11 ms·
Nearly half of white Harvard students are athletes/children of alumni/donors
- killjoywashere 7y agoTime for unpopular facts: Harvard is more proximate to Europe. Conversely, the UC system favors Asian international students over all others. One could argue Harvard is at least pro-US by comparison. Which is ironic considering they're a private institution, while the UC system is state-funded. What's especially interesting to me is, based on Asian-American population demographics, those who feel most slighted by Harvard are probably on the West Coast.
- apengwin 7y agoRight. By admitting mainly legacies and the old-rich, Harvard is just doing its patriotic duty.
- tathougies 7y agoAccording to UC Berkeley (https://internationaloffice.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/student-stats2018.pdf https://internationaloffice.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files...), in 2018, they had 6569 international students enrolled out of a total of 42,519 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Berkeley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Berk...). This means that 15% of the UC population was international. On the contrary, Harvard admits about 21% international students: https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/harvard-university/student-life/international/ https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/harvard-university/s.... By that metric, UC berkeley is way more pro-America than Harvard, because UC berkeley educates more Americans as a percentage of its class. You should probably attempt to cite facts when making statements.
- csboyer 7y agoToo lazy to break out the stats, but a fair comparison would be international undergrad and grad as opposed to the aggregate. Harvard is actually a large graduate school that happens to teach some undergrads. Berkeley's main purpose is undergrad education.
- fireattack 7y agoHe said UC system, your data is only for UCB. Not saying his opinion is not baseless or wrong, but your rebuttal is flawed as well.
- tathougies 7y agoYou're not wrong. The assumption was that UCB is broadly representative. Looking at the full system data: https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/infocenter/fall-enrollment-glance https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/infocenter/fall-enrol... Given my own knowledge of the UC system, berkeley seems the most international, which is why I thought simply citing berkeley would be enough. But, point taken. Let's look into the system data. The total UC enrollment is 286271. Of this, there are 40219 Non-resident international students, which means there are 14% international students in the UC system as a whole. Thus, my using just berkeley actually shifted the data in my opponent's favor, since -- as I hypothesized -- Berkeley does indeed have more international students as a percentage of enrollment.
- fireattack 7y agoThanks for the data. Campus-wise, my anecdotal observation would be Irvine or Davis has most of international students by percentage, though.
- tathougies 7y agoPerhaps you're right. I haven't visited either in years! When I was there last, UC Irvine had the most ethnic Asian students, but they were mostly Americans. That may have changed.
- sagarm 7y agoAccording to the data gp linked, Irvine and Davis are 16% and 27% white. If you were assuming all non-whites at Irvine or Davis were not American, let this be a teachable moment.
- oarabbus_ 7y ago>Time for unpopular facts: Harvard is more proximate to Europe. Conversely, the UC system favors Asian international students over all others. One could argue Harvard is at least pro-US by comparison. How does favoring Europeans over Asians make it "pro-US"? Neither of those populations are American.
- travisoneill1 7y agoAlso UC doesn't favor Asians. It favors high test scores, as it should.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- knolax 7y agoImagine having a mental model of US demographics so bad that you think all Asian-Americans live on the West coast.
- wolco 7y agoOr couldn't apply in the easteen us because it's too far.
- bedhead 7y agoI'm sure there are plenty of dipshit kids who got admitted based on their family's history and donations to the school. I'm also sure that if a couple people meet at Harvard and have a kid, that kid has a way-better-than-average chance of being really smart - smart enough to get into Harvard anyway. The genetic lottery creates a big self-selection bias here. I'd be interested in seeing more stats that could help illuminate what percent of this group (alum, athletes) are dipshits vs genetic lottery winners who are legitimately worthy.
- waythrowaway99 7y agoguys look I found a eugenicist live and in the wild
- malvosenior 7y agoAs this article states, there are a lot of non-hyper intelligent people at Harvard. My personal experience with the many people I know from that school back up the assertion that many are there for purely non-intelligence or ability related reasons.
- CJefferson 7y agoThese kinds of stats are basically impossible to produce while children of alumni get to skip the queue and get in much more easily. If what you say is true, the problem seems easily fixable -- makes children of alumni enter through the normal channels, and not mention their parents, and if they will get in if they deserve to.
- bedhead 7y agoNo university would ever do that (effectively anonymize applications) because donations would plummet to almost zero. If there are no perks - one of the big ones being your kids have a good chance of being admitted - what's the point?
- CJefferson 7y agoNo US University. This type of thing doesn't happen in the UK (although I will admit, it wouldn't shock me if a few similar things happen on the quiet).
- paulgb 7y agoDirect link to paper: http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf
- abhisuri97 7y agoThis is basically a summary of the Duke paper from a few days ago. See discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21037400 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21037400
- drak0n1c 7y agoGiven the recent data on racial admission percentages [1], it appears that out of all the demographics non-elite non-legacy whites face the hardest time getting into Harvard, due to half of the already below societally-proportionate spots being reserved for legacy admissions. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21130080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21130080
- taurath 7y agoSo... everyone's right. The strata being argued about isn't primarily about race, its economic and social class. We are super good at avoiding this in the US.
- bilbo0s 7y agoI was just about to point out, but I didn't know if people would take it the wrong way, that the number of blacks who are non-rich and non-athlete is vanishingly small. Not only at Harvard, but I'm pretty sure this is the case at most universities. The point being that whether you're white or black, being rich or being an athlete is the best way into Harvard. If you're neither, I think you're pretty much screwed. There really are just way too many intelligent students out there these days, you need something more than just a test score. Just the sad reality nowadays.
- aetherson 7y agoLet's be careful about what we mean by "rich" here. Just being in a top 1% kind of level of wealth isn't enough, you need to be able to make 7+ figure donations.
- bilbo0s 7y agoWell, just going by the article, they defined it as 500 grand a year. Not sure how they got that number, (?), but that's the number they gave. I'm just pointing out that the percentage of whites who are not athletes, and whose parents make less than 500 grand is pretty small. And the percentage of blacks matching that profile is even smaller. And if you really want to see some depressing numbers, factor out the females. That is, count up the number of white males who are not athletes whose parents make less than 500 grand. Or for a real laugh, count up the number of black males who are not athletes whose parents make less than 500 grand. This is just the ugly reality of how our society is currently structured. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that in this society, these sorts of things have a lot to do with money. More to do with money than race even, which is saying something.
- zarro 7y agoI don't get why a private University can't decide who it wants or doesn't want to attend its school regardless of the metrics it chooses. For instance, I don't think that a University doing things like favoring alumni or trying to match demographics to the "national" or "global" demographics is likely to produce highest caliber candidates. What if alumni or Jewish and Asian candidates consistently outperform other candidates, why shouldn't a private school be free to accept more of the candidates it thinks "deserve" it more? If people don't like the policies of institutions that do this, or think they are ineffective, over time other institutions will outcompete/outperform them. Edit - I see that I am being downvoted on this, and I think the response is misguided, as I am not saying I support these propositions. The argument is: Imagine you and a friend have a private tutoring business. You should be able to have the freedom to pick whatever customers you want, your not a slave, your not obligated to provide a service for someone if you don't want to. Over time if there is demand for private tutoring that you and your friend aren't willing to meet, there will be others who will provide that service because there is profit in it.
- angry_octet 7y agoIt would be interesting if they got different diplomas depending on what basis they were admitted. BA(History, Sports), BSc(Chemistry,Donor), MD(Legacy). I'd be happier if the doctors at least we're not legacy advantaged. Of course, legacy might be a determinative factor in life success, but I'd prefer the doctor who got in on academic merit alone.
- oarabbus_ 7y ago>Of course, legacy might be a determinative factor in life success, but I'd prefer the doctor who got in on academic merit alone. I agree with you, but to play devil's advocate: I think it's very possible that the legacy child of two doctors becomes a better doctor than a more academically-talented student.
- purple_ducks 7y ago> I think it's very possible that the legacy child of two doctors becomes a better doctor than a more academically-talented student Mom & Dad doing patient diagnosis & surgery at home to bond with the kids... Sounds more problematic than a software engineer opening up the editor.
- oarabbus_ 7y agoI cannot tell if you're being serious, but I'd doubt the scenario you described is commonplace. Do you think that academic talent implies success in medical practice? It is a necessary but not sufficient condition.
- contravariant 7y agoAlthough that would be admitting that the initial (possibly biased) selection is more important that the actual education.
- angry_octet 7y agoI often felt my university studies were something to overcome rather than a process of education. As in, I taught myself to overcome a series of obstacles.
- haunter 7y agoAs a clueless european why is that a problem if we are talking about a private university? Wouldn't that be more of a problem if it was a public university funded by public (tax) money?
- suyash 7y agoBecause in many respects it's the #1 University in the world where there is intense global competition amongst students to get it and they believe Harvard admission would be determined in a merit based fair manner.
- seibelj 7y agoThere is a large group of obsessed upper-middle class parents that believe you must go to Harvard (or another Ivy League school) to succeed in life. Sadly, the jobs that are most dominated by nepotism and politics (law, government, academic professors of softer subjects) it really does help to go to Harvard or similar and have the brand name. Value-producing industries in the private sector are not exclusively merit-based, but it's much more likely you can go from the bottom to the top by starting a competitive business. And starting a business does not require going to Harvard.
- esoterica 7y agoBut raising $100m from VCs is a lot easier if you did go to Harvard.
- seibelj 7y agoI totally agree, but it is still possible. If you build a $100m revenue per year business starting from nothing, no one can take it away from you in America (currently at least, who knows about the future). Many people have successfully done this. However, I have yet to see anyone become a Supreme Court Justice who went to community college. I believe almost all of them went to Harvard or Yale...
- tathougies 7y ago
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- maehwasu 7y agoSo Harvard makes it overly hard for non-athlete/legacy white kids to get in relative to other groups, while also favoring them when they're from those categories? Speaking as an alum who will never donate or allow his kids to apply there: fuck them.
- Animats 7y agoWow. That seriously devalues a Harvard diploma in hiring decisions. Especially since Harvard is easy once you get in. 97.5% graduation rate. It's not like they're flunking out the losers among the legacy admits. UC Berkeley is around 90%.
- LordFast 7y agoAnd that's the overall number. Berkeley's College of Engineering programs have lower graduation numbers. P.S. It shouldn't be a good thing to brutally weed out students. Facts are facts though.
- uoaei 7y agoIt should be a good thing to weed out bad students. It's not a good thing that there are bad students.
- devnulloverflow 7y agoIt's not about weeding anyone out. Or at least not trying to. An Engineering degree that really teaches stuff will be difficult. And some students will find it is not for them and leave. Preferably early before they have invested too much in it.
- topkai22 7y agoThere are some serious problems with the pathways to engineering majors though. I don't know if it is still the case, but I remember my state school expected calculus pre-calculus in high school as the norm for engineering majors. To get to that level of mathematics in high school you had to progress from to Alegbra II to FST, to pre-calc or calculus, but you were only required by the school system to take up through Alegbra II, which a lot of students got to in 9th grade. That means that you had to decide to be an engineer at age 14 and keep taking math. The reason why students exit engineering programs isn't just the material- it can be a terrible teacher (hello physics professor with a thick accent that would insult their students for being stupid), the culture, or being underprepared for the material with no clear path forward to becoming prepared.
- Arete314159 7y agoI would love to see a lawsuit arguing that any school that takes federal funds can't have legacy admissions.
- Analemma_ 7y agoThat's probably where we're headed. If this isn't already required by law (I'm genuinely unsure), I suspect this would be a rare case where Congress could easily muster bipartisan support to make it so.
- Ericson2314 7y agoOh I wouldn't count on that; I mean if it came to a vote maybe but it wouldn't.
- akvadrako 7y agoLawsuits are not the way to solve this. That would require the judiciary to basically create a new law, which is the job of congress.
- s17n 7y agoIt's pretty amazing to me that we, as a society, are willing to accept legacy admissions. We spend so much time and energy and money trying to make sure that our educational system gives everybody equal opportunity when this one thing matters so much more than eg universal pre-k.
- toasterlovin 7y agoWhat we, as a society, are willing to accept isn't really relevant to Harvard, which is a private institution.
- Analemma_ 7y agoAs tharne mentioned in another comment, this isn't really true. Harvard (like all private universities) gets tons of government funding: directly via grants and indirectly via the federal loans that a lot of its students get. Society therefore arguably gets to have some say in how Harvard does business; if Harvard doesn't like that, it can stop taking federal grant money.
- jlawson 7y agoAdd on to that the massive tax break they get on they endowment's huge investment earnings. Harvard is a hedge fund with a school attached. They should be taxed like one.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- NeoBasilisk 7y agoPrivate institutions are bound by laws that we (society) create.
- GordonS 7y agoAs a non-American, I'm unsure about some of the terminology being used here - what are "legacy admissions"?
- Hasz 7y agoYou want to revitalize rural America AND solve this tricky problem of too many qualified kids, not enough spots? Let's bring a new wave of land grant universities. The feds own like ~90% of Nevada, let's put a top tier research university smack dab in the middle of it. Put up some new facilities, draw faculty away from other top tier universities/the rest of the world, and start pumping all these bright, but otherwise undistinguished kids into a place where they CAN distinguish themselves. All that sweet, sweet federal cash flows in, and you can bet people will set up shop around it. For the feds, it's a cheap investment, but one that has paid for itself a thousand times over. Make it a public bell labs in the desert, then do it across rural America. Huntsville (kind of) did it, why can't we do it again?
- untog 7y agoSorry, you want the government to spend money? No, no, that simply won't do.
- zelon88 7y agoI hear you, but lobbyists will get wind of the money and find a way to divert it into their coffers. "Why should the fed open a school in Nevada when you can just give that money to us (University of Nevada). We promise we'll give x% of the money out in scholarships!" The con continues.....
- humble_engineer 7y agoBut if we invest in research how are we going to give Israel billions of dollars every year?
- kazinator 7y agoSuggested title edit: {athletes|children of {alumni|donors}}.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- rb808 7y agoHarvard is not as a charity designed just to produce the brightest minds. Its a private club for the rich and powerful. Yes they invite a lot of very smart and ambitious people, but educating smart people only part of its core mission. If you don't like it don't apply, stick to one of the regular schools which only take the highest grades.
- humble_engineer 7y agoAnd this mentality is why we've gone to war almost every decade for a century.
- kjgkjhfkjf 7y agoIs it possible that jews, asian-americans, and academic faculty and donors place a greater emphasis on adademic education than other demographics, and raise their children in a way that makes them more likely to be successful in academic settings?
- themoonbus 7y agoSure, its possible that they place "greater emphasis on academic education" etc., but then you have to ask yourself what is the reason behind this. As an Asian American who has had good academic success, my best guess is its socioeconomic. Asians who came to the US in the 70s - 80s often were highly educated, upper middle class, and they had resources to raise their kids towards academic success. They certainly faced some struggles, but were not socially disadvantaged in the way that other minority groups in the US have been. You may not have meant it this way, but your post reads like a racist dog whistle.
- gnicholas 7y ago< The study, published on Sept. 11, concluded that only one-quarter of these students would have received admission had it not been for their advantageous circumstances. I can see legacy status being referred to as an "advantageous circumstance." But being a D1 recruited athlete takes years of dedication and hard work. It isn't some circumstance that someone finds him/herself in.
- segmondy 7y agoyeah, unless you're a fake athlete. how many professional athletes have come out of Harvard?
- gnicholas 7y agoProbably not as many as D1 athletes from schools that are less prestigious/academically rigorous. But that's probably partly because the non-athletic options for Harvard grads are so plentiful. Also, just because they're not all going to the big leagues doesn't mean that they didn't work very, very hard to be attractive recruits for a top D1 school. That was my point, and isn't undercut by the fact that most do not go on to compete professionally.
- JumpCrisscross 7y agoLegacy admissions (i.e. institutionalized nepotism) and institutional advancement (i.e. institutionalized bribery) are anachronistic. Given universities are tax exempt, it seems reasonable to require those wanting to keep these programs pay taxes on their businesses and endowments.
- mnm1 7y agoSo the system is working exactly as intended. The question is why do certain companies value students from schools like Harvard and Yale when they know many of those students are fairly average or even stupid? Clearly, it's not about achievement but about lineage and social connections.