Those aren't very good caveats, imo. > * It's partly about where your kids graduated valedictorian with perfect GPAs, etc. I was considered "gifted" in my dist

Those aren't very good caveats, imo. > * It's partly about where your kids graduated valedictorian with perfect GPAs, etc. I was considered "gifted" in my district, but I would be below average in the greater scheme of things. One of the biggest factors for success is zip code; that needs changing too. And in any case, if you can graduate valedictorian in a shitty school in a shitty neighborhood, that's a big achievement nonetheless. Ivy League schools would be well served taking those students in, and not just for reasons of basic fairness. > Top 99% of SAT is nothing. I read somewhere that 60% of Ivy applicants have perfect scores. The difference between 99% and perfect has little to do with ability, and everything to do with the ability to spend time/money hacking a metric beyond reason. > * It depends on the major they intend to pursue. If it's a popular one, there would be many fewer open slots. That doesn't actually follow. If it's a popular major, then there ought to be more slots made available for students. It's not like Harvard doesn't have the money to make that happen. ... We may disagree on these, but I also agree that legacy and nepotism is a major problem, and that there are better schools, from an academic / learning standpoint.