
Nearly half of white Harvard students are athletes/children of alumni/donors - gist
https://www.thedp.com/article/2019/09/penn-upenn-philadelphia-harvard-admissions-legacy-athletes
======
Hasz
You 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?

~~~
fzeroracer
What about the bright kids that can't afford to move away?

What about the crumbling infrastructure in those rural areas which falls apart
if you made any attempt to move people out there?

Or what do you do about the poor rural folk you displace through what is
essentially extremely sudden government gentrification?

Honestly we have plenty of universities, many of which are not Harvard but
still have incredible professors and bright students. Instead of building
universities in the middle of nowhere, we should take that money to make
higher education (whether it's trade or not) free and help fund people move to
those universities. This is a far quicker solution than hoping to fix the
problem 20-30 years from now when we need a solution today.

~~~
autoexec
> Instead of building universities in the middle of nowhere, we should take
> that money to make higher education (whether it's trade or not) free and
> help fund people move to those universities.

Do we even need people to move to physical buildings? If we improve our
internet infrastructure we can offer 24/7 education to everyone anywhere in
the country. The idea of forcing students to move to a specific place and
attend classes at a specific time every day seems somewhat dated.

~~~
csa
> Do we even need people to move to physical buildings? If we improve our
> internet infrastructure we can offer 24/7 education to everyone anywhere in
> the country. The idea of forcing students to move to a specific place and
> attend classes at a specific time every day seems somewhat dated.

Lambda School would like to say hello.

(no affiliation... just a fan)

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
As would Western Governors University(alumnus here).

------
drak0n1c
Given 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
So... 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
I 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.

~~~
rtkwe
It's a natural outcome of the limited space I think.

Given loads of plain smart people and limited ability to measure the
difference between them what measures can you use? Extra curricular activities
seem like a decent measure simply because they take up time so all other
things being equal the student who had a time consuming extra curricular
activity was probably either a) better at time management, b) harder working,
or c) smarter and able to complete the same work in a shorter amount of time.

~~~
taurath
Or extra curriculars mean you were rich, or at least your parents were enough
to afford you doing other things.

~~~
rtkwe
That really depends on the extra curricular though. There's plenty that aren't
expensive at all: Scouting, (most) sports, and volunteering. Those all demand
mostly time commitments with small outlays for relatively cheap equipment.

------
Animats
Wow. 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
And 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.

~~~
devnulloverflow
It'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
There 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.

~~~
vonmoltke
> 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

What's FST?

In my district, students were required to go through Algebra II and Geometry.
We were also required to take three years of math. As a result, kids who took
Algebra I in middle School went Algebra II->Geometry->Precal, while those who
didn't went Algebra I-> Algebra II->Geometry. One group had the requirements
by default, and the other didn't need to decide until senior year.

~~~
topkai22
FST was functions statistics and trig. Might not be a thing anymore.

We required 3 years of high school math, but if you did algebra in 7th grade
it counted toward the requirement. A lot of higher tracked kids were done with
thier math requirement by the end of 9th grade as a result.

~~~
vonmoltke
Oh, in my district (at the time) you had to take three math classes _in high
school_ , regardless of what level you were at.

------
s17n
It'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.

~~~
GordonS
As a non-American, I'm unsure about some of the terminology being used here -
what are "legacy admissions"?

~~~
spats1990
The descendants of alumni:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences)

~~~
GordonS
Wow, it boggles my mind that would be accepted nowadays?!

------
haunter
As 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?

~~~
seibelj
There 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
But raising $100m from VCs is a lot easier if you did go to Harvard.

~~~
seibelj
I 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
> a Supreme Court Justice who went to community college

To be fair, you cannot become an attorney just going to community college. You
need a graduate degree. Graduate school admissions do not have the legacy
admissions preference that undergrad does. While true that all current SC
judges went to Harvard or Yale, they did not necessarily go for undergrad. For
example, Clarence Thomas went to Conception Abbey Seminary for undergrad,
which is a little-known school in Kansas.

~~~
seibelj
IMO I should not have to go to any college to become an attorney. California
does not require attending law school to take the bar exam and become a
licensed attorney. The law is written on paper, case law is produced by the
courts, and the techniques for comprehending and using law are not rocket
science and can be self-taught using books.

Expecting that only top-tier colleges can train good lawyers is elitist
nonsense, just more gate keeping by the upper class.

~~~
tathougies
I actually agree with you! Most cases should be able to be settled in court
just by the two parties at odds. If the law is too complicated so as not to
allow that, the law is what needs to change, not the individuals seeking
redress.

------
maehwasu
So 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.

------
abhisuri97
This 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)

------
bedhead
I'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.

~~~
CJefferson
These 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
No 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
No 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
Direct link to paper:
[http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf](http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf)

------
angry_octet
It 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_
>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
> 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_
I 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.

------
gnicholas
< _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
yeah, unless you're a fake athlete. how many professional athletes have come
out of Harvard?

~~~
gnicholas
Probably 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.

------
mnm1
So 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.

------
Arete314159
I would love to see a lawsuit arguing that any school that takes federal funds
can't have legacy admissions.

~~~
Analemma_
That'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
Oh I wouldn't count on that; I mean if it came to a vote maybe but it
wouldn't.

------
JumpCrisscross
Legacy 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.

------
rb808
Harvard 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.

------
kjgkjhfkjf
Is 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
Sure, 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.

------
kazinator
Suggested title edit: {athletes|children of {alumni|donors}}.

------
killjoywashere
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. 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.

~~~
tathougies
According to UC Berkeley
([https://internationaloffice.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files...](https://internationaloffice.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/student-
stats2018.pdf)), in 2018, they had 6569 international students enrolled out of
a total of 42,519
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Berk...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Berkeley)).

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/s...](https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/harvard-
university/student-life/international/).

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.

~~~
fireattack
He 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
You're not wrong. The assumption was that UCB is broadly representative.
Looking at the full system data:
[https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/infocenter/fall-
enrol...](https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/infocenter/fall-enrollment-
glance)

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
Thanks for the data.

Campus-wise, my anecdotal observation would be Irvine or Davis has most of
international students by percentage, though.

~~~
sagarm
According 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.

