<p>Based on past 100 years of data, with few exceptions, the “holistic” admissions process can pick the best and the brightest. Of course, there were some folks (like Nixon)did not attend Harvard due to family financial situations. Whether we want to admit it or not, on average, HYPMS do have stellar records in their selection process.</p>
<p>That’s not “holistic” admissions at work. That is, “who’s your daddy” admissions. It wasn’t hard for Harvard to predict that the sons of Joseph P. Kennedy or Prescott Bush had promising futures, and I don’t think the Stanford ad com had to think all that hard about whether to accept Chelsea Clinton.</p>
<p>Agreed. Like in any other country, privileged kids do have advantages over our commoners. However, this country is one of the best in terms of allowing naturally gifted kids to excel despite of their humble family backgrounds.</p>
<p>And you have to also recognize the amount of “privileged” kids in this country. Sure there are sons and daughters of presidents. But in all honesty, how many people do colleges accepted solely due to their name.</p>
<p>Yes, it is low in percentage. But if you happen to be the ones who were bumped off of the list, making room for these privileged kids, you would feel differently. </p>
<p>Again, it is purely the decisions made by the university. For a private university, they are not accountable to anyone else but to their shareholders and potential future donors. Again, it is a business. Have to be run in a way that makes business sense.</p>
<p>“For a private university, they are not accountable to anyone else but to their shareholders…”</p>
<p>For the schools we talk about here, there are no shareholders, no “owners” in the business sense; non-profits have “trustees” who act somewhat like shareholders, but don’t benefit financially.</p>