<p>quote: "The Harvard admissions office "accepted [convicted Unabomber] Ted Kaczynski and rejected Warren Buffet. The process is not even close to perfect.'' "</p>
<p>That, folks, says it all.</p>
<p>^^Yeah, but when Ted Kaczynski applied to Harvard his bombing days were still about 20 years in the future. If Harvard had known - if Ted had listed bomb-making and murder among his ECs it probably would have hurt his chances for admission.</p>
<p>Oh come on....I'm sure you can find that every college will have its share of criminal alumni....Ted Kaczynski just happens to be one of the more famous ones.</p>
<p>There are black sheep in every family. Some are notorious and some go undercover.</p>
<p>"The Harvard admissions office 'accepted [convicted Unabomber] Ted Kaczynski and rejected Warren Buffet. The process is not even close to perfect.' "</p>
<p>An absolutely, hysterically, perspective-creating-ly funny observation. </p>
<p>So keep in mind that it's the things you do- wherever you go- that really begin to define you. You just get a little more attention for it at a "collars-up" institution.</p>
<p>The whole concept behind college admissions is that the college is supposedly "predicting future success" - I find the irony of the Buffet/Kaczynski thing hysterical.</p>
<p>Also remember that our current impression of college admissions is considerably different in the day of Kaczynski and certainly the admissions process when Buffet was applying would be unrecognizable to us today.</p>
<p>Admissions isn't really that wacked. A lot of people I know, including myself, got waitlisted at all HYP...or at least 2 of 3 and rejected at 3rd etc...</p>
<p>It's not really a crapshoot as focused on different attributes...</p>
<p>The college is selling itself. By accepting a lot of "personality" admits like URMs/athletes etc, they increase marketability of their school to top students etc, increasing the school's stature and ability to endure. Can't really fault them for doing what they're doing.</p>
<p>Didn't Harvard accept George Bush Jr. and Gozalas? Enough said</p>
<p>The Business and Law schools (respectively) did, which have separate admissions processes from the College.</p>
<p>^^Their colleges were Yale and Rice, respectively.</p>
<p>You may think Bush Jr is a hack, but he still became President, so if Harvard accepted him, it only means they're politically astute.</p>
<p>Yea. bush & yale/harvard.
I'm not impressed with how astute they are, any of them. Can you say: "Daddy got me in!"</p>
<p>^ You know, from my experience at my own school (I go to a very small, non-selective private school), the only kids I've seen get into top Ivies have been... legacies. It seems to me that though the Ivies attract very intelligent students who have no previous relationship with the institution, the Ivies also seem to accept many based upon legacy status, creating almost a culture of legacy admissions at the Ivies. </p>
<p>I could be wrong, however.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The whole concept behind college admissions is that the college is supposedly "predicting future success" - I find the irony of the Buffet/Kaczynski thing hysterical.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why? Before going crazy, Kaczynski happened to be a pretty brilliant mathematician.</p>
<p>yeah, Krazy Ted was really, really amazing, although he did show signs early on of being socially aloof and distant.</p>
<p>That's not as bad as Yale accepting Mr. Taliban, at least you have to admit that.</p>
<p>How does this embarrass Harvard?</p>
<p>It makes them look even more amazing.
They didn't think Warren Buffet was good enough for them!</p>
<p>"if Ted had listed bomb-making and murder among his ECs it probably would have hurt his chances for admission."</p>
<p>Ahahah, probably.</p>
<p>^^ "It makes them look even more amazing!" </p>
<p>What it's doing is it's saying, "Look at all these successful people who didn't get into/go to Harvard. They were still phenomenally successful." </p>
<p>The article says two things:</p>
<p>1) Being denied admission to Harvard doesn't mean you're a failure, and Harvard's little 'formula' for selecting really awesome applicants isn't perfect.</p>
<p>2) Just because you didn't go to Harvard doesn't mean you can't be successful. As this article points out, many other less selective universities selected these students and they were highly successful.</p>
<p>this post proves that getting into harvard means nothing.</p>