Of course, it takes much more than an anecdotal comment that they’re “super-motivated, super-smart” to actually get an admit. Much more. Lol.
Nope, I’m not referring to money. But a more elusive asset: savvy.
And when about 90%, give or take, of applicants, most of whom are probably extremely qualified, get denied, complaining about “only 2” going to Penn seems silly. And who knows, maybe more were accepted but some declined the offer, since Penn’s RD yield was 68%, meaning almost a third turned it down. @ going should be celebrated, not seen as a negative.
The assertion that wealthy families “manipulate admissions at elite universities” does not exactly seem valid given the points raised above and the variety of variables that contribute to admissions at very selective schools. However, the ED admission option seems to be a more clear advantage to wealthy families. Having the luxury to apply ED without knowing about potential merit awards or financial aid packages seems to be quite the advantage to kids whose families know they can pay full cost.
Personally I believe that legacy preference is akin to frequent flier programs. Should have no place in admissions.
To those who would cut off their alma mater if the admission staff didn’t admit their kid, at a school that accepts less than 10%, really? Because you went there? Is it truly the end all be all school for your child and no other is good enough?
It’s hard for some to hear, but don’t fall in love with a single school in the admissions process. Admissions isn’t a birthright. There might be 20+ kids gunning for the seat. Elite school admissions are hyper competitive.
If Plan A doesn’t work out, be prepared to kick the crap out of Plan B!
I don’t see it as manipulation. If some family can give a school a couple million bucks which improves the school for the rest of the students, then why not let their student in? I don’t see anything unfair or manipulative about that. Most people that complain about it being unfair wouldn’t donate money if they had it anyway. If people are wealthy and giving, good for them, let them get something back. I tire of the “attack the rich people because they have money and give everything to people that don’t have money” attitude. Many people with money actually work hard, made good choices along the way and earned what they have. T’is life.
College admissions is no different than the dating game. Having several 100’s of millions of dollars in the bank account can make a short, homely guy look like Brad Pitt.
Again with supposedly undeserving legacies and wealthy jumping the line - sigh. To paraphrase something @Hunt said the other day, at least it’s less offensive than hearing the same complaints over and over about URMs…
I wish, though, that before commenters made these kinds of statements, they would understand that doing so implies they believe the following:
- There's a magic formula for admission to each college, and the commenter knows what it is (this isn't spelled out, because the absurdity would be apparent, but the subtext is that it's basically stats and some collection of what the commenter considers to be the right kind of ECs, leadership roles and prizes).
- This magic formula enables every college to rank-order its applicants in a magic list (in Harvard's case, for example, from 1 to about 38,000), because the way the college should admit people is to start at the top of the magic list and hand out acceptances until it runs out of spots (e.g., Harvard would start with Applicant Number 1, the absolute best applicant to Harvard that year, and keep going until they got to Applicant Number 2,000 or so and call it a day).
- The commenter also knows, without being burdened by actually having read anyone's full application (including recommendations - which they can't see even if it's their own kid - as well as essays, grades and scores, which, apart from class rank, they probably know very little about for anyone else), or knowing anything about anyone outside their kid's high school, or knowing how any high school compares to any other, exactly where any given person stands on the magic list.
- Similarly, the commenter knows what the college's unique needs are - or, more precisely, has concluded that they don't matter, because the college is supposed to accept kids in accordance with the magic list.
- For nefarious purposes, the college will sometimes bump people up the magic list and give them spots they don't deserve, and the commenter knows when this has happened.
In the real world, of course, every top-tier college needs many different kinds of people, who have many attributes, and assembles a class with that in mind. Baseline stats get you into the conversation; allowances are made around the edges to suit the college’s priorities. Every kid accepted is acceptable, and the mix is the one that the college thinks is the best match for its many different needs. The only ranking happens within the subcategories of needs, e.g., who’s the best quarterback we can get who can do the work and fit in here. Unless you’re one of the small number of students whose academic chops are so strong that that’s the bucket the college is picking you to fill, after a certain good-enough point, your stats aren’t the primary driver of whether or not you get in - it becomes much more about the other things you bring to the table as part of the package.
I find it interesting to look back at Daniel Golden’s description of Jared Kushner, in the 2007 edition of his book.
It’s interesting to juxtapose those passages from a decade ago to the recent Forbes profile of Jared Kushner, http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2016/11/22/exclusive-interview-how-jared-kushner-won-trump-the-white-house/#530c506d2f50
Do you think Harvard would in hindsight rather have admitted any of the students in Kushner’s graduating class who had higher SAT scores or class rank? It turns out Margot Kreisler was spot on in her assessment that he would eventually go into politics. Colleges like Harvard talk about leadership: http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/01/why-are-american-colleges-obsessed-with-leadership/283253/.
I will go out on a limb. In the year he applied to Harvard, Jared Kushner was not the only scion of wealth to apply. Others applied, and were not accepted. (Just guessing.) I do not think it was a coincidence that Harvard happened to accept a young man who possessed “very strong personal qualities.” Selecting Jared Kushner from the thousands of applicants in 1998 secured Harvard a tie into the Trump White House of 2017. If the admissions team were to have speculated about his future, though, they would likely have thought that he would follow his family into the Democratic party.
Note that Stanford would have had ties to the Clinton White House of 2017 through Marc Mezvinsky and Chelsea Clinton.
One major difference with Chelsea Clinton is that by all reported accounts, she actually was a topflight HS student whose grades/stats could match/exceed those of Stanford/equivalent peers who were unhooked admits.
If she was actually admitted under similar circumstances as Kusher reportedly was or W back in the '60s, this would have been such a juicy news story…especially with certain right-wing newsmedia sources that it would have been all over the airwaves back in the late '90s.
Instead, most of the reporting I recalled reading stated she was a topflight student at Sidwell Friends likely would have gotten into Stanford or and equivalent peer college even as an unhooked applicant.
And the same is said about Malia Obama. Top student, athlete, etc.
Maybe H had it right on Kusher. Grades not everything–leadership potential matters
Final results still hinge on what’s projected in the app, with great effect from the written portions,which reflect choices, which reflect thinking. It’s still a too common mistake to focus on stats and little hs titles. You’ve got to quit assuming this is like the definition of a valedictorian. Best this and best that in one’s hs are not guarantees the kid can even think. (Read CC.) And the supposed comments from one school person or another are not necessarily any glimpse into what came across about him. Nor are they necessarily representative of what other adults in the hs thought.
Really. You want to go on, “I was surprised,” and build that into a national concern about TT admissions? You see the thread on kids not being able to distinguish fake news?
And please, no more GB got in 50 years ago, as if that proves something today.
One issue with this line of argument or the one where if a wealthy family donates a large sum, their kid should be admitted even with marginal/subpar academic stats is that it condones behaviors verging on a form of nepotism or quid pro quo exchange.
Behaviors which in most other areas of our society would be considered highly dubious at best and corrosively corrupt to the integrity of the institution/individuals involved.
Worse, this used to be practiced much more commonly in Ivy/elite college admissions before the mid-'60s and done away with in part due to protests made several decades ago about how such policies perpetuate a form of aristocratic privilege to those who already have high SES status and the social connections which come with it.
Including educational institutions.
It’s not too different from a proposal made ~15 years ago by some elite South Korean universities to reserve 10-25% of incoming freshman seats for scions from families who would be willing to make a donation of $2 million or more in lieu of taking the national college entrance exam. A proposal which drew such widespread outrage and scorn across South Korean society that it was scrapped not too long afterwards.
What freaking marginal stats? I still haven’t heard here or found elsewhere what Jared’s stats were.
The usual process is money is pledged, money is given, and in the close relationship between a development rep an the donor, discussions occur over time, re: whether there is a realistic chance a kid would be admitted. And based on the kid’s performance, not Mummy’s or Daddy’s. They aren’t afraid to say, sorry, it’s doubtful he would thrive here. I’ve seen the blowback when the several million dollar donor had no pull. Not pretty.
Lol, it can be different for $50 M, some portion already paid. But the kid had to be capable of making it through and graduating. And these cases are extremely rare. Do some of you really think some substantial portion of a class is made up of subpar kids from wealthy donors?
Do you even know what subpar would be? Or you bought in to the conviction that anyone less than 2370 and 4.xx is a crappy choice? Lol.
Along with @Cobrat, I find all the apologetics for Kushner embarrassing, as if everyone were desperate to find reasons to maintain the admissions system exactly as it is. You can spend many pages celebrating the top-tier admissions process as a magical complex mystery guided by visionary geniuses but the fact is that young Kushners don’t like their odds when they apply like plebes. The $$ that arrives with the applications is what turns them into Harvard material.
Tell me his stats. Let’s look at his app. Citing GB or Korea isn’t relevant. You can be as outraged as you wish abut quid pro quo, as a possibility. But you have no basis on which to suggest it exists. Just innuendo.
Young Jared has a choice: he can submit his application on its merits and prove to himself and the world that he’s Harvard material if he’s admitted. If he’s not, he can live with the results with a clear conscience. Or, he can get his people to find out how much it will take to buy his way in. In my view, choice #1 is more ethical and better across the board for college admissions.
Why should he be the least concerned with proving anything to you or others so concerned? He has shown his capabilities by now, nearly 20 years later, whether or not someone likes him as an individual (based on media reports, of course, since I doubt any of us have ever met him.)
You realize there’s no “if he’s admitted?” Or you mean all the 18-21 yer old scions of wealthy donors? As if.
People who really want to “show their capabilities” are happy to apply to Harvard without 2.5 million dollar checks. Sometimes (gasp!) they apply without padding the envelope with any extra cash at all!
Did Mr Kushner bribe other schools prior to their admission to Harvard / his conviction and prison sentence?
Or was Harvard the only school he “invested” in for their potential admissions?