<p>
</p>
<p>Meritocracy is supposed to ba based on merit/stats/achievement. Other systems, that should have nothing to do with education are plutocracy, oligarchy, cronyism and democracy.</p>
<p>The public education system is probably more closely aligned with your concept of meritocracy and would be a very viable path to pursue simultaneous to the private education path with a stats strong student.</p>
<p>
I would just like to point out that this example does not prove that Harvard isn’t a “meritocracy.” It just suggests that academic stats are not the only kind of merit Harvard looks for. The elite schools look for other kinds of achievements, such as in the arts, as well. This is not to say that they don’t also look at qualities that have little if anything to do with the applicant’s personal merit, but they are still much more of a meritocracy, broadly understood, than people looking only at SAT scores might think.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whether you personally think that democracy should have anything to do with education or not is beside the question. In this country it has very much to do with education. Democratic and educational goals are intertwined. One purpose of education is to enable full participation in all aspects of governance, not just the right to vote and the practice of voting. A participatory democracy is one of the underpinnings of college mission statements and definitely is an element in the rationale for AA.</p>
<p>There are many examples of merit based entrance hurdles that have determining factors that are soft. Private education is only one. Publically administered systems have typically tried to align more hard-line statistical measurements e.g. think of the govenment jobs application, etc. But even then, in the example of govenment jobs, one still gets “bonus points” for being a vet, etc.</p>
<p>Interesting thread. I realized, in reading it, I have more of a discomfort with colleges moving away from academic merit alone when it’s self-serving to the institution and not improving the educational experience of the student body itself. </p>
<p>So for example, I have more discomfort about big donors that are essentially bribing the institution than say legacy admits where its also, but more indirectly, about financial donations, followed by recruited athletes, but no problem with diversity admits. At one end its about $$, at the other end its about student body experience. </p>
<p>And of course it’s one thing to have these non-academic factors play a slight tipping role vs. a role equal or bigger than the academic factors. The recruited athlete, rich student, or legacy that could probably have gotten in anyway if the coin flipped the right way is completely uninteresting.</p>
<p>As far as private universities go, we should all keep in mind the first Amendment to the Constitution’s freedom of association clause. “Merit” this and “merit” that can mean whatever a freeley associated group of people want it to mean. If they want to admit legacies because they are more likely to financially support the schoo, they are free to do that. If they want to “punish” a high school senior in the admissions process because her parents went to college and “reward” another high schooler who will be his family’s first to go to college, so be it. It doesn’t seem fair to punich a kid for what his mom or dad did or didn’t do either way, but the prvate schols are free to build their community anyway they want to. If a school wants to practice racial bias in favor of “under represented racial minorities” and against Asians, they are acting upon their values. public universities should not be allowed to do that, however.</p>
<p>If you want to to change the tax laws, so each college comunity has to be contructed according tot he values of politicians who write the tax laws, go ahead - call your congressman. Good luck with that.</p>
<p>The top colleges are lot more like meritocracies today than they were 50, 60 years ago, when all one had to do was go to the right prep school to get accepted. You could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of minority, lower-socioeconomic, first-generation students on campus who got in solely based on academic merit.</p>
<p>laxtaxi, what you are describing is the athletic recruiting practice done by all the Ivies. It’s a very prescribed process, which results in a likely letter in October. Other conferences have similar rules and practices for recruiting.</p>
<p>I totally agree with momofthreeboys post, number 8. Well put. Merit, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.</p>
<p>As for legacy admits – different schools have different policies. Some schools will accept legacies with lower stats over higher stat kids. But at many of the top schools, Ivies included, it is no longer the case that a legacy will be accepted with weaknesses in their application (unless huge sums of money are involved).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In our case it was helping us successfully ‘position’ kids in a very competitive pool in a way that differentiated them from their peers with similar backgrounds and transcripts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would argue that these donors have great impact on the student experience. The money they bring speaks for itself, but these development admits often also bring great connections that provide important speakers, access to internships and jobs, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. Take the Rockefeller donations to Harvard. David Rockefeller donated $25 million to fund Latin American studies–this includes opportunities for students to study in Latin America as well as endowed chairs and programs. He also provided $10 millions for scholarships for students to study abroad (anywhere). This benefits students from every single income bracket, but arguably the less privileged the most, since without such funds, they would not be able to study abroad.
Even public institutions benefit greatly from individual donors. The number of donors’ kids who are admitted to Harvard is very small as the donation must be very large in order for that to be a factor. And the kid must be a reasonable admit on academic grounds.
At many colleges, legacy status has become a tip rather than a hook. </p>
<p>Faculty children are advantaged at most universities, but there is a huge range of discounts. When H was in grad school, he learned that his department had made an offer to a prof at another institution. The prof did not accept the offer. The sticking point was children’s tuition. Harvard offered interest-free loans for each child, but the prof’s current university offered free tuition room and board for every child! The prof had ten children. Some universities offer a free place to facbrats, some give the fac brats a hook, some offer a lump sum for each facbrat but not the entire tuition.</p>
<p>In spite of all the legacy, development, athletic admits, etc., Harvard still seems to have a pretty impressive student body based on ‘stats’ alone. </p>
<p>The 2007/8 Common Data Set shows the following middle 50 percentile for SAT scores:</p>
<p>CR 700/800
Math 700/790
Writing 690/790</p>
<p>The top 25% of the class at Harvard is roughly at the top 1% of all test takers in these three areas. The top 75% are within roughly the top 5% of all test takers.</p>
<p>Compare this to Caltech, which presumbably doesn’t have (at least) athletic admits:</p>
<p>CR 700/780
Math 770/800
Writing 680/770</p>
<p>Not that much difference, except for math, but that is to be expected given the focus of that particular school. </p>
<p>I’d say that admissions into Harvard for the most part is based on merit, where merit is defined (at least) as having high standardized test scores. I do realize that there are students in that lower 25% who are probably admitted because of athletics, legacy status etc., and that these students were admitted over others that had higher standardized test scores, but overall, most of the accepted students are pretty high achievers academically.</p>
<p>Most at Harvard are indeed qualified. But the issue is tons of equally/more qualified kids were rejected because they don’t have hooks. Legacies are qualified, but the majority would not have gotten in without that tag on their folder. </p>
<p>Private colleges can take anyone they want but it’s important to understand that the unhooked kid with the average stats really doesn’t have a chance in h***, whereas he would at Caltech.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it’s important not to overstate the importance of legacy status at uber-competitive schools. I read the Price of Admission several years ago, but if I recall correctly, the author’s example of a college where legacy provides a genuine hook was Notre Dame. At HYP, legacy status is no longer anything approaching a hook. At best, it’s a very weak tip factor. (Harvard’s Z-list is an exception.) Legacies are admitted not because they are legacies, but because as the children of HYP graduates, they have had the encouragement and opportunities needed to secure a spot at these schools, and they have taken full advantage of those opportunities. </p>
<p>Now, legacy status coupled with the kind of money that can fund a scholarship program or build a new library – that’s a different animal.</p>
<p>Any way you slice it, legacies get in at over twice the rate of non legacies at every ivy and as high as triple the rate (Princeton). Some schools admit to legacies having ‘slightly’ lower stats. There is no doubt in my mind it’s more that a small tip. They need the stats, but not the 75th percentile and the extreme ECs the unhooked do.</p>
<p>What no longer happens is what did a couple of decades ago–you needed a reason to reject a legacy. It’s no auto admit as many think, but it’s a hook IMO.</p>
<p>How do we know that more qualified applicants get rejected in favor of legacies?
I have no problem with uber-selective schools rejecting equally qualified applicants in favor of legacies. The fact is that those colleges receive more applications from excellent students than they can admit. This is why non-academic criteria come into play. Legacy status is only one of them. And, as others have pointed out, it is by no means clear that legacy status is the one reason a student got into HYPS. Many of the HYPS admits are admitted at several colleges among HYPS, including those where they do not enjoy legacy status or other hooks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think there are many adcom on the record telling us they do.</p>
<p>All this is so disheartening, especially from a school like mine who never sends anyone anywhere good. My school and my family have no connections. great…</p>
<p>hmom5: Can you please quote at least one?</p>
<p>The number of people of modest background who have attended elite college has exploded over the last 2-3 decades. As a result, legacy status has diminished in importance. As Mini used to say, just in time for Asians and African-Americans to have college-age children of their own.</p>
<p>Rocket6louise: there are plenty of students at HYPS who are first-generation college goers, and the first at their school to be admitted to HYPS. Indeed, a few of my S’s blockmates at Harvard fell into that category. Don’t be disheartened. Keep in mind, however, that Harvard admitted only 7 or 8% of applicants last year. Among the rejects were many, many legacies, I suspect. And among the admits were some who were from small schools. Just keep up the good work, and know that there are plenty of great schools besides the uber-selective.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Michele Hernandez, nationally known private college admissions consultant located in Vermont. Author of the book A is Admissions: The Insider’s Guide to Getting into the Ivy League and Other Top Colleges and former admissions officer at Dartmouth College</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe the problem is the definitions of “qualified” and “more qualified”. Is a student with 2380 on SAT more qualified then one with 2280? I don’t think so - both will probably be equally capable of doing the work at any college, including HYPSM. Both will have to show more than the numbers in order to stand out. And one might be accepted over the other for a variety of reasons. The school is building a class, and in that context some students may get luckier than others.</p>
<p>Plenty of “normal” kids get into HYPSM every year. Many more are rejected. With admission rate around 10% that is to be expected.</p>