I understand your point-- no student is entitled to admission at a private institution (especially a highly competitive one like Harvard) because of a certain test score or GPA. But could we be more mindful of the language we use to describe Asian and non-Asians? Drawing a direct contrast between the “Asian applicant” and the “interesting kid” implies that Asian kids are often less interesting than white/other minority kids.
This might seem nitpicky or overly sensitive, but it’s so common to hear Asian kids (who are kids, not just applicants) described as joyless, personality-less “robots.” And that’s blatantly false and hurtful. I think it’s the throwaway comments like these that contribute to making Asian families feel unwanted and discriminated against in college admissions.
There are several other ways to raise funds instead of selling admissions to legacies. Many universities in and outside US are doing it, with great success I might add.
To defend this policy of legacy admissions under the guise of generosity towards middle or low income is a hog wash.
The fact is that the schools do it because they can from a demand and supply standpoint. Theses are business institutions first and foremost instead of educational institutions.
Like all organizations, universities seek to act in ways that grow and sustain themselves. It’s in their interest to admit some number of wealthy/connected students, not just for the immediate financial benefits, but because those students will become wealthy, powerful and influential adults, and will then be inclined, as members of the university’s network, to act in ways that benefit the university far beyond just donating to it, particularly if they believe their kids may be able to attend there.
That said, if Harvard only admitted rich dumbasses, it would pretty soon cease to be Harvard as we know it, one of the greatest research universities and a global resource of incalculable value, producing knowledge and scholars to the world’s benefit. So Harvard admits a certain number of them, and many others who Harvard believes will be the leaders of their generation, intellectually and in other ways.
I am more shocked by the fact that the kid from connected family who donated $8.7M could not be guaranteed a spot, unless his stats was below any recruited athletes, which was unlikely. If Harvard were a profit maximizing corporation there was no way it would have not granted the wish to a good customer who had paid $8.7M.
I expect Harvard could fill each class with students from families who would donate 7 figures to get their kid in. Definitely requires min of 8 figures these days, inflation is everywhere
I worked in giving. Big contributions don’t trigger an autoadmit. And frankly, most big big donors in any given year don’t have kids in high school, inking their apps. A number are elderly, settling their estate directions. Some are young, dealing with inheritance and taxes. Others. And kids are vetted. In Admissions, the number of discretionary admits (wealth, connections, and more) was about .008. Ivy.
Now, you may say 1 is too many. And many do establish long term relationships with the college. (Plus today, it’s common to give that big sum over a long period of years.) But just beware of jumping on sensational tales.
Golden’s book is just too old.
The figure of 1.1 mil is far from a pull donation.
The reason the plaintiffs are getting into these other areas, imo, is to cast doubt on H’s methods, in toto, weaken their position that they have a rational and fair process. Common legal maneuvering. It does NOT automatically mean, where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
The holistic admission process is as good or fair as those exercising it. I support the holistic admission process as long as they are really holistic. Based on my own experience, I would be just as impressed by a very motivated kid from a very wealthy family just as much as a kid from a poor family.
@compmom Why don’t you use each school"s NPC to compare? If you did, you’ll find MIT is as generous as Harvard, if not more so. Also keep in mind that MIT"s students are, on average, not nearly as well-to-do as Harvard"s.
I ran the NPC with a 30k parental income and no assets, no student income/assets.
Harvard wants $4600 from the student in work study and summer work (I think that is the minimum they want as student contribution when parents contribution is 0).
MIT asks for nothing, 0, zero from parents or students. However Harvard estimates $1k more for books/expenses so the net difference is $3600 in MIT’s favor.
I live in a community where students tend to go where their parents went. Last year three students went to MIT, they all seemed qualified as did all the legacy students who to Harvard. While MIT may not formally favor legacy applicants, many of the credentials helpful to gain admission to MIT are common knowledge to children to MIT alumni.
After watching my friends’ experience with MIT, not only do I see absolutely no legacy bump, but believe it may be a detriment. Particularly the double legacies (both parents went to MIT). They’re running 0 for 7.
But the percentage of those whose families with the gross annual income of $30,000 is very low when the total percentage of those families at $65,000 or below makes up just 20% at Harvard and probably about the same or lower at MIT. On the other hand, according to the Harvard FA site, “approximately 70 percent of our students receive some form of aid, and about 60 percent receive need–based scholarships and pay an average of $12,000 per year.” So, if you compare the total % of students receiving no-loan grants, regardless of income bracket, the difference in the amount is staggering.
A comparison between cost to parents at different income levels with the respective NPCs are below. I assumed 1 kid in college and between 1 and 2 years of income in savings. The NPCs suggest MIT and Harvard are very different costs for typical middle class families. As such, ~4x as large a portion of MIT students take federal loans as Harvard students, with a median loan size ~3x as high…
$50k Income: Harvard is $0k, MIT is $3k
$65k Income: Harvard is $0k, MIT is $8k
$100k Income: Harvard is $5k, MIT is $19k
$150k Income: Harvard is $15k, MIT is $39k
Harvard is among very few need blind schools that do not take into account family asset, and as a result more students get financial aids, and with larger amount.
Last year, according to CDS, Harvard students received $185,987,860 in need-based aid, and the average financial aid package was $53,730. I think that was in part made possible by admitting kids from families writing $10m+ checks.
