<p>I felt very happy I read this book after my first two went through the application process. It would have been dauntingly discouraging otherwise.
The book isn’t just about legacies. Also the professors’ kids, the administrators’ kids, the politicians’ kids, the celebrities’ kids, the wealthy folks’ kids, and the athletes, most of whom mastered sports most often found at elite prep schools- rowing, field hockey, equestrian, squash, fencing, lacrosse, swimming and diving, golf, figure skating and the list goes on.
My daughter’s first year roommate was a rower who disliked all her (Ivy League) classes and wished she could be rowing all the time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Point taken. Different universities define and spin the mission differently; vive la diff</p>
<p>
[quote]
Point taken. Different universities define and spin the mission differently; vive la diff</p>
<p>If you happen to disagree that Ph.D. production is a significant metric for the quality of undergraduate liberal education, fine. That case can be made and I’m not unreceptive to it. However, you really ought to read a post more carefully before using dismissive language like “nonsense”.</p>
<p>I referred to the choice of careers in academia and other research environments. So I agree with you completely that acquisition of knowledge (aka research) does not happen in universities alone. I’m married to a well-educated woman who devoted years to raising children. And I know there is a long tradition in Europe and America of scholarship, literary and social criticism practiced by people once referred to as “men of letters”, who typically held nothing equivalent to a doctoral degree. </p>
<p>If Harvard College graduates are keeping that tradition alive, that’s wonderful. But I don’t know where the evidence for that might be (other than ad hoc individual examples like George Scialabba, who may or may not be representative). Meanwhile I find it curious that the rate of Ph.D. production seems out-of-sync with the school’s reputation and selectivity. I weigh this data alongside the suggestion that admissions may be more or less rigged for up to 40% of the entering class at some uber-selective schools (as well as against counter-evidence that, rigged or not, the stats nevertheless remain extremely high).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Majority? Untrue at the Ivies.</p>
<p>If you wan’t to put a number on that, my guess would be that at least 70% of the Ivy legacy admits would be there anyway. Possibly more. Possibly almost all of them, but it gets a little dicey because from time to time you do get a great athlete who is also a legacy, a black kid who is a legacy, or a development admit (a very small category) who is also a legacy.</p>
<p>I wanted to clarify my statement on democracy in college, and specifically in college admissions. If meritocracy is viewed in its most simplistic form, it means demonstrated talent and ability, the ability frequently demonstrated through competition. To me this is the best system when it comes to college admission.
Democracy, again when viewed simplistically, means nothing else than popularity. That is why my statements are what they are.
I have no problem with legacy admits when the stats are there. My problem is with legacy getting in through the back door, being admitting through lowering standards.
Golden argues in the book, that legacy candidates have a head start over no legacy by virute of being born in an intellectual household, being sorrounded by interesting, educated people, having resources and parental knowlege/interest to attend the best possible schools. So their stats should be high. And most of the time they are.
Children of faculty/staff - not a big issue in my world either. I see it as one of the perks that comes with the job. Professors are not millionaires . And I would argue that they make sure that their offspring better has the stats to be competitive for admission.
What I find a little conflicting is the taxation of that benefit, or lack of thereof. But that is for a different thread.
Buying college entrance is wrong, no matter how you view it. It is wrong to think that people are no longer philanthropic and that the way to secure donations is through exchange of favors. Fundamentaly wrong . And to those that argue that these are private institutions and therefore they can do whatever they want to - does anyone know how much support private colleges get through governement grants, loans ect?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would respectfully disagree that that’s an acceptable definition of democracy, on any level. But I do understand your distaste for a popularity factor. I don’t know how “popularity” figures into college admissions, unless you’re referring obliquely to those “leadership” positions which are the products of popularity rather than signs of ability, commitment, skill, and generosity.</p>
<p>But nevertheless I still maintain that I’m glad the principle of democracy was introduced, because in fact it has very much to do with overall policies of inclusion (and more specific policies of AA) in Elite college admissions. One can legitimately argue whether those policies are successfully, adequately applied, and whether those policies are underused or overused or misued, but democratic philosophical principles have very much to do with the mission of the nation’s top U’s.</p>
<p>How sad that whatever a kid accomplished on his own has been summarily dismissed on this thread because they are a legacy or what have you. While I don’t necessarily disagree on the whole, I do worry about how it must feel to have people (especially the parents of your friends) think you did nothing to earn acceptance merely because your dad/mom/grandma “bought” your way into school as if they as themselves have nothing to offer. While some surely could care less and are just smug enough to embrace it, others are made to feel that everything and anything they accomplish is tainted and/or undeserved simply because Mom or dad have money.</p>
<p>HMom - you say you worked with a private counselor. Whose to say your kid’s high stats had anything to do with his success and youre not the development case? How many people might suggest your son has no business being at his current school because you gamed the game and “bought” him something undeserved? How does that feel? (Not saying it’s the case, just pointing out the irony that it seems to easy for people here to say acceptances are undeserved for some but earned for others).</p>
<p>We talk about merit and I strongly agree that merit is in the eye of the beholder. But we seem to be ranking merit in this case. It truly is beginning to gull me that people with a high need of financial aid think that just because they scored a little higher on the ACT/SAT, they should be admitted despite their costing the school full boat. Smart, in and of itself, really does nothing for the University since there is so much more to its ultimate and continued success than what goes on in the classroom. It makes me nuts that just because there IS such a thing as financial aid that we somehow think full pay students often got in only because they have the money to pay the tuition and maybe participate in the Annual Fund. Where do you think they get the money to pay their professors, run the physical plant, AND have the resources to give to financial aid??? Without your million dollar donors, the financial needy kid wouldn’t be getting in at all. Long before endowments became such a huge facet of the operating budget, these kids were not getting in at al! I am really sick and tired of people leaping to some conclusion that just because your kids stats were more impressive that he deserves to get in over someone elses kids. We wonder why there is still so much racism in the world when we have no problem looking at a pretty smart black kid and suggest he’s in at Yale because he’s an URM or the kid from Westchester who we call a development case. </p>
<p>Truthfully, I am sick and tired of the entitlement issues people on both sides - brains vs bucks - seem to have. And just because your kid may have scored a perfect 800 x however many SAT I’s and II’s, doesn’t mean for one minute that he/she would be a better fit for an Ivy, top 10 LAC, or even your state flagship. No one, absolutely no one is owed a college education. Absolutely no one.</p>
<p>Kelowna: Developmental admits form a tiny portion of admitted students. If the quid pro quo for a single slot in the class is a donation that can build a new facility, fund a major academic initiative, or sponsor a need-based scholarship program, I think it’s a worthwhile exchange.</p>
<p>tk:</p>
<p>The excerpt I quoted is the one I responded to. Please read it again.
I don’t see why the rate of production of Ph.D.s is indicative of intellectualism (and I have a Harvard Ph.D.–in the humanities) or should be associated with selectivity. Many of the top students at any school choose to go into law, business medicine, etc… Many choose to go into careers for which a Ph.D. is NOT necessary. So what?
In which way does the Ph.D. rate show that admissions are rigged? For those who can buy their way in? Or for first generation and low income students? I would hazard that low income students, especially from immigrant families, are more likely to prepare for non-academic careers, such as high-tech, law or medicine than for academia.</p>
<p>^^ yep, agree that the portion is tiny, it bothers me as a principle. I think there are other ways to secure donations.</p>
<p>
Of course it is always better to admit smart and rich 
Do not get angry at me - my kids will be full pay, unfortuantely we are in that worst bracket…
I have no problem with million dollar donors as long as the exchange does not involve admittance of an unqualified student. Again, on the principle.</p>
<p>Kelowna:</p>
<p>If you know of some, please tell the development offices! Their staff spend endless hours courting donors and trying to figure new ways of raising funds.</p>
<p>^^ I wish 
Then I would write a letter connecting the smart donor kid to my family somehow and thus secure an admit for my kids Wait, it would be worng, based on my principle ;)</p>
<p>
I think one of the big mistakes that people make is to think that Harvard is only looking for the brightest students. That was never true and it’s still not true. Harvard is not interested in producing just PhD. scholars. If Harvard is looking for a type - they are looking for leaders, but they are looking for leaders in all sorts of fields, many of which don’t need an education beyond a Harvard BA. From my time at Harvard we had YoYo Ma (who is not just a great solo performer), Peter Sellers (who directs operas), Deval Patrick (governor of Massachusetts), a bunch of computer millionaires, a Mexican Ambassador, and the fourth richest guy in the US. None of these people got advanced degree. Harvard got closer to being a meritocracy when President Conant wanted a way to locate smart kids outside of the New England prep schools, but it’s never been a total meritocracy.</p>
<p>It depends how one defines meritocracy. I would say that Yo Yo Ma is even more meritorious than I–despite my Harvard Ph.D.</p>
<p>I think I understand the arguments, pro and con, for the strategy of “crafting a class” in college admissions. Most of the concerns raised above seem to focus on fairness. Another set of concerns has to do with effectiveness.</p>
<p>According to the Washington Monthly, Harvard (to pick an easy target) ranks 17th in the rate of science and engineering Ph.D.s earned by its graduates. According to WM’s “Social Mobility” metric, it ranks 107th. By graduates’ “service” contributions, it is 98th. It ranks 16th for starting median salary, according to payscale.com. </p>
<p>I cite Ph.D. production because the pursuit of an advanced degree in the arts and sciences seems to me to suggest a strong commitment to, and talent for, making original contributions to knowledge. Isn’t that an important part of what universities exist to do? Yes, it’s just one “output” indicator, as SAT scores are but one input indicator. If there are better metrics, please point them out. Many small colleges that turn out future Ph.D.s in disproportionate records also have good track records for medical and law school placements, Peace Corps participation, etc.</p>
<p>Marite has suggested that Harvard College turns out brilliant graduates whose contributions may not show up in the numbers I’m citing. Fair enough. I’m actually inclined to believe that. But how do we know this is the case, and how do we measure it? What is the evidence, measured objectively in outcomes, in favor of class-crafting and against a simple and straightforward, transparent, numbers-driven admissions policy (similar to what prevails in the UK)?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since no college will ever let this secret out of the bag, all I can say is having worked in ivy admissions (granted, in much different times), talked to people in admissions currently, read the comments from adcom in books like this one, 30 years of watching as an alumni interviewer and extensive anecdotal evidence, I think this could not be further from the truth.</p>
<p>
Oh I agree, and I’ve been particularly impressed with what he’s done beyond mere performance. I also got to see first hand that he is a sweet caring guy when my roommate was busy having a nervous breakdown. </p>
<p>I was speaking strictly in the high SAT and grades on to grad school view of meritocracy. I have no idea what YoYo Ma’s stats were. Maybe they were better than mine!</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone disagrees that those with exceptional talent like YoYo Ma deserve a place. Who cares what his stats are. His contribution is in another realm.</p>
<p>I also think Golden went for the sensational in the book and lost a totally reasonable analysis.</p>
<p>For me, it’s the field hockey players and rowers who get in over the amazing academi s and the legacies and staff kids who were far beneath their competitors academically and talent wise that best depict the BS that it’s a meritocracy.</p>
<p>^^they were probably high, otherwise he would have ended up at Brown ;)</p>