Sasha Obama is going to Michigan. Why the Ivy obsession?
Is that how you explain something when you may have slightly misled your spouse (if you have one)? I would be interested in how well that goes over. 
It’s insufficient to rely on the trial.
I’d guess the denied legacies wish they had more than a featherweight.
As ucb points out, it’s a relative statement. One of many feathers. Folks should worry more about athletic pull, which I’d liken to the whole turkey. And not assume they have any full view without even seeing apps.
@TooOld4School Nobody knows where Sasha Obama is going as this Michigan news is only based on a post on an Instagram photo which very well can be a prank by someone. All tabloids are just basing their articles on that. No one from the family has commented on college decision. It seems they are trying to avoid the topic and who can blame them in current controversial atmosphere. It’s just smart parenting and savvy political move to not address it. She might be taking a gap year so no rush to announce.
Why not? If there’s anything Harvard and the plaintiffs agree on, it’s the importance of legacies and donations in the admissions process. Or are you assuming Harvard lied to the court in its legal filings and arguments?
Not going to answer that directly, but there is MUCH more to how they operate than the particular details asked and answered at the trial.
And, I believe that, if one truly wants a better picture of how any one top school processes and decides, they don’t lean on any one source. If you want to learn how they do it, you put in the effort, in many ways. Most who so easily dismiss H, based on the lawsuit, admit up front that they don’t intend to look further. Most have never been part of the process, in any way, never seen apps, beyond their own kids’. Nonetheless, they can find the smallest sound bite and build an entire conspiracy on that. And insist.
The details in the Harvard trial were actual data. Data. Not marketing spin. Let Harvard claim whatever it wants, let random people on the internet claim whatever they want, the figures are there to see… and the figures show a hugely disproportionate weighing for athletes, URMs and legacies. The numbers don’t lie but the people appear to.
Incomplete view of the process.
Whatever this process is - it clearly favors ultra rich, famous and politically connected in addition to athletes, URMs and legacies
Nothing new. Yes, VP Gore was admitted long ago, but his son was admitted far more recently. The Ivies love the children of powerful politicians. That should be obvious by now. So Sasha got into Yale (But chose not to attend), and the sons and daughters of senators will continue their ivy path. This isn’t Oxford; money and power are vital factors in admission in the US. Indeed, they are key components of “merit” as holistically defined
Money and power aside, why wouldn’t any university accept academically talented student(s) with 8 years of living in the White House, traveling the world, meeting individuals that change the world and attending political events. In the race to have ECs, that is the ultimate experience to share with their future classmates.
Why argue about the small percentage? If the educational opportunities from one university to another are equivalent, it’s only the alumni network that makes a difference in the long run. Research opportunity is another differentiator, but most undergrads do not delve into research so does not apply to all.
I truly do not care about presidential offspring-there are many offspring of royalty, celebrities and billionaires with similar experiences bestowed by their parents, who US ivies admit, regardless of their academic inclination or lack thereof. British universities generally are not so star struck by parents and expect the applicant themselves to show achievement of their own, so prime minister’s sons, for example, are not auto admits to Cambridge.
But then that particular EC has a greater component of inheritance (rather than earned achievement) than most other ECs.
The disconnect here it that admissions are not based solely on academic merit and accomplishments. While parents and students wish it were so, schools have a wider view of how their classes are formed.
I don’t think anyone expects academic merit to be the sole factor-clearly artistic, athletic, and other accomplishments by the applicants themselves have long been considered. It is just more obvious now that wealth, power, and other inherited factors are equally important factors considered as,“merit” in admissions.
@ucbalumnus Athletic and intellectual abilities are also inherited to some extent. What one does with them is earned. Those skills are shared with the university body. That’s real life.
One can travel and participate in activities with or without engaging. Politics aside, our last 3 presidents and First Ladies have done an great job of raising children in the media spotlight. We have no insight into what they shared about their experiences in their college applications.
And I would assume Barron Trump will have a similar admissions advantage, as do the Biden grandkids. Not begrudging them, just pointing out that OP is correct that parental political power is a key factor in ivy admissions.
If people believe in Meritocracy, then giving powerful people’s children more advantages in elite college admissions (they already have all the networking/connections available to them with various doors legally opening to them), is in actuality creating an elite class that perpetually possesses the privileges. This is antithesis of American dream and is very detrimental to our social mobility.
It is very interesting to see the many middle class Americans (most of the users on CC) don’t think it is wrong to have political dynasties (be it the Bushes, Gores, Kennedys, Cuomos, Dalys, …) while at the same time believe in democracy and meritocracy.
Wile I agree with the spirit of your post here, I think what’s behind a lot of the defense for powerful progeny preferential programs (:)) is the hope that one’s own child will get to that same institution and possibly benefit from the association.
“there are many offspring of royalty, celebrities and billionaires with similar experiences bestowed by their parents, who US ivies admit, regardless of their academic inclination or lack thereof”
But how would you know that?
Or this: “It is just more obvious now that wealth, power, and other inherited factors are equally important factors considered as,“merit” in admissions.”