[quote]
I need to clarify my experience: these stereotypical low SES kids who have to babysit, etc- there are plenty who do do the EC’s, take the bus to a better school or to DE, get involved intheir communities on a substantial level, are in hs activities, have hs leadership roles, etc. They are touchingly great kids- and achievers. Even in the worst of circumstances. It’s tricky to assume all the diversity kids are empathy admits. [/quote[</p>
<p>People of good character don’t all assume the diversity kids are empathy admits. It says a lot about a person when he or she DOES assume the diversity kid is automatically an empathy admit. And what it says isn’t flattering.</p>
<p>An institution can be called corrupt if it lies about what it does. Harvard and other selective schools accept the Common App. The Common App asks about race, prefacing the section with the comment</p>
<p>“The items with a gray background are optional. No information you
provide will be used in a discriminatory manner.”</p>
<p>Other things being equal (grades, test scores, SES, school attended, extracurriculars), white and Asian applicants have a lower chance of being accepted than URMs. The information they provide about their race <em>is</em> being used against them in a discriminatory manner. HYP are lying and therefore corrupt.</p>
<p>Another way Harvard is corrupt is that it abets tax fraud. You are only supposed to claim charitable deductions on your tax return when no goods or services are provided in return, but the children of big donors are more likely to get accepted. Harvard ought to maintain a Chinese wall between its fundraising and admissions offices or identify certain donations as not being tax-deductible.</p>
<p>But, there is often an assumption on CC that because they don’t have the privileges of others, they get very simplistically reframed, the bars lowered. She had to babysit, so couldn’t do more. But, the highly desirables did do more. Much more. Then, in their context, it can be more impressive than privileged kids who had it facilitated. </p>
<p>The argument is often that these are middle class or better URMS who secretly had their educated parents soften their lives. I’m talking about seriously disadvantaged kids who nonetheless shine.</p>
<p>I didn’t see that in the dictionary entry i posted. Perhaps a better way to ask the question would be “Do Ivy League Admissions lie about their criteria for admission?”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Children of big donors also sometimes do not get accepted. I haven’t seen a statement or evidence that says they are “more likely” to, though if such a statement were made I believe it would be on a page about holistic admissions that probably also includes a statement that “race is a consideration”…in which case they aren’t lying about race either.</p>
<h2>
</p>
<p>^^^ “Do Ivy League Admissions lie about their criteria for admission?” - it would seem that the answer in Harvard’s case is no.</p>
You may think the following point is nitpicky, but I don’t. Harvard and the other Ivies make it plentifully clear that URMs get a benefit–they aren’t lying about that to anybody who has sense enought read what they say about it. What they say they don’t do is discriminate AGAINST anybody on account of race. That is, they deny (for example) limiting the number of Asians in favor of whites. Now, they could be lying about that, which would be wrong, and (arguably) corrupt.</p>
<p>To try to make this point clearer: it is obvious that Harvard discriminates in favor of recruitable athletes. That is not the same as saying that Harvard discriminates against non-athletes.</p>
<p>But that’s because you’re assuming that admissions decisions are made - and THEN a race card is laid in. “He’s qualified - but he’s Asian, so forget it.” “He’s not qualified - but he’s a URM, so let’s let him in.” Don’t you get that it doesn’t work that way? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, please. One finds it hard to believe you actually went to Harvard. Plenty of big-donor kids don’t get in.</p>
<p>No Harvard case is currently before the S.Ct. I supect the person meant Fisher. </p>
<p>“It’s easy to look at a CC thread and see that an 2350 was declined, while an 1890 got the admit.”</p>
<p>Exactly, the 2350 may have had a disciplinary history, be totally lopsided in an area that is not a school strength, have turned in a generic application showing little interest in the school, been rude to an interviewer, or a whole host of other things.</p>
<p>I think that people with analytical minds assume that there must be some kind of mathematical formula that Harvard applies to make sure it has the “right” number of different sorts of admittees. I think that it’s more likely that the process is a lot more mushy and ad hoc than that–I see a bunch of people sitting around a table saying things like, “What about the harpist from Oklahoma?” “Is that the Ethiopian immigrant?” “No, the Ethiopian is the clarinettist from Iowa.” Etc.</p>
<p>
Another way of putting this, without criticizing the 2350 person, is that the 1890 met some institutional need that wasn’t met by others with higher scores. This could be a lot of things, including URM representation. The 2350 kid might have been excellent, but the niches he would have filled may be adequately filled by kids with 2390.</p>
<p>Thanks, muckdogs; the one I found was 2004 and denied. As for Fisher, I do believe the policies of publics should be periodically tested, as their mandate is to serve their populaces.</p>
<p>“Mushy, ad hoc” - Yale has that sweet word: hunchy.</p>
Suppose the children of non-donating alumni have a 30% chance of getting in, the children of ones donating > $50K over the previous three years have a 50% chance, and the two groups of children are otherwise comparable. That 20% edge is valuable. If something of value is received for a donation, one should not be able to deduct the entire donation.</p>
<p>I’ve read that 7-figure donors can effectively buy a spot for their kids at many schools, as documented in the book “The Price of Admission: How America’s Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges–and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates” by Daniel Golden. If those donations are being deducted from taxable income, that is fraud.</p>
<p>I think it would be OK for Harvard to auction off a certain number of spots to students who meet certain academic requirements, say the ones for Ivy League athletes, but the prices paid at auction should not be tax-deductible.</p>
<p>"I’m still curious what Harvard admissions case is before SCOTUS. "</p>
<p>Fisher/UofT. Past rulings would argue that a decision could be applied to any school accepting Federal funds, which is why the Ivies submitted a breathless amicus filing.</p>
<p>Actually, over three years is trumped by over 10 or more. And 50k is small potatoes. Maybe you’d have to suggest there is govt collusion, since the big donors who do get their kids in aren’t being investigated for fraud. Oh, maybe, after years of educational perks and parental savvy, the ones who do get admits are only barely advantaged by the money factor. There are some pointed critiques of Golden.</p>
<p>Fisher is not a Harvard case. UT is a public. (And, other similar public law school cases involve some specific problems even law schools acknowledged in their admissions.) If past rulings suggest anything, it’s that the privates will have some " 'splaining to do," will do it, and things will go on as they wish, until the next hubbub. But, it remains to be seen. </p>
<p>The fact is, past rulings have accepted the values in diversity. That could change, but we can’t know yet. Greater good versus an individual admit.</p>
<p>It depends on what you mean by “big donor.” If you mean your typical alumnus who had a great experience and was generous over the years (thousands of dollars,) then I’d agree. If you mean half-a-million dollars on up, I’d say no, they all get in. Maybe there is some dispute about the cut-off for automatic admisssion–it could be higher. I personally don’t know what it is, but I’m quite positive there is a rough number.</p>
<p>I was actually shocked by this practice, but I’ve heard enough stories, not just from students, but from adcoms or knowledgeable people like Golden that I’ve come to accept this as fact.</p>
<p>Again, it amazes me that you’re all so desperate to get your kids into these schools with all these unqualified rich-kids and unqualified-URM’s-with-sob-stories. After all, the education can’t be any good with all those unqualified kids sitting in the seats.</p>
<p>My understanding is that even the kids of big, big donors don’t get in if they don’t meet some minimum standard of academic ability. It’s probably fairly low, but apparently they don’t all get in. I’m sure such cases are handled very diplomatically.</p>