<p>Here is the article from Boston Globe: <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2006/09/04/harvards_admissions_of_gilt/%5B/url%5D">http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2006/09/04/harvards_admissions_of_gilt/</a></p>
<p>I disagree with the commment about Kaavya Viswanathan. While there were issues of plagerism, I didn't think there was any evidence that she had a ghost writer for her book.</p>
<p>And while the article did not mention Jared Kushner's hs record in specifics, if he was such an unqualified student, how come he was able to graduate with "honors" from Harvard?</p>
<p>I certainly hope you can! But I also hope the price is very very high. I would be disappointed if you could buy your way into Harvard for a mere single digit $million. It's not as if they need the money, but after all, what's the point of having a billion dollars if you can't buy everything you want?</p>
<p>ok, I just read the article. If true, that is totally disgusting that Harvard sold out so cheaply to admit the underqualified Kushner! He should have been required to donate at least $10 or $15mm. If word gets out that admission to Harvard can be purchased for a mere $1mm or $2mm there will be no spots left for the football players!</p>
<p>NJres:</p>
<p>ROTFL!</p>
<p>The article mixes two things: the development admits and the students whose affluent parents paid for expensive admission coaches but have not donated and most probably will not donate sizable amounts of money to the colllege.</p>
<p>I also read the article in this morning's paper, and it seems they had to search pretty hard to come up with this one student. I'm sure it does happen, but I don't believe it's the norm. In fact, I think that kids from affluent families often have a higher threshold to cross with regards to academics and ECs.</p>
<p>Although the article makes me want to barf, and I hope the senior Kushner made some VERY close and involuntary friends while in prison--think of it this way: the money he gave to Harvard was enough to pay for about 12 other (needier) students to go there for free. That's not a bad trade-off.</p>
<p>Why don't they make it an official and open policy? "We'll accept any student with any grades as long as he pays full freight for a dozen other (qualified) students to go here--and none of these other students can have received a Porsche for his 16th birthday."</p>
<p>I went to an Ivy presentation at our school's college night. They all said that they admit a few development candidates each year. This is not news.</p>
<p>The issue of what it takes to be successful in a curriculum and what it takes to be admitted are quite different. I remember reading that a past Harvard president said a student with a 600 Verbal SAT score should be able to do quite well in the Harvard curriculum (and in many other's as well). Given that the test scores etc. are not so much about predicting success in school, but more about admitting a class to represent the school after graduation, admitting "development" students makes sense.</p>
<p>Don't schools value economic diversity? Well, they do need more than a few billionaires to balance the class. Without the "development" students and families, most private schools would be a poor cousin of what they are today.</p>
<p>The fact that standards might be lowered for the super rich is balanced by lowered standards for the disadvantaged. As unfair as it may seem to the ones caught in the larger middle, that is the way the system works, and in a way continues to extol the American dream. The poorest can work their way all the way to the pinnacle; and the very rich can buy it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
what it takes to be admitted
[/quote]
I believe the majority of students rejected from the Ivies are fully qualified for them with very high stats - there's just not enough room for everyone.</p>
<p>
[quote]
if he was such an unqualified student, how come he was able to graduate with "honors" from Harvard
[/quote]
Fully 91% of Harvard grads graduate with honors so I don't think it's much of a feat (I wonder what happened to the other 9%).</p>
<p>I'd be a lot more convinced that Jared Kushner was unqualified or underqualified for Harvard if the article actually told his what his GPA and SATs were instead of merely dismissing them.</p>
<p>ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad:
so 9% of the school is the football team?</p>
<p>The cited article and its author are also being discussed on the Harvard Forum. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Fully 91% of Harvard grads graduate with honors so I don't think it's much of a feat (I wonder what happened to the other 9%).
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Incorrect. It is now 50%. As a sophomore at Harvard myself, I must say having a 3.657 GPA requires a lot of studying. <a href="http://www.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/fasro/ugrad/honors.jsp?cat=ugrad&subcat=registration%5B/url%5D">http://www.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/fasro/ugrad/honors.jsp?cat=ugrad&subcat=registration</a></p>
<p>Of course there are "development admits" at every school. And also "celebrity admits" - children of members of the university's governing board, children of influential people, etc. The numbers are generally small - and generally the preferential treatment stops at the front door. Once they're in, they have to measure up academically. You won't find too many professors who give a rat's patootey who you are when it comes time to dish out grades.</p>
<p>Does it bother anyone else that "an official" at they younger Kushner's school is so free to report on his confidential record? Does he have a legal case against this person if he can identify them? Should the school take action?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Incorrect. It is now 50%.
[/quote]
We're both right - it WAS 91% but is NOW no greater than 50% (still high IMO) due to a readjustment probably due to it's significance ceasing to mean much since almost everyone was granted it. Kushner graduated before the readjustment.</p>
<br>
<p>significance ceasing to mean much since almost everyone was granted it.</p>
<br>
<p>Even under the old system, there wasn't one label called "honors." Cum laude from the college was extremely different from cum laude in your field, magna, and summa, not to mention Phi Beta Kappa. The last three always did mean a great deal (and they still do). Grad schools and competitive employers like i-banks knew the difference perfectly well, and they are really the only ones who are put in the position of distinguishing among Harvard grads. But it was a PR problem, so the whole system was revamped.</p>
<p>I can only speak anecdotally, but I've had hundreds of students go on to elite colleges, and Harvard has always struck me as the Ivy least willing to compromise academics for other (athletic, development) considerations.</p>