Recruitment??

<p>
[quote]
And again, the point is that there are about 100 people in the world who can afford those spots for their kids

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Only 100 people in the world who can afford to donate hundreds of millions of people? Ha! Hardly. There are at least 300 people in the world who have a net worth of at least a billion dollars. These people also don't necessarily have to pay for spots only for their own kids. They can send grand-kids, nephews, etc. </p>

<p>
[quote]
will be even close enough to Harvard's standards that they could be admitte, and not flunk out.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How's that? It's practically impossible to flunk out of Harvard. I agree that it's hard to get top grades, but flunk out? Ted Kennedy was a C student in high school, got caught cheating twice at Harvard (and was actually forced to leave Harvard for a year), and STILL graduated.</p>

<p>Sakky--Come on. 300 people, most of whom have net worths just around a billion dollars and can't afford to make donations that large, and of the people who remain, how many will want to pay to send their kids to college and on top of that, Harvard specifically? Sure, there'd be a few people, but this is such a minor point that there's really no reason to bother harping on it.</p>

<p>Okay, sakky, you're being a little unreasonable. Someone with a net worth of 1 billion dollars is not going to donate 300 million in order to buy their grandkid a spot at Harvard. Ignoring the fact that it's impossible for most of these people to get ahold of that much money (it's tied up in mutual funds, bonds, trusts, etc.), most people aren't going to give away a third of their wealth.</p>

<p>And Ted Kennedy is not a stupid person. He was just a hard-partying joke who knew that, back then, he could do anything and still pull a C average. Half of America gets below 1000 on the SATs. There's a lot of stupid people out there. I'm not saying that they would flunk out, but Harvard would never accept a student with less than 1100 on the college boards. That person just couldn't function at Harvard.</p>

<p>You guys are ALL missing the point. </p>

<p>The real point is that how donations affect admissions is not a binary 'either/or' thing. Rather, it's an extra weight on the scale. How much of a weight you need to get in depends on how good the student is. A student who is good enough to get on the wait-list (but not get in without any donations), may only need one million dollars, or maybe only a few hundred thousand dollars, to get in. A complete idiot will need hundreds of millions. Most people who apply to Harvard but don't get in will fall somewhere between these two cases. </p>

<p>Hence, the point is, of the number of people who get rejected from Harvard, quite a bit of them probably could have gotten in had somebody donated something in the 7-figures. 7-figures is a perfectly attainable figure to donate in this day and age. In fact, since very few complete idiots apply to Harvard, I would argue that the vast majority of Harvard rejectees probably could have gotten in with a sum in the 7 figures. After all, most Harvard rejectees are very good, and some of them just barely missed the cut. Because they are very good anyway, it wouldn't take much to pay Harvard to give them the edge they need to get in. </p>

<p>So what you're really paying is not for admissions straight away, but rather the edge you need to put your application over the top. That's still a considerable sum of money, but not hundreds of millions. That figure is reserved for the corner-case, which are the complete idiots. It's the absolute maximum that you would have to pay. Most rejectees will require nothing near that maximum.</p>

<p>Okay, you completely changed your argument here. Your original point was that it's possible for anyone to buy a spot at Harvard, so they might as well put a price on it. That's obivously not true.</p>

<p>And it's also not true that Harvard gives any weight whatsoever to financial contributions. They admit legacies because that develops faithful alumni networks, and builds good will. Harvard does not, however, need to sell itself for measly millions of dollars. Most colleges do. Harvard does not, and thus does not do "development admits". </p>

<p>Of course, if Byerly Hall deemed that admitting someone could get a donation that would improve the quality of education at the university, then they might care. But when your endowment is already 22 billion dollars, and growing as fast as any other college endowment in the country (in terms of percent return), a few million isn't going to make a difference. You think the Kennedys didn't try to pull that one with JFK Jr.?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Your original point was that it's possible for anyone to buy a spot at Harvard, so they might as well put a price on it. That's obivously not true

[/quote]
</p>

<p>My original point still stands. Just like in theory, anybody can buy a mansion if they had the money.</p>

<p>Now of course it is obviously true that most people don't have the money. However, I think that was implicit in my point. Anybody can buy anything that is being sold, as long as they have enough money. Whether you personally actually have the money to do that or not has nothing to do with the true point, which is that the item is being sold. Nobody finds it controversial in the least when a huge mansion goes on sale for hundreds of millions of dollars. So I don't see what is so controversial to say that a Harvard admissions spot is for sale for (at most) hundreds of millions of dollars. </p>

<p>
[quote]
And it's also not true that Harvard gives any weight whatsoever to financial contributions. They admit legacies because that develops faithful alumni networks, and builds good will. Harvard does not, however, need to sell itself for measly millions of dollars. Most colleges do. Harvard does not, and thus does not do "development admits".

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you honestly trying to say that Harvard gives zero weight to any financial contributions? Please tell me that you didn't say that. </p>

<p>You also say that Harvard admits legacies to develop faithful alumni networks. But then ask the question - why develop faithful alumni networks? What's so good about that? The answer is money. Faithful alumni networks means more money being donated to Harvard. Let's be honest, if that wasn't true, then Harvard would have little interest in building faithful alumni networks. It's a tit-for-tat exchange.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Most colleges do. Harvard does not, and thus does not do "development admits".

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you really believe that Harvard does not do any development admits at all, hey, I got a bridge I'd like to sell you. We both know that they do. Are they high-priced development admits? Sure. But they are still development admits. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You think the Kennedys didn't try to pull that one with JFK Jr.?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But they DID pull it with JFK Sr! And RFK. And Ted Kennedy. Be honest. All of those guys got in not because of academics, but because of pull. </p>

<p>I agree that a few million won't make AS much difference in admissions as it would at a poor school. But if you really think that it makes no difference whatsoever, again, I got a bridge to sell you. </p>

<p>Look, why don't we all admit to what I think we all deep down know is the truth. Harvard admissions can and is warped by donations. Always has been, always will be. We can argue about how much it is warped by donations, but the fact is, it is warped to some degree.</p>

<p>No, you don't know the truth. You have your hearsay, what you've been told by the media, by US News, by friends, by whatever. My father is very close friends with both Marlyn Lewis and Bill Fitzsimmons. You don't have to believe me, and you won't. I don't care. They have told my dad numerous times about how they reject kids who have the academic qualifications, and who could produce a few million, for a poor kid from Chelsea or Mattapan, a kid who really deserves it.</p>

<p>And Harvard has changed a lot since the Kennedies were admitted in the 60s. It was a whole different ballgame back then.</p>

<p>Look, I think it is you that is dreaming. My basic point is that money can influence Harvard admissions. We can talk about how much it influences, and how much money it would take, but I think nobody will agree with you if you are taking the position that money has no influence whatsoever. I'm quite certain that you are all by yourself on this one.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The only problem I had with Harvard athletics (namely football) is that they're halfway with it. The program doesn't really exist for the students, as most of the athletes are brought in as recruits and the students don't really attend the games (save one game a year). They aren't big time D-1, so it's not a revenue generator (like Michigan). It seems like they just want to beat the other ivies. That, to me at least, is not a great goal. If you're going to recruit, with all the money Harvard has and the reputation, recruit the best talent in the country and hammer people.

[/quote]
I believe the IVYies take a very different view of athletics at their schools ... they do not make money from any sport and the IVYies (along with a lot of LACs) have many more varsity sports than most of the schools we traditionally think of as sports powers LSU or Georgis for example (Harvard probably has twice as many varsity sports as LSU given a much smaller student population). It seems Harvard (and the other IVYies) place a lot of emphasis on the old model of a scholar athlete ... supporting a women's softball team or a men's gymnastics team are not bringing the school money or prestige ... they are keeping students involved and promoting student athletes.</p>

<p>To the OPs original question ... the best answer is it depends ... the IVY league has strict rules about how many athletic recruits are allowed at certain levels below a typical admit. A marginal track recruit is not likely to get much of a push if their academics are below par while a potential star quarterback or hockey goalie would more likely get to use one of the few spots well below a typical admit. Bottom line the bigger the sport and the higher the potential the bigger a break a recriut might get ... and IMO the push athletes receive overall at any IVY is much less than is often protrayed on this board</p>

<p>There's a difference though between admitting a student whose family is <em>capable</em> of donating a great deal of money to the school and admitting a student whose family <em>has</em> donated a great deal of money to the school...</p>

<p>Hey, sakky, that's great. You can keep on living in your dream world, imagining that Harvard is this elitist, xenophobic place, where money and influence are king. I hope that makes you feel better about yourself, and the fact that you will never attend Harvard.</p>

<p>3togo, it's done sport by sport. The teams have different systems, but a football recruit does not take a softball recruit's place.</p>

<p>
[quote]
3togo, it's done sport by sport. The teams have different systems, but a football recruit does not take a softball recruit's place.

[/quote]
from what I read ... yes and no ... the schools have overall allowances for athletes and have some play how they use them across sports. The bigger point is each IVY league school isn't deciding on their own how low to bend their standards to allow athletes in ... at least in theory there is a league wide agreement on how this works ... and it is not a ton of recruits getting huge breaks.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Hey, sakky, that's great. You can keep on living in your dream world, imagining that Harvard is this elitist, xenophobic place, where money and influence are king. I hope that makes you feel better about yourself, and the fact that you will never attend Harvard.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Did I say that Harvard is an elitist, xenophobic place? I don't think so. So stop putting words in my mouth.</p>

<p>Look, money influences Harvard admissions. Does that mean that everybody got in via money? No. Does it mean that Harvard has no poor students? No. But it does mean that money is a factor. That's a fact, like it or not. By denying that, you might as well deny that the sky is blue.</p>

<p>But hey, if you really want to take the position that money plays absolutely no role whatsoever in admissions, go right ahead. I think you will get no support from anybody on this board for that position.</p>

<p>I just wanted to say one more thing on this topic. I understand why they recruit athletes. Athletes generally posess the people skills and drive necessary to be successful. Their scores and grades might be slightly lower due to their concentration on their sport, but a person who can have success in both arenas is usually driven. My only point was that sometimes, the standards are bent far enough that you wonder whether the university wants a good team, or successful people. And if they want a good team, why not take their massive endowment and build the best team in the US.</p>