4 ms·

The big takeaway I have from reading this thread is how many people think of the top Ivies as rich kid schools where most students are paying exorbitant amounts

The big takeaway I have from reading this thread is how many people think of the top Ivies as rich kid schools where most students are paying exorbitant amounts of money to attend. Probably a stereotype perpetuated by movies and TV shows... There are certainly a lot of upper middle class students at Harvard (55% are getting aid and it's vaguely implied the cutoff for aid is around 200k, so around half of families make more than that), but that's not because poorer families can't afford to go to Harvard, it's a more systemic issue with wealthier families having more time and money to invest in their kids' education - good schools and neighborhoods, time for clubs and competitions, money for tutors and pricier extracurriculars, etc.

treis 6y ago
> top Ivies as rich kid schools They're definitely that as well. Everyone that gets into Harvard is very talented, but the general groups of differentiation on top of that I see is: (1) Rich kids who's parents can buy them opportunity, bribe the school with donations, and legacies. (2) White/Asians from modest backgrounds that are "holy shit" levels of exceptional. (3) Other minorities that are exceptional but more on the level of being a really good student. Harvard and the other ivies aren't exactly transparent so I don't really know how accurate my perception is but that's what it seems like to me.
- rococode 6y ago
  Fair enough, that breakdown sounds about right to me. Though it's important to note that "rich kids" here means really super rich. I recall once hearing some admissions person half-jokingly say that they don't even notice donations under $10m. Which kind of raises the question, if the kid's family is contributing that much to the school, and part of the value for regular folks going to these schools is the opportunity to network with people with exceptional backgrounds, perhaps the occasional "my mom paid for this building" or "my dad is a world leader" student is OK?
  - somethoughts 6y ago
    Yes using those numbers, Harvard legacy admissions is basically a "Buy One Give One Hundred" concept similar to Tom's Shoes concept of "Buy One Give One"[1] but applied to experiential goods. With a $10M donation and tuition at ~$100,000, the super donor is essentially buying 1 admission for their student and giving 100 students free admission. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/beyond-buy-one-give-one-retail https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/beyond-buy-one-g...
  - treis 6y ago
    Maybe we should just go back to divine right kings and cut out Harvard as the middleman. Seriously, though, it is a complicated problem. Elites are going to get a leg up in any system. It's just a bad look when you're giving one group advantages because they are supposedly disadvantaged while also giving a leg up to the super privileged.
    - PeterisP 6y ago
      It's worth noting that this is not a case of "elites" taking out an unfairly large share out of a communal resource, it's the case of the elites choosing how much of their private resource they want to share with the rest of the society. It (e.g. Harvard) does not belong to all citizens/taxpayers, it belongs to the elites, and they can get as much 'leg up' as they choose. It would be perfectly cromulent for Harvard to choose to admit only legacy students, and it could be a reasonable choice for them to set the tuition fee to a million dollars per year, with no scholarships whatsoever, and admit only rich students. They're not part of a government-funded education system with a goal of educating the whole society, they are a private school who can educate whomever they want - they can go back to teaching only Puritan clergy as they once did, if they so wish. In essence, all the (quite welcoming!) financial aid and scholarships they're offering for talented students is freely given charity, funded by the fees of the rich students and gifts of alumni - and here we are complaining that they're not doing enough charity and not doing it in the right direction, forgetting that they might as well stop doing it at all if they wish. They are essentially controlled by their alumni, who elect the overseers, so if the alumni collectively decide that it's good to invite talented-but-not-rich students with scholarships, because they believe it's best for their school and the children of alumni who also will be joining the school as legacy admissions, then that's their right to choose so. It's "their club" and they get to choose which non-super-privileged (if any!) they want to invite to their club. This is in deep contrast with most other countries, where the elite universities tend to be funded and run by the government, who then gets to set policy to achieve relevant social goals, but in USA the top universities are private and their policy is controlled by the super privileged, not anyone whom the general public can elect.

treis 6y ago

> top Ivies as rich kid schools They're definitely that as well. Everyone that gets into Harvard is very talented, but the general groups of differentiation on top of that I see is: (1) Rich kids who's parents can buy them opportunity, bribe the school with donations, and legacies. (2) White/Asians from modest backgrounds that are "holy shit" levels of exceptional. (3) Other minorities that are exceptional but more on the level of being a really good student. Harvard and the other ivies aren't exactly transparent so I don't really know how accurate my perception is but that's what it seems like to me.

rococode 6y ago
Fair enough, that breakdown sounds about right to me. Though it's important to note that "rich kids" here means really super rich. I recall once hearing some admissions person half-jokingly say that they don't even notice donations under $10m. Which kind of raises the question, if the kid's family is contributing that much to the school, and part of the value for regular folks going to these schools is the opportunity to network with people with exceptional backgrounds, perhaps the occasional "my mom paid for this building" or "my dad is a world leader" student is OK?
- somethoughts 6y ago
  Yes using those numbers, Harvard legacy admissions is basically a "Buy One Give One Hundred" concept similar to Tom's Shoes concept of "Buy One Give One"[1] but applied to experiential goods. With a $10M donation and tuition at ~$100,000, the super donor is essentially buying 1 admission for their student and giving 100 students free admission. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/beyond-buy-one-give-one-retail https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/beyond-buy-one-g...
- treis 6y ago
  Maybe we should just go back to divine right kings and cut out Harvard as the middleman. Seriously, though, it is a complicated problem. Elites are going to get a leg up in any system. It's just a bad look when you're giving one group advantages because they are supposedly disadvantaged while also giving a leg up to the super privileged.
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    It's worth noting that this is not a case of "elites" taking out an unfairly large share out of a communal resource, it's the case of the elites choosing how much of their private resource they want to share with the rest of the society. It (e.g. Harvard) does not belong to all citizens/taxpayers, it belongs to the elites, and they can get as much 'leg up' as they choose. It would be perfectly cromulent for Harvard to choose to admit only legacy students, and it could be a reasonable choice for them to set the tuition fee to a million dollars per year, with no scholarships whatsoever, and admit only rich students. They're not part of a government-funded education system with a goal of educating the whole society, they are a private school who can educate whomever they want - they can go back to teaching only Puritan clergy as they once did, if they so wish. In essence, all the (quite welcoming!) financial aid and scholarships they're offering for talented students is freely given charity, funded by the fees of the rich students and gifts of alumni - and here we are complaining that they're not doing enough charity and not doing it in the right direction, forgetting that they might as well stop doing it at all if they wish. They are essentially controlled by their alumni, who elect the overseers, so if the alumni collectively decide that it's good to invite talented-but-not-rich students with scholarships, because they believe it's best for their school and the children of alumni who also will be joining the school as legacy admissions, then that's their right to choose so. It's "their club" and they get to choose which non-super-privileged (if any!) they want to invite to their club. This is in deep contrast with most other countries, where the elite universities tend to be funded and run by the government, who then gets to set policy to achieve relevant social goals, but in USA the top universities are private and their policy is controlled by the super privileged, not anyone whom the general public can elect.