Chris Peterson of MIT gets a little carried away I think when he says, “And if anyone in our office ever advocated for a mediocre applicant on the basis of their “excellent pedigree” they would be kicked out of the committee room.”, because I do not see that scenario as part of the consideration at Brown, at least.
As I said earlier, I don’t think that most legacies at brown or elsewhere are getting in based on their parents’ academic record or donations. The girl accepted to brown from my younger son’s class last year, who was a stellar student, told him that her dad never donated more than $15 a year, lol. My older son, who is a senior at brown, was also accepted RD to all his other top choices: uchicago, Penn and WUSTL, all without legacy. Clearly, he was a viable candidate on his own merits. And while my H donates annually, it’s not a sum that would make any significant impact.
I’d be less surprised if developmental hooks, whose families are donating huge sums, get in with less impressive profiles. But, being very wealthy and extremely bright and accomplished are not mutually exclusive either.
Being a minority is different than a legacy. A minority would face any of the hardships that come with being a minority. Same thing goes for being poor. You don’t face hardships or have significant obstacles solely because you are a legacy tto XYZ
@Newsie2015 Mind explaining to me how being a minority automatically entails facing hardships?
I’m all for holistic evaluations, in fact, I think it’s imperative for building a diverse class. Arguably, it’s more impressive for someone to get a 2000 on the SAT in a single parent household where he/she has to take care of siblings or take on other responsibilities than a kid from a wealthy neighborhood with access to tutors, amazing schools, and study resources getting a 2350. Economic and political situation must be considered. But why should skin color be a basis?
@Tman1005 I agree. Why should, say, an Asian applicant who’s lived in the slums have a lower chance of getting into Harvard than a Hispanic applicant who’s lived in a wealthy town? I’m all for affirmative action based on income, but not for affirmative action based on race. The color of one’s skin does not decide the hardships they will face in life; however, their economic status can.
@Newsie2015 - I didn’t mean to imply that they were. I meant to imply that one could look at a minority applicant and say “this student looks less qualified” when in fact that student isn’t less qualified based on the hardships they have faced. Additionally, there is the explicit goal of creating a diverse student body (in many facets of the term). These are all exceptions to the concept of college admissions being a purely, unbiased meritocratic procedure.
There is a reason why universities that house students together and provide a social environment outside of the classroom exist. There’s a reason why not all universities do exactly the same things. Universities are not just classes and tests and grades. They are communities, and legacy families enhance that community. I have a good friend who is marrying someone he met at brown. She has multiple siblings and both parents as alumni as well. In fact, the family has a reunion year literally every year given how their ages panned out. Now that we’re a featured thread, a lot of new people unaffiliated with Brown are probably going to be posting here so I’ll point out that Brown reunion/commencement is a HUGE deal - the only school I’ve seen come even close is Princeton. The family does it’s best to go EVERY YEAR to Brown for commencement in honor of each person’s reunion. It was great marching with them in the procession at our 5 year and seeing her hug her family as we marched past each class. My freshman year roommate (one of the smartest people i’ve ever met) was a legacy too. It was great when he was moving in to listen to his dad talk about his time at Brown ~30 years prior.
So I don’t have a problem with making “ability to enhance our university’s community” a part of the admissions process and using legacy status as part of determining that.
@tman1005 and @topaz1116, I probably shouldn’t even respond as I thought AA discussions were against CC rules but it’s pretty shocking that particularly with what’s been going on lately people could still think that the color of your skin has no impact on how people treat you and the hardships you will face in life:
Actually Ms. Portman had quite the reputation upon leaving Harvard, with more than a few professors saying had she wanted to pursue the couse of being an academic, she would have been upper margin. I cannot speak as to how she was admitted, but by all accounts, she was very bright.
@iwannabe_Brown I see the points of your suggestions, and I agree that significant hardship should be considered–however, I don’t believe that skin color itself (specifically in the examples I mentioned) should be a factor in admissions. Just saying, Asians (such as myself) are often over-represented in the applications process, so I suppose I am somewhat biased in my opinions (by the way, I have never experienced discrimination in any way or form; no one has even looked at me sideways–however, that may just be due to the fact that I live in the Bay Area, which is abundant in minorities). However, I don’t believe that hardships shouldn’t be recognized; just that race by itself shouldn’t be a deciding factor. People certainly go through difficulties to get to college. However, high-income Hispanics and Blacks are also probably educated and shouldn’t get any privileges over a high-income Asian or White. I certainly believe college education, economic status, hardships, etc. should make a difference in the admissions process as those are factors that can significantly affect someone’s stats.
There is a huge difference between performers who get into top-tier schools on the merit of their own hard work, and legacies and athletes who don’t meet the minimum requirements. For many actors - particularly child actors - higher education is incredibly important because their learning may have been interrupted by their early careers.
@iwannabe_Brown I thank for you posting those links. I do not mean to say that racism and discrimination do not exist. They absolutely do. However, that doesn’t mean that affirmative action is a perfect solution. For example, in general, being Asian worse than being White for affirmative action. Yet,
“For instance, high-income black, Hispanic and Asian applicants have higher denial rates for home purchase and refinance loans than low-income white applicants.”
You own study suggests that Asians face discrimination (more so than Whites), yet Asians are hurt by affirmative action. I don’t think that affirmative action today is purely about countering the effects of discrimination, otherwise, wouldn’t it help Asians as well as Blacks, Hispanics, etc? Affirmative action today is more or less an effort at racial balancing, and values equality of results over equality of opportunity.
Yes, in general minorities are discriminated against. But is fair to assume that all minorities (that is, except Asians apparently) have faced discrimination that has affected their education before college? I would be inclined to say that a White or Asian student who is poor is more harmed by discrimination than, for example, someone who is Black that comes from a wealthy family.
Natalie Portman published a paper on producing hydrogen from sugar while in high school (under the name Natalie Hershlag) and was a Intel Science Talent Search semifinalist.
Emma Watson took several A-level examinations in the UK and earned top marks in all of them while co-starring in seven films, one of which broke at least one box office record.
Maybe I can’t read too well, but it sure looks like the title of this thread is “Celebrities and the Ivy League”. Many of these posts have gotten wildly off topic. There have, of course, been numerous threads devoted to the topics raised in those posts. If one of the posters wants to start yet another one with the appropriate topic in the thread title, that is fine. But please don’t hijack a thread on one topic to hash out something quite different. Any further posts that don’t involve addressing the main topic will be deleted. - FC
All Ivies take celebrities and rich kids more than most institutions. I had famous people in my classes.
Think about one thing - isn’t being a world-famous actor or actress an outstanding EC?
Some prejudice is here, assuming that someone who acts, plays music, or professional sports is automatically too dumb to do anything else. Certainly acting requires drive, and if you have drive for one thing, you can turn it to another area.
We are not rich, in fact very lower middle-class. We are not legacy. Son go into an Ivy because he was valedictorian of his HIgh school class and worked his butt off. Maybe that’s the trick.
Definitely! It’s not the academic record, because so many student with great grades apply to these schools. I think it’s because:
Many of them have amazing ECs. I mean Emma Watson had starred in movies. If that doesn't show out of class participation I don't know what does. That's way more impressive than starring in a play. Celebrity's kids have amazing opportunities thanks to their parents' status and money, so their ECs are probably great too.
Money. More money = more donations. Doesn't mean celebrities don't have to be smart to get in. Just means that's the final push that applicants desperately need when applying to top schools.
It seems like the real question should be this…is it worth it for a young celebrity to attend college if it is not an elite institution of higher learning?
Can any imagine the co-star of a wildly successful 8 part movie series taking a break to attend community college or Penn State or the University of Alabama?
Maybe they do but I’ve never heard of it. I find it hard to imagine too.
Maybe the Ivies seem like more celebrities attend them because so few successful, young celebrities feel it’s not worth it to attend college unless it is one of the elite schools.