<p>i dont get it if Harvard, MIT etc take the best students ofcourse there going to produce the best students if they take rich ones ofcourse they will turn out richer and powerful. I think they should take average students and then make them the top class students thats what a good school shuld do shouldnt it?</p>
<p>harvard and MIT aren’t good schools, they’re great schools.
their are average schools for average students.</p>
<p>So basically they take great students, then those students will achieve good grades anyways so the teachers have no hand in it?..so basically if an average school starts ONLY taking great students then theyll be as good as them? makes no sense.</p>
<p>Filza: I guess in your rationale, a professional sports team should NOT recruit the best batter, or pitcher or point guard or quarterback or goal keeper and instead find average joes who really want to play professional sports.</p>
<p>I suppose if you’re ever in a situation to hire someone for a job (let’s say a caretaker for a sick relative), you’ll sift through the resumes and immediately go for the average applicants rather than the most recommended and trained ones? </p>
<p>Your thinking is insanely immature and reflect a woeful understanding of how things are and become “great”. And you fail to see how you make those judgments every single day for your own life.</p>
<p>BTW: they take “rich” students because on the whole,they come better prepared due to better schooling opportunities. But it’s not as if they take rich kids because they are rich. H and M are great for searching for a wide variety of kids’ backgrounds.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At Harvard, the instructors certainly have a hand in it, but IMO the greater value is being a member of a brilliant and challenging peer group. Students’ goals and aspirations tend to adjust up or down according to their peers. My D told me she worked harder there than she had ever needed to before but that “it doesn’t seem like extreme work when it’s what everyone else is doing.”</p>