace Harvard at 1000 milli harvards, pushing Harvard down to 999 milli Harvards? I think it is only fair since Princeton has been number 1 by itself 2 years in a row. :p</p>