<p>I presume this will provoke a lively discussion. I do not think this has already been posted but, if so, my apologies.</p>
<p>That was an “interesting” article.
Not sure of where the “is the degree worth it” part of the article was:</p>
<p>TL:DR: If Harvard were free, didn’t place a value on legacy status and randomly accept qualified applicants, then we wouldn’t have environmental destruction and social inequality and America would get better.</p>
<p>A small price to pay, if true. The big “if”. Not buying it. The guy bites off way more than anyone could chew. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And cancer & world hunger would be eradicated</p>
<p>I’m not sure what this article was about as it was a real grab-bag of memoir and complaint. But the real problem with it is that it takes Harvard to be representative of higher ed in the United States, whereas in fact Harvard is an extremely atypical institution, and its problems, such as they are, are not relevant to the vast majority of institutions and students. The author seems motivated by the awareness that with his 200K income, he’s going to be expected to cough up a lot of money for his children to go to college. Cry me a river. If he doesn’t want to pay for Harvard, he doesn’t have to. Hello CUNY.</p>
<p>He’s well-meaning, but I don’t get his logic. I couldn’t agree more that growing economic and educational disparities are the roots of many evils in our society, but the best point to intervene is well before the college level. From the column:</p>
<hr>
<p>Children from poor and rich families show no differences in cognitive abilities when tested between eight and twelve-months old, but by age four children from the highest income quintile score 37 percentiles higher on literacy and math tests than children from the lowest income quintile. </p>
<hr>
<p>This is the biggest problem. The high cost of college, almost any college, is also a major factor; many qualified students are not able to earn college degrees for financial reasons. Replacing a few legacy admissions with economically disadvantaged, but qualified, students at Harvard would have negligible impact on the problem of inequality.</p>
<p>Most students are not qualified for Harvard. Take my 10th-grade son. He is naturally very bright, is earning good grades, has achieved at a high level on two instruments. He has had every possible advantage in life. He will be a strong candidate for most colleges. But Harvard is not a possibility for him, although he is a legacy, and it would not be a good place for him even if he could gain admission. My strong belief is that at college graduation time he will be as strong a candidate for graduate or professional schools, should he decide to go on, as most of the kids who are going to Harvard. There are too many high-level career slots for any one college to have a substantial impact on who ends up in those slots.</p>
<p>Even if legacy status would make the difference for my son, he would not take advantage of it, because he has very strong ideas about fairness. </p>
<p>I think he makes a few decent points, but I have to say, when I went to Yale in the late 70s, from a small town and weak high school in the South, I didn’t experience the kind of alienation he did. There were lots of other middle-class kids there as well. Maybe Harvard in the late 80’s was different. I’m happy to agree with him about the Finals Clubs, of course. I’m not crazy about the Secret Societies at Yale, either, but at least they are co-ed and racially diverse these days.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hope this is relevant, but how do y’all legacies know if legacy made the difference? The scenario that is suggested is that Harvard accepts the student, informs the student that admission was based on legacy, and therefore the student turns down the acceptance based on fairness, right?</p>
<p>My kids were both legacies at the college they attended, and they certainly weren’t told that this was the reason they were admitted. The only definite special treatment you get is a letter making sure you know that most legacies aren’t admitted–presumably so you won’t stop donating if your kid doesn’t get in. Did my kids get a boost from legacy? Maybe, although they had stats and achievements that definitely put them in the running anyway. Harvard is rejecting 70% of legacy applicants, so it’s likely that most of the legacies they accept have stats that mean that they are well-qualified to succeed at Harvard. There may be a few development cases (i.e., really, really rich people) who are weaker academically, and some of them may be legacies, too.</p>
<p>His school has very detailed stats on each college application in the last 3 years. With over 400 graduates, most making about 10 applications, there is lots of data. We’ve looked at a few schools, including one that I didn’t realize was ultra-competitive, but it turned out that in terms of stats it is more selective than the Ivys. There was one acceptance that stood out. I commented on it, and the GC said that there was a story - a family with a history of major, building-level, donations. We didn’t look at Harvard, but if we did, we could have seen the fate of quite a few applicants. If DS were a bit stronger, he might be in the category of no chance as a regular applicant but some chance as a legacy. In that case, he would see that his only chance of admission would be based on legacy status. And he would refuse to apply.</p>
<p>It’s all moot, he isn’t quite at that level, and it wouldn’t be the right place anyway. </p>
<p>By the way, we also looked at a school that I was thinking could be a good choice, and a match. It turns out that it is a safety. So the school history is very important. One school that I thought might be a reach turns out to be impossible, another that I thought would be a 50% chance of admission turned out to be a 99+% chance of admission.</p>
<p>I think development and legacy are distinct categories. My understanding of how legacy works is similar to @Hunt’s.</p>
<p>If any kid thinks he/she is not Harvard (or fill in the blank) material, plus they would probably not enjoy the school anyway, I can clearly understand not applying. If a kid thinks there might be a chance for acceptance at least as good as the average applicant and would love to go to the school—but refrains from applying because of legacy–I think that would be unfortunate and difficult for me to understand.</p>
<p>So I wonder what the author wants to do with legacies. No child of an alum is ever told the reason for acceptance was legacy status. As long as the holistics are better than the lousiest acceptee, there is always a chance that legacy wasn’t the crucial factor.</p>
<p>A. Keep legacy admit rates at the same level as the overall rate? (That could be unfair if there are a lot of really qualified legacies)</p>
<p>B. Keep legacy admit rates at the same level as the 2250+ SAT or salutatorian, for example, admit rate? (Similarly, this could be unfair)</p>
<p>Since many elite schools are sensitive to the number of legacy admits, is it possible that by not categorizing or counting legacies in the admissions process that more legacies would gain admittance “blind”, or is this unrealistic?</p>
<p>I don’t get why people donate to Harvard. They clearly don’t need the money. Surely the donors have other causes they support which would make better use of that donation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting. I am wondering about my alma mater now (it is not Harvard). At what level of a college’s endowment do you think a prospective donor would have more worthy causes than donating to that college? Just roughly of course.</p>
<p>Unless someone is donating millions to get their name on a building, or (misguidedly) thinking it will get their kid admitted, it just doesn’t make sense. </p>
<p>Millions will get your kid admitted, if he’s even remotely admittable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OK, but at what level of endowment? I want to know if my donations are senseless or sensible. If a school has an endowment of $10 million is it ok to donate? How about $10 billion or $2 billion? And is it ok for one person to donate $10 million, but senseless for 10,000 people to donate $1,000?</p>
<p>A general answer would be helpful. </p>
<p>Harvard is such a fine sound forty acres is no high price for a fine sound.</p>
<p>As much as I like my college, I can’t imagine giving it huge amounts of money when there are other charities serving starving, sick, etc. people. I do give it some money, mainly as a sort of thank-you gift.</p>
<p>It is interesting that he just assumes that all legacy’s come from highly privileged and rich parents when he himself makes 90k with his wife from their regular jobs and another 110k from second jobs and freelancing. His kids would be legacy admits if they were to get in. </p>
<p>I think legacies do tend to be privileged in the sense that they are more likely to have parents who are willing to spend the effort and time to help in their child’s education. But there are plenty of non-legacy parents who provide their children the same benefit. </p>
<p>fta:
</p>
<p>I am glad he included that, although it does weaken his overall argument.
This research was about any college graduate, not just Harvard or other top schools.
It also demonstrates a high level of social mobility.</p>