<p>To those of you who wonder how such "unfair" things can happen ... where the heck have you been? I know that I learned LONG ago that life isn't fair, and I have received reminders of that often. Of course, when I get too upset by what seems so darned unfair (like how the heck did that idiot I sat next to in my college classes get to be the president of a company?) ... I spend a Saturday working on a Habitat house, or I think about the people who consider ME "rich" (most of the world, actually), or I remember that I have many gifts in my life to enjoy. Life is unfair. PERIOD.</p>
<p>There are lots of kids with famous or well-connected parents at top Ivy League Schools. Some of them would get in regardless of their ties, some might not. I don't think it's just about money -- there is some cache with having the names attached to some of the students there.</p>
<p>I totally agree that Al Gore III has consistently exhibited a reprehensible pattern of behavior . I expect his parents must have overcompensated for the accident that nearly killed him when he was younger.</p>
<p>But the questions go beyond AL Gore. Yes, there are lots of people who pay forward, and pay big. One can find stories of someone who attended college on scholarship and returns to his or her alma mater to give millions. And colleges admit kids who cannot pay a dime toward their education, whether or not these kids are potential big donors. But what they are able to contribute collectively to the scholarship funds is a drop in a bucket of financial aid. To take Harvard, last year, Harvard disbursed $80 millions in financial aid; Princeton (with a smaller student body) $54 millions. The funds that go toward merit aid and need-based aid come from past and present big donors, not people who will, when they reach their 50s or 60s, decide to give big bucks to their alma mater. As well, many people who are not alums give to the colleges which their children have attended.<br>
That is the reality that colleges have to live with. We don't have to like it. We can dream of other ways of funding education for every qualified kid. And we can decide to live with higher taxes. That's what my siblings do.</p>
<p>berurah,
And Harvard should have been able to foresee that AGIII would get arrested AFTER he was admitted?!!! EVERY arrest your post lists was AFTER he was admitted. He was born in October 1982.</p>
<p>"Btw, Melinda Gates has two degrees from Duke!"</p>
<p>That explains why Duke got huge sums of money from MSFT.</p>
<p>Of course I don't expect Harvard to have had a crystal ball, jonri. I'm not sure what kind of juvenile record GIII may have had since those records are sealed. I do know, however, that many elite colleges admit students, both famous and "ordinary" ones, who have glaring red flag risk factors on their records BEFORE admittance.</p>
<p>Harvard (and any other institution) may admit whomever they see fit to admit. However, when elite colleges make choices that appear to be based on things other than their stated criteria, they open themselves up to questioning. To me, this is purely academic. The system is what it is, and I, for one, do not hold the expectation that life is/should be fair. But I am well within my rights to question and comment, as is everyone else.</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>
Which, I am QUITE sure, my son has benefitted from....<em>rofl</em> ;)</p>
<p>The whole thrust of this thread and of berurah's comments is that it was wrong for Harvard to admit AGIII because of a pattern of bad behavior. But every incident of bad behavior cited took place AFTER he began Harvard. I do know that AGIII was less than a perfect teenager--but so are many young teens. Many, if not most, do go on with their lives as responsible adults. To criticize Harvard or any college for admitting a student based on something he did after he was admitted is, IMO, unfair.</p>
<p>
I would respectfully ask, jonri, that you please not misinterpret my words or my ideas.</p>
<p>I have said...and I meant, that neither Harvard, nor any other school, elite or not, has to run its choice of admits by me or anyone else. What I DID say, though, is that schools which do not take into consideration the risk factor of a repeated pattern of irresponsible personal conduct and admit such kids while rejecting equally talented kids without those risk factors invite the judgment of those who think it is simply not prudent to do so.</p>
<p>Please understand that this is my opinion only, and I do not expect others to necessarily agree with me. </p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>There, but for the grace of G-d, go many of us parents...while noone is exempt from poor personal decisions, it's especially difficult to face the consequences in the public eye. Thank goodness that if my kids mess up, it's a relatively private matter, and I am grateful every day that they have yet to do anythng that would cause harm to anyone else or preclude them from the opportunities they've worked very hard to achieve. </p>
<p>I am loath to throw stones at a family that is clearly hurting right now.</p>
<p>I really try to stay out of these things but some folks are really being judgemental toward this young man who for all intents and purposes is an adult. How would you feel if people pointed a finger at you or your child's school for something he did as an adult?</p>
<p>He did something now he has to man up, take ownership, accountablilty and responsiblity for his behavior. I don't think it's a reflection on his Harvard education, maybe his parents winked at too many things, but they did not say, "Ok, son go out break the law, talk to you tomorrow."</p>
<p>You do realize that Gore graduated in 2005. </p>
<p>Are you saying that it is Harvard's fault for his recent arrest?
Are you saying that Harvard should rescind his degree for his recent arrest?</p>
<p>Should Harvard have tossed him out for his arrest in 2002/2003? Maybe there should have been some disciplinary action had this happened on Harvard's campus, but did it happen on harvard's watch?</p>
<p>Suffice it to say, should we toss out any student that gets cited for drunk drving or such after they have been admitted to college if the infraction did not happen on campus? I think that would mean there would be quite a few students not in school.</p>
<p>
Yes, I do.</p>
<p> [quote] Are you saying that it is Harvard's fault for his recent arrest?
No, I am not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you saying that Harvard should rescind his degree for his recent arrest?
[/quote]
No.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Should Harvard have tossed him out for his arrest in 2002/2003?
[/quote]
No, I don't believe it should have.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Suffice it to say, should we toss out any student that gets cited for drunk drving or such after they have been admitted to college if the infraction did not happen on campus?
[/quote]
No, I do not believe this either.</p>
<p>If someone has construed any of the above from my posts, then I have failed to communicate my opinion properly, and I will now graciously bow out of any further interchange on this thread. Peace to all.</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>Private schools run on money, not air.</p>
<p>Gore's other children are remarkable by any standard--a true credit to Harvard. Harvard adcom may have assumed that the son would follow in his sibling's footstepts--but whoops, he didn't. However, he's not a total loss. He paid them $150K and his father is a large donor. His tuition funds went into the pockets of the faculty and staff. His father's donations went to research and aid. Students who receive aid should be grateful for every dollar. If they resent the advantages that a full paying student brings, then they are effectively resenting the gift of that education. An education is the best gift in the world, IMO. (Your supposition about AGIII's early brush with death may be right, marite).</p>
<p>I am not a fan of the 100% merit scheme. That's what they have in China and Europe and that scheme has severe downsides. I have one young man in my office who studied until his eyes started failing. He made it to university but the Chinese government told him that he had to study accounting instead of architecture. That was the government's determination for his skills. They pay for his educaiton --and they decide his life. That's the end point of strict meritorious schemes. Be careful what you wish for.</p>
<p>Private schools rely on their full paying students and their donors. The students who are there on a gifted ticket are the real financial crapshoot. Maybe they will rise and bring fame and money to the school--maybe not. The full paying student and big donors contribute to the financial support of the school from the get-go. They are the sure thing. </p>
<p>That is the private school business model--to pretend otherwise is unwise.</p>
<p>If you want private schools to reject students that support their business model in favor of strictly meritorious students who may or may not financially support the school--then you might also step up and present an alternative business model. </p>
<p>That was marite's point.</p>
<p>Al Gore III got in trouble his senior year of high school for smoking pot in the cafetaria. Somehow I doubt this guy was enough of a hard core student to make up for that.</p>
<p>Thanks, Cheers. Those were the points I tried to make.</p>
<p>I attended an American college on a full scholarship thanks to the enormous generosity of a single donor. That was nearly 40 years ago. Since then, I've tried to repay this generosity through yearly contributions. But what I've been able to contribute does not come anywhere near the endowment that would be needed to generate sufficient income to subsidize one full ride. That is the reality for most students on financial aid,</p>
<p>marite...there is financial contribution and then there is societal contribution. I am sure your donor and your university would be thrilled to bits with the end results of that gift: you, your work and your two sons and their work.</p>
<p>I understand that berurah was mostly defending her right to hold a disdainful opinion about private school admissions--and so she does have that right and she is not alone. </p>
<p>However, I'm not a fan of that opinion because I believe it's disingenuous to pretend that a strict meritorious system would be 'better' if one does not also examine and contemplate the many many examples of those 100% merit systems--in Asia, Europe and India.</p>
<p>Yeah, and I get tired of full-paying students getting the beat down on CC. Flirt with socialism all you want, but until you've lived it--you don't know the half of it.</p>
<p>
Ohmygoodness. Yikes. I have to step back in here real quick to correct something...</p>
<p>My position: I hold NO general disdain for private school admissions processes. None at all. My son was the grateful recipient of some elite acceptances and VERY generious finaid offers, and I have untold gratitude for that and a general high level of respect for the PROCESS AS A WHOLE.</p>
<p>That said, every year some choices are made that look questionable from the outside (Not speaking of AGIII in <em>any</em> way here). My position in this thread is simply this: IF a school has a pool of roughly 20,000 candidates from which to choose a specific class, and let's say roughly 3/4 of those are qualified, I feel that it is not prudent to take a chance on a kid with a sustained, repeated, consistently troubled record of personal conduct. IMHO, there are simply too many excellent candidates with great records of personal conduct to justify that.</p>
<p>In addition, let me just say that if it were MY CHILD who were the one with the spotty record, I would feel EXACTLY the same way...even more so. I would not want my child to learn the lesson that it's OK to screw up consistently (and deliberately) and have no consequences from those actions. I would consider the life lesson around of his loss of a precious opportunity MORE important than the opportunity itself. I think showing a kid that his personal conduct has NO impact on his privileges/future is a VERY detrimental message, and I would, with NO reservation, stand by that for my own children.</p>
<p>Making a youthful "mistake" is one thing. Demonstrating consistently poor personal conduct is quite another. Even if an elite school were to be foolish enough to admit my consistently poorly behaving child, I would put MY foot down as a parent, as I would feel that there were other kids out there more deserving of that scarce spot. My actions would reflect my personal philosophy in that regard.</p>
<p>Hope this clears things up...</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>Berurah I think anyone who knows someone who struggles with an addiction would not say the person deliberately makes the decision to repeatly make the same poor choices.
In this case I hope his family and his arrest forces him to look at his life and to make a serious committment to recovery. With Al Gore III it would appear that substances are a problem. I don't think anyone really knows why some kids can experiment with drugs and alcohol and not end up with a problem while others have a problem once they took that first drink.</p>
<p>I think the reason why this bothers people, more than, say, rich people having nicer houses, vacations, cars, etc., is that it hits at the heart of what makes this country so great- educational opportunity. We're not talking about the fact that someone with wealth can buy a nicer car; we're talking about displacing deserving students with kids who not only haven't shown themselves to be worthy going in, but also, do not appreciate the opportunity while they are there, or do anything with themselves afterwards.</p>
<p>Berurah:</p>
<p>In hidnsight, Al Gore has a pattern of repeated misbehavior. But that's hindsight. At the time of admission, it seems he had one episode. </p>
<p>I wish that there were 20,000 donors and their kids to choose from. There isn't. Instead, at many top colleges 2/3 of students are on financial aid because they were deemed excellent candidates with great records of personal conduct to justify admission (your words). And the issue for colleges is how to provide the financial aid to make it possible for these excellent candidates, yadda, yadda, to attend college.
I'm sure Duke has granted admission to some donors' kids and some students with less than stellar records of personal conduct. Do you feel your son's education has been negatively affected as a result? l know my kid's education has not. Instead, even this full fare kid has benefited from the generosity of donors to an extent that I did not even expect.</p>