4 ms·
What I'm trying to say is that Harvard has a selection process in place, for which thousands of people per year count as "qualified", and I don't think there's
by defen 7y ago
What I'm trying to say is that Harvard has a selection process in place, for which thousands of people per year count as "qualified", and I don't think there's a strong reason to believe that the admitted students are in any way "better" than the qualified-but-not-admitted students. However, getting that Harvard stamp of approval (which really comes down to luck, if you're qualified) opens a ton of doors, in terms of network, "brand", etc.
One big difference between Harvard and OPs NBA example is that Harvard gains prestige from its alums, for things they do years or decades after their affiliation with the institution.
- dwoozle 7y ago> I don't think there's a strong reason to believe that the admitted students are in any way "better" than the qualified-but-not-admitted students On what basis do you think that? What data or reasoning suggests that the people Harvard almost admits would produce equal (fame, donations, other currency) to the university as those who are actually admitted?
- defen 7y agoNo concrete evidence, just my opinion based on personal experience. I attended Princeton as a lower middle class white, non-athlete, non-legacy admit. Most of the undergrads aren't particularly intellectually impressive - you'll find way smarter and more intellectually curious people in Silicon Valley. The Ivies have a baseline level of intelligence you need to hit, which isn't extraordinarily high, but after that they're selecting based on conscientiousness, willingness to work hard, athletic ability, parental resources, and luck. See https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/04/the-organization-kid/302164/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/04/the-org...