<p>Exactly, and D is a double legacy to boot.</p>
<p>Hunt, your post 417 makes a great point that is relevant to the topic of this thread.</p>
<p>texaspg-
i agree with JHS’s post #381. Putting together a class doesn’t equate to mean implementing “quotas”. My point earlier, which is addressed indirectly by the discussion of top 10% and NMF kids, and has been beaten to death on cc, is that there are lots and lots of kids with great grades and great SAT scores. That is only part of the picture. If a class was composed only of kids with the top grades and SAT scores, I think that would probably be a very boring, and perhaps a very cut throat class. Who wants that? Great grades and great SATs may make Johnny a dull boy. I personally don’t have a problem with either developmental admits or recruited athletes. Schools are businesses, and need to make $$$ to keep their doors open. If some income comes from large donations from alums, and other from the support of successful sports teams, fine by me. That just means the school will have more $$ to pay faculty, support staff, infrastructure, equipment, library books, exhibits, speakers, scholarships and hopefully keep the tuition form growing by double digits. </p>
<p>As for NMS at the ivys, I have heard of several students who made it to NMSF but planned to apply to schools where NMS made no difference, didn’t bother to finish the process to go from SF to F. Can’t say how many that applies to, but it does affect the #s at the schools where NMF doesnt matter.</p>
<p>205MOM - What about all the money from parents of legacies that funded/currently funding the huge endowments that pays for a chunk of the bills? What happens when that money stops showing up?</p>
<p>I was at a presentation by 5 colleges (3 Ivies) together last week. Their need blind theme is the following: We dont care if you have no money because if you are admitted, we will ensure that you receive the money. We want you to show up, not pay any attention to the bills, study well, leave, do well and be generous to your almamater so we can keep giving money to students in future.</p>
<p>"When you stop to think about it, this isn’t so surprising. Legacy students are coming from highly educated households, where books, reading, and cultural life are prized. They tend to be more exposed to and more serious about intellectual matters. We are admitting very strong students as legacies. "</p>
<p>I really wish this guy cut his BS and gave us the summary statistics of SAT and/or GPA between the legacy and non-legacy applicant group. If you are “coming from highly educated households, where books, reading, and cultural life are prized”, are not you supposed to have a higher SAT verbal score as a group?</p>
<p>Responding somewhat late to Hunt’s post #400, I wanted to point out that sometimes a really stellar student will be rejected by all of the top schools to which the student has applied, and there will be <em>no</em> clear reason why. The odds of this happening are lower than the odds of being rejected by a single preferred school. However, statistically, there is a probability of a “bad bounce” or “bad roll of the dice” everywhere. I have seen a few of these cases on CC, including this year. Some of these students are at least waitlisted at one of the top schools, and may wind up being accepted off the waitlist. In any event, there is no reason to assume that something is actually wrong with a student who doesn’t get into any of the top schools.</p>
<p>Also, the pedant in me would like to point out that tromp means “to tread heavily, especially to crush underfoot; to utterly defeat an opponent,” from Dictionary.com. The word being looked for was trump, meaning “to beat someone or something by saying or doing something better.” I think the well-qualified, unconnected student was supposed to be “trumping” the legacy, not “tromping” him/her. . . although maybe the poster who used “tromp” did mean “tromp.”</p>
<p>There sure are a lot of people who seem upset with elite colleges and admissions and who they accept and who they don’t! It reminds me of every spring when on these forums when a student or parent reports that Johnny or Mary didn’t get into X elite college, and they come across as very angry at that school. I have never understood the anger. And never understood the questions of “why did so and so get in and I didn’t?” When my own kids entered the highly selective college admissions process, they understood the reality of it and knew that some rejections were likely and were not upset at being rejected and not mad at the school. It was just to be expected. They felt lucky that they got into the majority of their schools. It was not as if they were shut out.</p>
<p>How did TRUMP get into this conversation?? :D</p>
<p>I bet his kids could go to any college they wanted…he could buy a building easily. :D</p>
<p>I’m not in a position to comment on Harvard legacies. However, I am in a position to comment on my daughter benefitting directly (I mean, direct cash donation) at another “elite” U, because we were given names and addresses of the particular donors each of the four years. (Each year, a different donor’s contributions were responsible for supplementing her other grants.) Chances are high that such donors were alums. So since these people were so generous as to share their wealth with others far less financially advantaged than themselves, I have absolutely no problem with the U rewarding their sons & daughters with an admissions advantage. I think these colleges should continue to recognize the benefit of providing greater opportunity to highly qualified students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One small observation … on the last comparable Common Data Set for HYP, Harvard reported that 84% of freshmen (enrolled) applicants submitted a HS class rank. The comparable number is 30 percent at Princeton and 40% at Yale. </p>
<p>Does anyone really believe that the enrolled student body at HYP is drastically different in terms of class rank and high school feeders? </p>
<p>It is probably easier to believe that the reported numbers for class ranks are simply whatever the school want the public to know and … believe. You cannot really blame the schools since they know the absolute lack of relevance of that particular metric as they can include and exclude parts of the reported data at will. </p>
<p>Of course, some of the “upcoming” schools know how useful it is to report high numbers in the categories that are tracked by USNews.</p>
<p>Hi, soozievt! Yep, the Trump kids would surely be developmental admits. No need for this post to be moved to the [now defunct] political forum! 
I was just responding to 205mom’s post #411.</p>
<p>Also, really, deserving students do occasionally experience a “shut out,” which is no reflection on them–just the inevitable outcome of admissions with low odds and a little bit of a lottery element for many.</p>
<p>QuantMech, I was just being humorous about Trump when reading your post about “trump.” 
(he’s in the news today, what can I say, LOL)</p>
<p>It is true that there are some deserving students who are totally shut out all together but this is more rare than the “got into H but not P or into P but not Y.” As you say, the acceptance rates at top colleges are very low and so even a highly qualified applicant could conceivably get all rejections. </p>
<p>Still, I find that highly qualified applicants tend not to get completely shut out. Some that do, either do not have realistic and balanced college lists (just have very reachy odds ones) or may not put together an effective application or some other reason. Typically a very strong student gets into a college other than his safety school. But I also run into many people who do not have realistic or balanced college lists. Or some feel that high stats alone are enough and that is not so at the most selective colleges.</p>
<p>
Just looked it up out of curiosity; one went to Penn Wharton, one went to Georgetown, and one transferred from Georgetown to Penn Wharton.</p>
<p>I note that (a) Trump’s kids are legacies at Penn, and (b) Penn has any number of buildings named for the parents or grandparents of students who have recently attended, but as far as I know there are no buildings or funded programs there called “Trump”.</p>
<p>You might enjoy this:
[*Trump</a> donates money for Wharton building | The Daily Pennsylvanian](<a href=“http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/node/55944]*Trump”>http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/node/55944)
Note: it’s from a joke issue.</p>
<p>Jym - My only point was that there are some percentages associated with admissions for different groups. I am not saying they are good, bad, ugly in anyway, shape or form nor am I questioning any groups’ credentials for admissions. If people dont want to accept that that is fine. </p>
<p>I am boldly predicting that in 2012, Harvard applicant pool will go upto 38,500 (±2,000), 2100 (±50) will be given admission altogether including SCEA and RD, 45% (±2%) classified as minorities (asian american, african american, latino, native american) will be given admission.</p>
<p>Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think Asian Americans are classified as URMs.</p>
<p>Hypothetical question-
If 60% of Harvard’s applicant pool is asian (I made this number up), and 90% of them (54%) have threshold credentials that make them qualified at the “first cut” (ie strong SATs and GPAs) , would that mean that unless 54% of the accepted students are asian, that somehow there is a quota? Just because a disproportionately high number apply, does that mean that they should be disproportionately represented in the incoming class?</p>
<p>Harvard’s announcements count Asian Americans as minorities although not calling them URM as a pool. </p>
<p>Since quota seems to be rubbing everybody the wrong way, let us call it a capped number. The same percentages show up as admitted irrespective of number of applications or the variations in applicant pool. As SM74 asked, why can’t it be more middle class whites at 65%? Conversely why not Asians down to 4.8% last year or next year? The only reason the percentages can show up similarly three years in a row is because that is considered Harvard’s right mix in their holistic process. </p>
<p>An outcome has been predetermined - people need to be realistic about their expectations which is what I was trying to do.</p>
<p>Are these percentages consistent with other schools? Do these percentages change much from year to year at other schools?</p>