Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do people go to Harvard? You can get a rigorous education at many fine institutions. You justify Harvard with the idea that you're making valuable connections into the established power/influence circles. So you want to be sure there is plenty of representation from those circles.
harvard has one of the best business schools in the nation, and yale has one fo the best laws schools in the nation. two reasons to go to either school. any more questions?
Why do people go to Harvard? You can get a rigorous education at many fine institutions. You justify Harvard with the idea that you're making valuable connections into the established power/influence circles. So you want to be sure there is plenty of representation from those circles.
Aside that is does provide a great education, and many places like MBA programs, actually replicate a lot of the courses and use the materials, Harvard has brand power that few schools in the world rival.
Huh, I did not bring up the "smart children" argument, instead I argue against it. It is obvious that Harvard does not just pick the smartest.
You think other applicants to Harvard are just "cookie cutter kids"? Evidence? One has to have Harvard-trained parents to succeed at Harvard? I do not even need to list all the counterexamples to prove the absurdity.
Legacy is generally banned in Europe and Asia, and not applied in many top US universities. You guys support a caste system de facto, which is OK, since I am not an extreme advocate of meritocracy. However the way you lay out your arguments reveals something much more serious than the legacy system per se.
Indeed Universities frequently don't choose the smartest, that's the whole idea about entrance criteria being more than pure academics. If it were then the admission rate of non-legacies may be higher.
I'm not saying that Harvard trained is required, I'm saying that Universities look for students who meet a set of criteria. Parents who went to that institution know those criteria. You want evidence of cookie cutter kids, what's the definition of cookie cutter BUT candidates who meet a set of criteria? Duh!
My arguments purely come from zero transparency to explain what causes the discrepancy. Your argument is that it's nepotism, which is the same argument strategy that people use about inner city violence being black related. It's not nepotism until proven, there are a huge number if factors that can explain the difference. Just as inner city violence isn't race related until proven, there are a huge number of factors that can explain it.
All those saying Harvard is a private school discount that some of the Ivy League schools have an established role in staffing certain government positions, such as diplomats and judges. Do you think all Supreme Court justices are Ivy League graduates because Ivy League graduates are just better?
The credentials give the nominee credibility and make the decision easier for politicians to hire and confirm. It's just academic signaling at the national policy scale.
Given that Harvard graduates have an outsized say in everyone else's lives, I think it's fair that everyone else has a say in who those graduates are.
All those saying Harvard is a private school discount that some of the Ivy League schools have an established role in staffing certain government positions, such as diplomats and judges. Do you think all Supreme Court justices are Ivy League graduates because Ivy League graduates are just better?
The credentials give the nominee credibility and make the decision easier for politicians to hire and confirm. It's just academic signaling at the national policy scale.
Given that Harvard graduates have an outsized say in everyone else's lives, I think it's fair that everyone else has a say in who those graduates are.
just because someone gets a government after graduating from an ivy league university does not make those universities public. they are still PRIVATE universities.
This nepotism is incredible.
“From 2010 to 2015, Harvard’s admission rate for legacies was 34%, while its admission rate for non-legacies was 6%.”
Why nobody fights against it?
Legacies for Harvard College are applicants whose parents graduated from Harvard College. Current applicants likely have parents who graduated from Harvard College in the 1990s, when admissions standards were already very high.
Thus legacies have IQs (which are somewhat based on genetics) and resumes that are significantly influenced by their Harvard College-alumni parents.
Plus, by the 1990s, married couples were already often self-selecting for similar educational backgrounds, meaning that one Harvard College alumnus/a may well have married another one, or someone with a similar educational background.
So a legacy may well have two parents who graduated from Harvard College or a similar school.
Don't you think that two parents like that would likely raise a child who would have a lot of talent?
Legacies likely already had the IQ and resumes to make themselves very appealing to any Ivy League or similar schools, even if the school disregarded the parental connections.
This nepotism is incredible.
“From 2010 to 2015, Harvard’s admission rate for legacies was 34%, while its admission rate for non-legacies was 6%.”
Why nobody fights against it?
Princeton professor Thomas Espenshade and coauthor Alexandra Radford demonstrate that, controlling for other variables, Asian students applying to highly selective private colleges face odds against their admission three times as high as whites, six times as high as Hispanics, and sixteen times as high as blacks. To put it another way: Asians need SAT scores 140 points higher than whites, 270 points higher than Hispanics, and an incredible 450 points higher than blacks (out of 1,600 points) to get into these schools. An Asian applicant with an SAT score of 1,500, that is, has the same chance of being accepted as a white student with a 1,360, a Latino with a 1,230, or an African-American with a 1,050. Among candidates in the highest (1,400–1,600) SAT range, 77 percent of blacks, 48 percent of Hispanics, 40 percent of whites, and only 30 percent of Asians are admitted.
For Jennifer Lee to make the claim that it is a bigger problem of legacies getting a leg up she needs to find out the average GPA and average SAT score of legacy vs non-legacy applicants. Something she didn't do, but needed to do in order to make her claim. Bad logic on her part, as legacy applicants may have higher scores on average than the typical non-legacy - with plenty of exceptions on both sides.
Additionally, legacy students tend to bring significant political and business connections -- and therefore more $$$$ donations to the school to fund things including minority scholarships and money for other liberal causes. Also when you let Bush Senior or Obama's kids into your school you get potential future leaders as alumni. It is actually kind of smart to let in legacy students.
just because someone gets a government after graduating from an ivy league university does not make those universities public. they are still PRIVATE universities.
That's a weak, legalistic defense that ignores the issues of fairness raised by my post.
Legacies for Harvard College are applicants whose parents graduated from Harvard College. Current applicants likely have parents who graduated from Harvard College in the 1990s, when admissions standards were already very high.
Thus legacies have IQs (which are somewhat based on genetics) and resumes that are significantly influenced by their Harvard College-alumni parents.
Plus, by the 1990s, married couples were already often self-selecting for similar educational backgrounds, meaning that one Harvard College alumnus/a may well have married another one, or someone with a similar educational background.
So a legacy may well have two parents who graduated from Harvard College or a similar school.
Don't you think that two parents like that would likely raise a child who would have a lot of talent?
Legacies likely already had the IQ and resumes to make themselves very appealing to any Ivy League or similar schools, even if the school disregarded the parental connections.
If genetic and behavioral inheritance were determinative of ability, then 90% of millionaires would not be self-made. The pool of candidates that are good enough for Harvard exceeds the number of seats. Legacies if anything are weaker students. Legacies only excel in the amount of money that their families will contribute to the endowment.
If you want to see a meritocracy look at CalTech's student body composition.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
