CNN Special Report: Scheme and Scandal

[OCanada]

My nephew was rejected by Harvard. His dad is a Harvard PhD. He called admissions and asked why. The reply was they already had 8 kids from a smallish HS in a smallish town. He went elsewhere and has done very well nonetheless.

My sister was VP of Finance at a large public university and had the challenge of working with a couple of multi billionaires, one of whom is a household name. At times it was one of the more challenging parts of her job along with the state legislature

[MDlaxfan76]

Does Fareed provide test scores and HS GPAs for those suspected of receiving advantageous preference? What about their respective schools’ admissions standards and scholarship criteria?

No, the CNN special was broad brush, covering a lot of topics in the hour, interspersed with lots of commercials.

The topics are worthy of greater analysis, and there are indeed substantive issues with which to be concerned, but the loose critique is less helpful, and I'd suggest inaccurately conflate.

I think the much more fundamental issues about our growing economic divide both here and in the world are not really explained by the make-up of our most 'elite' higher educational institutions.

First, it's not as if motivated (prepared) students don't have substantial other opportunities to distinguish themselves academically, and more importantly in their careers.

Second, the real educational opportunity issue is far more about the disparity much earlier in the process, pre-school, elementary, middle, and HS. Our funding of public education by local real estate taxes is, IMO, probably the biggest factor, given the challenge of legacy redlining, discrimination, and economic ghettoization.

Private schools have been one response by parents with means to provide maximal opportunities for their children, and these indeed were long bastions of opportunity friction, however most of the best of these have made concerted efforts to broaden their 'community' to support the brightest from low socio-economic means, racial diversity, etc. Just as have the most 'elite' colleges. Is it enough? No. But they are not the primary driver of inequality.

The issue is less these schools, than the failures of some parts of our public system. For instance, there is no question that children who live in trauma zones, with family issues, with violence as a daily reality, face tremendous challenges in learning. These situations require hugely more support in order to actually provide equitable 'opportunity' relative to children from stable, non-violent, economically comfortable families.

While those areas are the most challenging, it's also very important to recognize that very wealthy communities typically enjoy very strong public schools, very well funded both through taxes and parental and alumni involvement. They are akin to the best private schools in this regard. But the vast middle do not enjoy the incremental parental support, nor the tax base.

[MDlaxfan76]

I am not sure I agree with the elite school statement. A study of Harvard I read not long ago woukd seem to show that a significant number of admits have preexisting ties to alums and wealth.

Yes they do, as does my alma mater Dartmouth. True of all the Ivies.
My sense is that Harvard weighs wealth (massive gifts) more than does Dartmouth, but that could just be my Big Green bias.

However, the Ivies each turn away a surprisingly large # and % of legacy applicants each year. I'm not in any way refuting the core critique that legacy preference does advantage the predominant demographic of their parents, and for them their parents. However, folks are often surprised by how hard it remains for legacies to achieve admittance. Whole lot of alums are disappointed each year to learn that their kid is not going to be admitted despite being a solid citizen, solid student, multi-sport athlete (but not at recruitment level), etc. In a prior era that profile, these alums know, would have gained admittance. But not now. Now there needs to be at least some demonstrated significant passion and/or area of real excellence. Else, the next point, large scale gifts.

And, yes, there's also a very disturbing overlap with wealth, particularly huge wealth.

Having been involved in school economics a bit at both HS and college levels, it's indeed a factor in how schools try to achieve a balance that enables them to build the sorts of endowments that allow them to provide high levels of scholarship aid and to attract the best faculties. Money matters. I don't envy those trying to find that balance.

So, I totally support efforts to give preference to those from real socioeconomic and family disadvantage, the notion that 'grit' may well be more important in the long run than HS academic performance.

But the point is that there's much more complexity than perhaps meets the eye.

A legacy goalie was turned away from an Ivy and ended up at another school and is an AA. Grandfather a big benefactor and family is prominent...nationally. Grandfather still smarting about it...... But it has worked out for the player nevertheless.

Yup. If you don't get that 'recruiting slot', and don't otherwise check a box for a 'passion' or special 'excellence', just having a big donor in the family can fall short.

Sounds like the coach may have chosen the wrong guy? or did the other kid do great too?
Glad it worked out for the kid.

Much more troubling is when there's some appearance that the slot given, or even the playing time given, is influenced by the magnitude of a family check to the program...not far from the outright bribes of the Scandal.

It seems a bit shocking to those of us who have played on Ivy teams or had sons or daughters go through this process, as we tend to assume that coaches are motivated to actually deliver wins by putting the best team on the field, but I can say with some assurance that I've seen such preference happen. It's ugly, and may even not be more than subconscious but it does happen. Sounds like it was flat out bribe at Yale soccer.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I am not sure I agree with the elite school statement. A study of Harvard I read not long ago woukd seem to show that a significant number of admits have preexisting ties to alums and wealth.

Yes they do, as does my alma mater Dartmouth. True of all the Ivies.
My sense is that Harvard weighs wealth (massive gifts) more than does Dartmouth, but that could just be my Big Green bias.

However, the Ivies each turn away a surprisingly large # and % of legacy applicants each year. I'm not in any way refuting the core critique that legacy preference does advantage the predominant demographic of their parents, and for them their parents. However, folks are often surprised by how hard it remains for legacies to achieve admittance. Whole lot of alums are disappointed each year to learn that their kid is not going to be admitted despite being a solid citizen, solid student, multi-sport athlete (but not at recruitment level), etc. In a prior era that profile, these alums know, would have gained admittance. But not now. Now there needs to be at least some demonstrated significant passion and/or area of real excellence. Else, the next point, large scale gifts.

And, yes, there's also a very disturbing overlap with wealth, particularly huge wealth.

Having been involved in school economics a bit at both HS and college levels, it's indeed a factor in how schools try to achieve a balance that enables them to build the sorts of endowments that allow them to provide high levels of scholarship aid and to attract the best faculties. Money matters. I don't envy those trying to find that balance.

So, I totally support efforts to give preference to those from real socioeconomic and family disadvantage, the notion that 'grit' may well be more important in the long run than HS academic performance.

But the point is that there's much more complexity than perhaps meets the eye.

A legacy goalie was turned away from an Ivy and ended up at another school and is an AA. Grandfather a big benefactor and family is prominent...nationally. Grandfather still smarting about it...... But it has worked out for the player nevertheless.

Yup. If you don't get that 'recruiting slot', and don't otherwise check a box for a 'passion' or special 'excellence', just having a big donor in the family can fall short.

Sounds like the coach may have chosen the wrong guy? or did the other kid do great too?
Glad it worked out for the kid.

Much more troubling is when there's some appearance that the slot given, or even the playing time given, is influenced by the magnitude of a family check to the program...not far from the outright bribes of the Scandal.

It seems a bit shocking to those of us who have played on Ivy teams or had sons or daughters go through this process, as we tend to assume that coaches are motivated to actually deliver wins by putting the best team on the field, but I can say with some assurance that I've seen such preference happen. It's ugly, and may even not be more than subconscious but it does happen. Sounds like it was flat out bribe at Yale soccer.

The right guy academically but the wrong guy on the field. A DIFFERENCE maker. The bridge was too far. Coach did not have that much latitude. BTW, Danowski only gets so much academic leeway at Duke and that is why you see late scratches there.

[xcoach]

This article presents an interesting window into the complexities of the college admissions process.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... tough.html

[Laxxal22]

Colleges are in the business of producing donors, and your kid becoming a varsity athlete can make you feel pretty generous. I played in the NESCAC when there was firm roster limit; I think it might have been 30 players per team. We had some talented athletes with potential get cut in order to give some of the 25-30 roster spots to some very rich kids who never saw the field but made sure everyone on campus knew they were on the team.

[Badlands]

I have some solid info about legacies at two highly selective schools. One is an Ivy and there legacy status only matters if the family can make an enormous gift (several $M at least). If the family doesn’t have that capacity then the legacy status means absolutely nothing. At the other school, which is non-Ivy, legacy status actually counts in that the application gets extra reads and cannot be rejected by an admissions officer before it is reviewed by the entire committee, and this is regardless of the family’s finances. Plenty of legacy kids get rejected at the second school but there is a statistically noticeable benefit of legacy status. Depends on the school.