|
Post by ironhammer on Apr 9, 2019 15:15:15 GMT -5
Then why such a high proportion of them at Harvard? Because they fulfill at least one of the three criteria I listed. I suspect all of them donate lots and lots of $$$. So the cards have always been stacked against those coming from a more...ordinary background, despite Harvard making such a big deal over the token admissions of those who come from a struggling background. Those are still a minority of cases.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Apr 9, 2019 15:17:48 GMT -5
My wife and I went to elite schools. Our three children got rejected at our respective alma maters. Of course, we donated $ZERO to our respective alma maters over the years. LOL!
This didn't bother us one bit. We really wanted them to go elsewhere and forge their own identity and make something of themselves on their own.
(We like to give money to schools that need it vs. schools that have $2B in their endowment coffers.)
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Apr 9, 2019 15:19:04 GMT -5
Because they fulfill at least one of the three criteria I listed. I suspect all of them donate lots and lots of $$$. So the cards have always been stacked against those coming from a more...ordinary background, despite Harvard making such a big deal over the token admissions of those who come from a struggling background. Those are still a minority of cases. I never disagreed with you to begin with. I just don't think ALL legacies have this benefit. It's not automatic. I think your parents have to be deemed "important" to the school somehow, and not just your average Joe Alum.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 9, 2019 15:26:15 GMT -5
Well, this presupposes that private schools are under any obligation to admit on a blind-resume basis. Each individual admissions office sets the direction, goals, and standards for any incoming class. State schools would have more regulation on admissions standards to meet state and federal guidelines. Assuming a private school meets federal non-discrimination guidelines, they choose their admits in whatever way they want. Like it or not, the system is not fair. Then let's not pretend this admission scandal is somehow shocking. The culprits deserved to be condemned and punished. But the system itself is rotten. I think you are conflating the arguments somewhat. This scandal is about the use of fraud to exploit those preferences. It is not a secret that many Colleges and Universities have preferences in admissions. Harvard (and maybe other schools) had secret admissions quotas for Jews at one time. The full extent or details of those preferences (athletics, donors, special talents, etc.) may not be publicized, but most everyone is aware of their existence. At Harvard, for example, the admissions evaluation has a specific category for legacy applicants (a YES or NO), which is weighted into the evaluation.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Apr 9, 2019 15:28:20 GMT -5
I'm also pretty sure that if your daddy is a key professor at Elite School, and if you wanted to go to Elite School, I think chances are great that you'll get admitted because the university wants to keep your daddy happy.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Apr 9, 2019 15:31:32 GMT -5
Then let's not pretend this admission scandal is somehow shocking. The culprits deserved to be condemned and punished. But the system itself is rotten. I think you are conflating the arguments somewhat. This scandal is about the use of fraud to exploit those preferences. It is not a secret that many Colleges and Universities have preferences in admissions. Harvard (and maybe other schools) had secret admissions quotas for Jews at one time. The full extent or details of those preferences (athletics, donors, special talents, etc.) may not be publicized, but most everyone is aware of their existence. At Harvard, for example, the admissions evaluation has a specific category for legacy applicants (a YES or NO), which is weighted into the evaluation. Of course the details differ, and the obvious legality is also a big factor here. But I an not conflating. The scandal rub some people the wrong way because it was seen as unfair. But even the legal admission system is hardly fair. Just because it's legal does not mean we shouldn't question it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2019 15:48:14 GMT -5
I'm also pretty sure that if your daddy is a key professor at Elite School, and if you wanted to go to Elite School, I think chances are great that you'll get admitted because the university wants to keep your daddy happy. Shoot, that must be why I got screwed over in life... because my MOMMY was a professor and they only take care of daddies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2019 15:52:27 GMT -5
They only care about the legacies whose alum parents: 1. donate money (and lots of it), or 2. are famous (and therefore can boost the visibility of the school), or 3. are powerful (i.e., the alum has power to benefit the university in some way, e.g., legislation, construction). The average legacy has the same chance as every other applicant. Then why such a high proportion of them at Harvard? I have seen this argument before. Harvard has 350,000 living alum. That the press is making a big deal that 470 alumni kids per year are admitted to Harvard is conflation. Statistically, there could be 6,000 (or more) alumni children applying each year.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 9, 2019 15:55:23 GMT -5
I think you are conflating the arguments somewhat. This scandal is about the use of fraud to exploit those preferences. It is not a secret that many Colleges and Universities have preferences in admissions. Harvard (and maybe other schools) had secret admissions quotas for Jews at one time. The full extent or details of those preferences (athletics, donors, special talents, etc.) may not be publicized, but most everyone is aware of their existence. At Harvard, for example, the admissions evaluation has a specific category for legacy applicants (a YES or NO), which is weighted into the evaluation. Of course the details differ, and the obvious legality is also a big factor here. But I an not conflating. The scandal rub some people the wrong way because it was seen as unfair. But even the legal admission system is hardly fair. Just because it's legal does not mean we shouldn't question it. I can't make sense of your jumbled argument here. To which details and to which legality are you referring? And who ever said we shouldn't question it (whatever "it" is to you)?
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Apr 9, 2019 17:08:47 GMT -5
Of course the details differ, and the obvious legality is also a big factor here. But I an not conflating. The scandal rub some people the wrong way because it was seen as unfair. But even the legal admission system is hardly fair. Just because it's legal does not mean we shouldn't question it. I can't make sense of your jumbled argument here. To which details and to which legality are you referring? And who ever said we shouldn't question it (whatever "it" is to you)? As usual, you are missing the forest from the trees. Pathetic. The argument is clear, you are the one incapable of comprehension. Back to topic, only the truly naive thinks there are no issues with college admission system... It is curious indeed why there is an outrage over this scandal while others try to provide excuses for a legal but still blatantly unfair system. Very curious.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 9, 2019 17:20:32 GMT -5
I can't make sense of your jumbled argument here. To which details and to which legality are you referring? And who ever said we shouldn't question it (whatever "it" is to you)? As usual, you are missing the forest from the trees. Pathetic as usual. Most preferences in admissions are not illegal (e.g. legacy, donors, athletics, and sometimes, race). This is clear. Paying someone (a bribe essentially) to gain admission based on fraud is illegal. This is also clear. So, again, to what obvious legality were you referring? When you say people see this as unfair, are you referring to preferences in admissions, or to rich people paying money to get their kids in college illegally through a backdoor? If it's the latter, that's like saying that it's unfair that someone got to rob a bank, and they didn't. This was my point. You conflated those two issues: ... The scandal rub some people the wrong way because it was seen as unfair.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 9, 2019 17:23:55 GMT -5
I'm also pretty sure that if your daddy is a key professor at Elite School, and if you wanted to go to Elite School, I think chances are great that you'll get admitted because the university wants to keep your daddy happy. My roommate sophomore year was the son of an MIT professor emeritus. I don't know to what extent that helped him get into MIT. I'm sure it didn't hurt. MIT does, however, claim that they do not give "legacy" admissions (ie. family members of MIT alumni are not given special preference for admission).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2019 17:29:09 GMT -5
Well, I'm now a convert. I never cared about Donna Heinel but because bigfan has been so enthusiastically campaigning against her, I now care a lot and I hope she rots in jail. If this donna heinel had not fired Mick Haley in COLD BLOOD and gloated about it I would be leading the Fight for Heinel against the feds and would be a contributor to her "Gofundme" legal defense fund so help me Lori. Fanatical bandwagon mercenary, much?
|
|
|
Post by shawty on Apr 9, 2019 17:38:44 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2019 18:09:04 GMT -5
Yup, I read about it first thing this morning. My initial thought was, "Wow!....Feds ain't screwing around with this puppy: those who did not "play plea bargain" are in sh*t!"
|
|