<p>I just finished reading this book and Wow, what an eye opener.
I mean I knew about some of those things, but to have it laid out for you on paper - really incredible and scary. Don't know what to think about some of the things???
Legacy preference in face of huge tax breaks and federal donations? Faculty not paying taxes on the free tuition? The "Z" list? Those were all big eye openers for me.
And after finishing the book I really like Caltech :)</p>
<p>I am looking at my kid who will be most likely trying out for some of the big names, and can't help but worry about it. One of the basic ideas I took out of the book - no matter how good of a student you are, if you need financial aid there will probably be people admitted over you, with less stellar stats but no need for aid. </p>
<p>Yes read it several years ago. Nothing shocked me, really. The mission and culture of private schools is different than public. The legacy handling was really not a surprise. Of course, hundreds of years of tradition don’t disappear and the marketing and public relations of some of these students far outweigh the trade-off of slightly lower stats. I highly doubt they admit anyone they think will fail, struggle maybe, but fail, no. Full pay students will always be needed by private schools so if you have a handful of students that can pay and a handful that cannot and they will all be successful, you take anymany need students you can and the rest pay. I really wasn’t shocked my much in the book.</p>
<p>I was shocked by the disparity in stats between some of the alumni/development admits and regular folks. We are not talking about 30 points on the SAT…</p>
<p>The concept of meritocracy can have many, many interpretations. Surely students with legacy have “merit” in that there is a family tradition. There is ‘merit’ to the business aspect of the college to have a percentage of full page students. When colleges began “scounting” beyond their regional boudaries it was thought that looking for diversity of student body held merit. Somehow meritocratic has been convoluted to mean “kids with the highest statistical scores” when in fact the concept of merit can have many interpretations to the person determining merit.</p>
<p>I read the book as well. I think it was very informative and eye-opening. I did not realize how big a part legacy played in the admissions process.The book does seem to imply that if you can make a “donation” to the school in your son’s or daughter’s sophmore or junior year, they have a better chance of being considered at the elite colleges. Sadly, it all comes down to money or connections. This is often true in business as well. BTW, if we went purely by meritocracy than most of the IVY’s students would be Asian or Indian. I think you need to work to achieve a balance of gender and ethnicity based on the present mix in the environment in which you live. ie in the USA. However, I don’t think bending the rules to an extreme in order to achieve this mix is correct either.</p>
<p>This book and the stories that preceded it in the journal were a shocker for me, even as someone who had worked in admissions years ago. It totally changed how we approached the process.</p>
<p>Well, I don’t know if all students would be of Asian or Indian decent.
I have no problem with legacy admits in the following situation:
Candidate A has 4.0, challenging curriculum, SAT 1500, no legacy.
Candidate B has 4.0, challenging curriculum, SAT 1500, legacy.
In this scenario I can understand why Candidate B was admitted and Candidate A was denied. However, if the Candidate A was a first generation college student, in my view of meritocracy, a higher learning institution should admit A over B.
Like I have said before, I knew about it but never, never thought that the difference between the two kids could be so HUGE and and legacy was still the one to be admitted, and that there are ways to admit legacy so people would not see it/complain about it.
Common, is it USA or the old British system? (BTW, Oxford and Cambridge have abolished legacy preference)</p>
<p>There is a difference between legacy admits and developmental admits, though there is considerable overlap. Admitting on the basis of large donations is not a bad thing if it allows a good FA program for students who would not otherwise be able to attend.</p>
<p>The private elite schools now are very, very different than 30-40 years ago and more. There is far greater diversity of students, ethnic and financial, and I would hazard a guess that their current enrollment practices have actually elevated the ‘stats.’ They still admit a chunk of legacy students, the glitterati, a whole bunch of fin aid kids and they have managed to do all that and still maintain somewhat of an aura, for the most part keep alumni loyalty and deliver a decent education. The legacy kids that don’t make the cut move to other schools and supposedly establish new family ties and the kids that aren’t legacy supposedly go on in the world and make new trends. Like it or not, it’s not too shabby on the whole.</p>
<p>“This book and the stories that preceded it in the journal were a shocker for me, even as someone who had worked in admissions years ago. It totally changed how we approached the process.”</p>
<p>Hmom2 - do you mind describing generally how it changed the way you approached the admissions process?</p>
<p>After watching two very high stats kids follow their hearts with not great results we hired a private counselor who knew how to play the game. Third child had much better results.</p>
<p>Well if in your view meritocracy is based just on stats - and doesn’t takes one’s ability to pay into account, a school (with a few rare exceptions due to huge endowments) following your ideals will not be financially viable for long</p>
<p>I think the important thing to understand is that it’s simply not a meritocracy, and what’s in vogue at top colleges changes over time.</p>
<p>Years ago the idea was that if your kid could go to an elite high school he was pretty much assured admission to a top college. Today an elite high school can be a liability. A few years ago colleges didn’t care about middle class representation, now a few do. First generation was a little uttered term in admissions offices a couple of decades ago, now they represent double digits at all ivies. </p>
<p>What’s next? Who knows? But what this book makes clear is that this is anything but a meritocracy.</p>
<p>hmom5, what did the private counselor do that produced better results? I mean, just generally speaking. My kids are both in college, no more kids in the wings… so I’m just asking for my general enlightenment, not out of self-interest.</p>
<p>Did the private counselor help develop a better list of targeted schools, or offer advice on how to present oneself in the application? Or did they get in on the process sooner and have some productive advice about high school course selection or test prep or ECs? Or was it something else?</p>
<p>Just saw first hand that the book’s premise is true. We all know that for the most part Ivies don’t have early decision. Friend’s D is a superb athlete in a varsity sport Harvard wants to cultivate. Last month she made her interest in Harvard known by contacting the coach there. She was immediately offered an on-campus interview, an overnight with a current student, and an extensive tour of campus and athletic facilities with prospective coaches. In her on-campus interview she was told that if she said yes she would be in, even though she hadn’t submitted her app yet. She was told that she should get her app in asap and they would give her a formal/informal answer within two weeks. Remember now, it’s not even Thanksgiving yet!</p>
<p>Now, to be fair to Harvard, this young lady is as good a student as she is an athlete. Her scores, grades and academic profile are up to Harvard standards. She does not represent a dip in the curve to admit an athlete. But one of the book’s premises is that, in choosing between equally qualified prospective admittees, the athlete/legacy/prospective major donor gets priority. Such is the case here - Harvard is giving uber-early admission to an athlete who is otherwise quite qualified. </p>
<p>And I couldn’t be happier for the young lady. She has worked incredibly hard to reach the top of her field in athletics and academics. While her friends and peers were balancing social and partying needs in their lives, she was steadfastly focused. She earned this and will be a credit to Harvard.</p>