<ol>
<li><p>i am reminded of the tobacco companies which money with one hand as they suck it out of addicted customers, then donate it with the other to better their image</p></li>
<li><p>a. legacy system hurts most students, especially minorities
b. diversity system hurts white and asian applicants most
in both systems, asian applicants lose out greatly
in one system, white students lose out, in the other, they are generally unaffected
in one system, URMs win, in the other, they lose out</p></li>
</ol>
<p>the final tally?
asian students are down two
URMs break even
white students are worst off</p>
<p>my point? they don't "make up for it elsewhere"</p>
<p>recruited athletes: 10-15% of harvard frosh
legacies: 10%-12%
minorities: 40%</p>
<p>these pools really don't overlap much at all (i.e. very few minority legacies)</p>
<p>50% of the class is filled EA. Most athletes and legacies go then, but most minorities get in RD. </p>
<p>about 1050 spots left RD</p>
<p>immediately, 450-500 are gone to minorites.</p>
<p>Legacies probably taken another 50, athletes another 100.</p>
<p>RSI, TASP, SIEMENS, etc. probably about 100. </p>
<p>for all white people, there are around 250-350 spots left. </p>
<p>At most, 200 of these (more likely less than 100) are left for those in the title. I would guess about 10000 to 13000 of the applicants left (RD and EA deferrees) fit the characteristics of the title. </p>
<p>are the 40 % really made up entirely of URMs? or are some of them asian?
i don't know exactly what effect that distinction has, i'm just curious</p>
<p>Blankman, not a math major are you? No offense but 200 is clearly not less than 1% of 10,000! Despite all your very negative assumptions, your own calculations disprove your hypothesis.</p>
<p>Pvodesnki, re: point 1: I agree morally it's questionable. But it's about what's best for the university and its students. If tobacco companies donated 95% of their profits, rather than 1% or whatever the actual figure is, we'd both be more sympathetic.</p>
<p>re point 2: I agree it's very unfair. However, there will always be losers in whatever scheme you use. I agree it's very harsh that people suffer due to factors they have no choice over; but is it any different to not being born naturally intelligent? Or not being born athletically gifted? It's important to remember that 'best' is a very subjective term, and it's up to Harvard to work out how to define it among the students it admits.</p>
<p>it depends on what numbers you use. I used ranges. If you use best case scenario, as you are, with my numbers, then it is over 1. If you do middle to worst case scenario as I did, it is under.</p>
<p>ukrus i definitely agree that there will be losers and that being born intelligent or gifted sometimes is a matter of luck, but at least those are qualities which add to the college environment
i would say that legacies, if anything, take away from the environment as a whole</p>
<p>Clearly Harvard disagrees, and with good reason as I've mentioned above: not only does it foster financial contributions, it fosters an alumni spirit. A Harvard undergraduate experience lasts 4 years, an alumunus experience more like 40; its crucial to support the alumuni community.</p>
<p>These are valuable contributions to the College. Having an appreciation of a university as a community in which students have a measure of shared responsibility and ownership is crucial to a happy and contributing class. Much more so than people who come to the university purely because they think it will improve their chances of a Wall Street job.</p>
<p>i think alumni spirit is a beautiful thing
and it's one that the undergrad/grad experience should elicit, not simply pedigree
you don't have to be the son of a harvard grad to donate as an alumni
i mean, were that the case, who would've donated in the first place? :)</p>
<p>Yeah, I'm all for legacies. It's nice to have a family with generations attending the same college. It's like a family tradition. Besides legacies don't even help that much.</p>
<p>If your father/mother went to Harvard then:</p>
<ol>
<li>You have the brains it takes to succeed</li>
<li>Your parents have a high standard of living and can provide you with a good education</li>
<li>Your parents probably want you go to go Harvard so they gear you towards that</li>
<li>Your parents probably have high standards for you</li>
</ol>
<p>So it's not surprising that legacies are also some of the highest achieving applicants. Besides like I said, very few people who apply to Harvard have legacies, and they don't matter that much in the admissions process.</p>
<p>How do colleges determine that you're from a low income family, if not by looking at your income?? That's what Yale said. </p>
<p>So what are the determinants? What if they can't tell? I live in a decent area and go to a decent school(my parents love me and wanted to give me a good education?) My parents have respectful professions. However, our yearly income is extremely low.</p>
<p>it's not the income that they use to determine who is from an underprivileged background, it's their background
i. e. their school and area
just because you aren't rich doesn't mean you aren't privileged
similarly, even if your parents are loaded, if you went to east l. a. high and worked the graveyard shift at the corner store, you're underprivileged</p>
<p>income doesn't play a role like it does in finaid</p>
<p>"recruited athletes: 10-15% of harvard frosh
legacies: 10%-12%
minorities: 40%"</p>
<p>blankman, first of all just because 40% are minorities and 10% are legacies and 10% are recruited athletes does not mean that 60% of the class is filled. for example, a minority can also be a recruited athlete, and a legacy can be a minority, and a recruited athlete can be a legacy. So really, its less than 60% of the class thats filled by this. Also, as for the RD round, having a legacy status diesn't especially help much. it is really only considered EA. if being a legacy is going to be the "thing" that pushes a candidate over into the accept pile, then it will happen in the early round. Also, yes about half of the seats are taken in the early round, HOWEVER, many of the minorites that do get accepted were accepted in the early round, so its not necessarily another automatic "450-500". Keep in mind that the yield rate of URMs is likely lower than that of non-URMs, so they have to offer more spots for them in order to reach their desired level of diversity. Additionally, some of your numbers seem pretty arbitrary. For example, "RSI, TASP, SIEMENS, etc. probably about 100." I don't think that can really be substantiated.</p>
<p>All that I am getting at is that while I do not think that the chances for any one person getting accepted to Harvard are good, it is near impossible to attach a precise probability to it...there are far too many factors to be evaluated numerically</p>
<p>that 40% is minorities, but not UNDERREPRESENTED minorities; the majority of that percentage comes from asians. there are really only about 22% URMs: 10.2% Black, 4.2% Hispanic; 1.3% Native American; 4.3% Mexican; 1.6% Puerto Rican.</p>
<p>At least for yale EA, a higher percentage of new york students got in. That is, not only were a disproportionate number of new york students accepted, but they were accepted at a higher rate than the general applicant pool. Don't give up yet! Also, being white doesn't particularly hurt your admission chances, in my opinion. Being indian/asian probably does :(</p>