On 4/15/2012 4:23 PM, wrote:

Hawke says he does not lie, but here is a bold faced lie. He can not
find any cite that agrees with this figment of his imagination. The
truth is that it is very hard to get into an Ivy league college. Some
of the colleges get enough applicants with perfect SAT scores that the
college could pick only those with perfect scores and still have to
reject some kids with perfect scores. So perfect SAT scores is not
enough. Most of those accepted are the valedictorian of their high
school class. But that and perfect SAT scoros is not enough. You
need Recommendations from your teachers. And finally you get
interviewed by someone on the admissions board or an alumnae.

Special route, my ass.

Some people would tell you that being valedictorian of your high school
is a special route. Since only one person in a school can be one I'd say
only someone very special can do that. The other thing is the word
"legacy". Do some research. Then come back and tell me how many of the
students had a parent or other relative who went there before them.

So you either are connected like a George W. Bush who couldn't qualify
for Yale except for money, name, and a legacy. Or you are the
valedictorian of your high school. Nothing special about that, right?
Are you serious? If you aren't well connected or lucky you can forget
getting into any of those schools.




My uncle was a successful radiologist in
Newport Beach and was a graduate of Dartmouth. He couldn't get his son
in there even though he was rich, was an alumni, and his son had
excellent grades. So it usually takes some kind of luck or family
connection to get into an Ivy League school.
TO use your exact words
" That's what you just gave me, your anecdotal story about your
experience. It's worthless and you would know that if you weren't so
ignorant. You wouldn't even put anecdotes up as proof of anything.
You're a fraud."

You don't know that anecdotes do have their place. You can't substitute
them for facts but they are often used to illustrate a point. My point
was you can't just get into an Ivy League School without some kind of
connection. I gave an example of someone that you would think would be
able to but couldn't. That was meant only to illustrate my point of the
difficulty to get accepted in those schools. Are you contesting my
point? Or do you agree that it's darn near impossible to get into those
exclusive schools. The anecdote was not proof just an example of why
most people cannot get in those schools.

And your point is wrong. A large percentage of the kids that get into
Ivy League colleges are on scholarship and have no one in their family
that has ever gone to an Ivy League school. Absolutely no connections
except their high school teachers. Your anecdote more or less proves
that having a connection like your uncle is worth nothing. I agree it
is damn hard to get into an Ivy League school, but it is because you
have to be both intelligent and work hard enough to get excellent
grades.


If everyone going to those schools is the valedictorian of their high
school or something equivalent then who do you think they are giving out
scholarships to? Only to someone truly special in some way. When a
former graduate from Dartmouth and a wealthy Newport Beach doctor's son
can't get accepted, and he did have great grades and brains, that
illustrates what it takes to get in one of those schools. If brains,
grades, money, and having a father who went there isn't enough to get
someone accepted then only a very special select group can. That was the
point of the anecdote. Which you missed or ignored.




**** you! I had the same opportunity as Luke Russert. No one believes
that bull****. Being Tim Russert's son guaranteed open doors in the TV
news business. You had the same opportunity as he did too. What
happened? You had that opportunity and turned out to have a nothing
life. How did that happen?


You did have the same opportunity as Luke Russert as far as getting
into an Ivy League school. But only if you take high school seriously
and study. Do extra things as being in the band, or on the debate
team. I expect you did not take high school seriously and did not
study hard. And even if you had, you probably were not intelligent
enough.

I guess I could just as well say you had the same opportunity as John
Glenn as far as getting accepted into astronaut training too. But it
seems you failed to do all the required things to get in the astronaut
program. Which I understand because you probably weren't bright enough
to be an astronaut and you lacked the physical ability they require too.
Did you not take your high school seriously enough to be chosen for the
astronaut program?

I say that to show you how ludicrous your contention is that I had the
same opportunity as Luke Russert. Because I didn't. You have no idea
what kind of student he was or what he had accomplished to set him above
the thousands of others who had worked their butts off to get the same
job. He got it because of his father's name and connections in the
industry. Saying I had the same opportunity as that is a flat out lie.


And yet you don't, because you don't try.

You don't know that I haven't tried.

You have as much as said you haven't.
If you have give us a concrete example.

I strongly suspect that Hawke did not apply himself in high school.
If he had, he would not have found college difficult and drop out when
it was too hard.

That's a roger on that, Dan. I failed miserably in high school, got
horrible grades, never did any homework, and did nothing but goof around
and get high. I blame no one for that but me. I hated high school. It
was not a pleasant time for me. How about you? Was high school the best
time of your life?



You can think that if you want but the truth is what happens in your
life in beyond your control for the most part.

What happens to you in college is likely a result of what you did in
high school. And what happened to you in high school is likely a
resurt of what you did in grade school Mostly within your control if
you start early and work at it.

That sounds good in theory and for those who succeed it's probably true.
But most people have a lot more problems in their lives that keep them
from being a high achiever, number one being that their talent, brains,
and abilities fall into the average range. To expect average people to
excel is stupid. The people who excel are not average.


You had breaks just like Luke Russert and S.E.
Cupp and did nothing with them.
And they had breaks just like you and I did, they chose which of their
breakers to use, as did I, whereas you sat on the sidelines and
whined.

Not a chance. No way did I get a wealth of breaks in my life and it was
just a matter of which ones I chose to follow. That's completely untrue.
Very few opportunities were available to me. No one offered me a job
right out of school as an on air TV commentator like they did for Luke
Russert.

But you admit you did not graduate from college until you were old .
if you had stuck it out and graduated when you were young, someone
might have thought you had potential. But a 50 year old graduate,
does not convey potential.

Yep, that I agree with. Had I gotten educated in my early 20s I'm sure I
would have had a different life than the one I had. But that's water
under the bridge. As for a 50 year old graduate not having potential,
you're crazy. As someone who went back to college later in life I can
tell you that many people are retraining and are getting jobs in all
kinds of new areas. Also employers prefer older employees because they
are better workers.



Are you saying you got opportunities of that kind? I had to
work. The options just weren't very appealing. The breaks were non
existent. Relating a true story isn't whining, FYI.



I had to work too. I worked every summer after I was 16. And not at
appealing jobs. Working on a survey crew in East Texas, Roustabouting
in Louisiana.

It's not my fault you failed to achieve anything worth while.
False premise false conclusion

You're the one saying we all had opportunities galore and that some of
us took them and some didn't. You said that. But then, when you didn't
do nearly as well as Luke Russert has in only a few years of working you
make it sound like you just chose not to take advantage of your big
break. I can't help but wonder why you would let great opportunities go
by. I didn't. Because I didn't get any.





All I said is that I have the education and experience in politics to do
the job of a political expert.

But you waited until you were an old man. No one takes a chance on an
old man.

I'd tend to go along with that too.


How's that? If you only turned out average but you say you had breaks
then you can't blame being average on not getting a break. You have to
blame that on yourself if you got breaks. I'm saying I didn't get any
breakrrr.


You had a chance to graduate from college when you were in your early
twenties. And you threw that opportunity away.


That's true in a way. But people have to learn lessons in life when they
are ready for them. If you're not ready to learn you don't. When I was
young I wasn't prepared to work at school like I was when I was 48. I
had a good look at life from several different perspectives. I've been
an uneducated young person and I've been a well educated older one. I
also see that knowing what you want to do in life or by having some
talent or ability allows you to go into a line of work and do well.
Unfortunately for me I didn't show any particular talent or ability when
I was young aside from having a high IQ. It was only later that I
learned that I had a lot of ability and that it was a matter of wanting
it that made the difference. I didn't want it when I was young.

But here's an example of how things go when you are lucky. I have a
cousin that had a boyfriend and he was still in college at the time, he
was in his early 20s I think. One day he was playing golf and met
someone and he got a chance at a job. He was an accounting major at the
time and hadn't graduated yet. This was in Long Beach and it was no big
time meeting place for big shots to mingle. It was just a public golf
course and he was a junior in college.

Anyway, after he graduated he got a job with this property management
company. That was probably 30 years ago or more. Since then he's never
had any other job. He got in when the company was still new and had lots
of opportunity to move up. As time went by he moved up farther and
farther and now he's a partner in the company. It manages thousands of
properties in the Newport Beach and Orange Co. area of southern
California. He's worth millions and lives in a beachfront home in
Newport. My cousin's brother eventually got a job from him too and he
makes lots of money also. I think that a lot of luck was involved in
what happened to my cousin's husband. I think he got the break of a
lifetime that set him up for life. I'm saying I didn't get any chances
like that. Most don't, that's true. But to say everybody gets chances
like that is stupid. I know the guy well, he's extended family. He's got
a degree but he's pretty ordinary otherwise. He was just very lucky. But
don't try to tell me I had opportunities like he got and blew them.
Because I didn't.

Hawke

On 4/16/2012 10:13 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/15/2012 4:23 PM, wrote:

Hawke says he does not lie, but here is a bold faced lie. He can not
find any cite that agrees with this figment of his imagination. The
truth is that it is very hard to get into an Ivy league college. Some
of the colleges get enough applicants with perfect SAT scores that the
college could pick only those with perfect scores and still have to
reject some kids with perfect scores. So perfect SAT scores is not
enough. Most of those accepted are the valedictorian of their high
school class. But that and perfect SAT scoros is not enough. You
need Recommendations from your teachers. And finally you get
interviewed by someone on the admissions board or an alumnae.

Special route, my ass.

Some people would tell you that being valedictorian of your high school
is a special route.

Earned, not given as a gift.


My uncle was a successful radiologist in
Newport Beach and was a graduate of Dartmouth. He couldn't get his son
in there even though he was rich, was an alumni, and his son had
excellent grades. So it usually takes some kind of luck or family
connection to get into an Ivy League school.
TO use your exact words
" That's what you just gave me, your anecdotal story about your
experience. It's worthless and you would know that if you weren't so
ignorant. You wouldn't even put anecdotes up as proof of anything.
You're a fraud."

You don't know that anecdotes do have their place. You can't substitute
them for facts but they are often used to illustrate a point. My point
was you can't just get into an Ivy League School without some kind of
connection. I gave an example of someone that you would think would be
able to but couldn't. That was meant only to illustrate my point of the
difficulty to get accepted in those schools. Are you contesting my
point? Or do you agree that it's darn near impossible to get into those
exclusive schools. The anecdote was not proof just an example of why
most people cannot get in those schools.

And your point is wrong. A large percentage of the kids that get into
Ivy League colleges are on scholarship and have no one in their family
that has ever gone to an Ivy League school. Absolutely no connections
except their high school teachers. Your anecdote more or less proves
that having a connection like your uncle is worth nothing. I agree it
is damn hard to get into an Ivy League school, but it is because you
have to be both intelligent and work hard enough to get excellent
grades.


If everyone going to those schools is the valedictorian of their high
school or something equivalent then who do you think they are giving out
scholarships to?

Minorities.


**** you! I had the same opportunity as Luke Russert. No one believes
that bull****. Being Tim Russert's son guaranteed open doors in the TV
news business. You had the same opportunity as he did too. What
happened? You had that opportunity and turned out to have a nothing
life. How did that happen?


You did have the same opportunity as Luke Russert as far as getting
into an Ivy League school. But only if you take high school seriously
and study. Do extra things as being in the band, or on the debate
team. I expect you did not take high school seriously and did not
study hard. And even if you had, you probably were not intelligent
enough.

I guess I could just as well say you had the same opportunity as John
Glenn as far as getting accepted into astronaut training too.

This is about you, not him. He's not the one ****ing and moaning that
he's a failure only because things weren't given to him on a platter.
That's you.


And yet you don't, because you don't try.

You don't know that I haven't tried.

You have as much as said you haven't.
If you have give us a concrete example.

I strongly suspect that Hawke did not apply himself in high school.
If he had, he would not have found college difficult and drop out when
it was too hard.

That's a roger on that, Dan. I failed miserably in high school, got
horrible grades, never did any homework, and did nothing but goof around
and get high. I blame no one for that but me. I hated high school. It
was not a pleasant time for me. How about you? Was high school the best
time of your life?

So, it's not that you weren't given opportunities or had doors opened -
it's that you ****ed everything away.


You can think that if you want but the truth is what happens in your
life in beyond your control for the most part.

What happens to you in college is likely a result of what you did in
high school. And what happened to you in high school is likely a
resurt of what you did in grade school Mostly within your control if
you start early and work at it.

That sounds good in theory and for those who succeed it's probably true.

It's true for those like you who fail, too.


You had breaks just like Luke Russert and S.E.
Cupp and did nothing with them.
And they had breaks just like you and I did, they chose which of their
breakers to use, as did I, whereas you sat on the sidelines and
whined.

Not a chance. No way did I get a wealth of breaks in my life and it was
just a matter of which ones I chose to follow. That's completely untrue.
Very few opportunities were available to me. No one offered me a job
right out of school as an on air TV commentator like they did for Luke
Russert.

But you admit you did not graduate from college until you were old .
if you had stuck it out and graduated when you were young, someone
might have thought you had potential. But a 50 year old graduate,
does not convey potential.

Yep, that I agree with. Had I gotten educated in my early 20s I'm sure I
would have had a different life than the one I had. But that's water
under the bridge. As for a 50 year old graduate not having potential,
you're crazy.

You had no meaningful potential at any age.


Are you saying you got opportunities of that kind? I had to
work. The options just weren't very appealing. The breaks were non
existent. Relating a true story isn't whining, FYI.



I had to work too. I worked every summer after I was 16. And not at
appealing jobs. Working on a survey crew in East Texas, Roustabouting
in Louisiana.

It's not my fault you failed to achieve anything worth while.
False premise false conclusion

You're the one saying we all had opportunities galore and that some of
us took them and some didn't. You said that. But then, when you didn't
do nearly as well as Luke Russert has in only a few years of working you
make it sound like you just chose not to take advantage of your big
break. I can't help but wonder why you would let great opportunities go
by. I didn't. Because I didn't get any.





All I said is that I have the education and experience in politics to do
the job of a political expert.

But you waited until you were an old man. No one takes a chance on an
old man.

I'd tend to go along with that too.

You ****ed up.


How's that? If you only turned out average but you say you had breaks
then you can't blame being average on not getting a break. You have to
blame that on yourself if you got breaks. I'm saying I didn't get any
breakrrr.


You had a chance to graduate from college when you were in your early
twenties. And you threw that opportunity away.


That's true in a way.

It's just true, without any qualification to it.

On Apr 17, 1:13*am, Hawke wrote:


So you either are connected like a George W. Bush who couldn't qualify
for Yale except for money, name, and a legacy. Or you are the
valedictorian of your high school. Nothing special about that, right?
Are you serious? If you aren't well connected or lucky you can forget
getting into any of those schools.



I will answer in detail later. Right now I have a bunch of things to
do. But you are wrong about what you say in the paragraph above.

It is true that there are a few legacy students. But the number is
almost non existent. For example the freshman class at Harvard is
about 1700. Out of that number I would estimate the number of legacy
students at maybe 4. Probably less than 4. That comes out to about
0.2 percent.

There is nothing special about being the valedictorian of your high
school class.
I mentioned that because it shows how hard it is to get into an Ivy
League school. You have to be intelligent and you have to work at
learning. No special route. Just hard work and intelligence. No
luck required. Luck will not get you good grades. Hard work and
intelligence will. And you can get into an Ivy League school without
being the valedictorian. But if you do, there is an excellent chance
the valedictorian of your class also got accepted by an Ivy League
school.


Dan

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 05:14:56 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 17, 1:13*am, Hawke wrote:


So you either are connected like a George W. Bush who couldn't qualify
for Yale except for money, name, and a legacy. Or you are the
valedictorian of your high school. Nothing special about that, right?
Are you serious? If you aren't well connected or lucky you can forget
getting into any of those schools.



I will answer in detail later. Right now I have a bunch of things to
do. But you are wrong about what you say in the paragraph above.

It is true that there are a few legacy students. But the number is
almost non existent. For example the freshman class at Harvard is
about 1700. Out of that number I would estimate the number of legacy
students at maybe 4. Probably less than 4. That comes out to about
0.2 percent.

Harvard's legacies may run as high as 30%:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...gacy-legacies/

....although the University won't admit it's that high. 40% of their
students are children of alumni, but Harvard says they're mostly
"self-selecting." Right...

At Notre Dame, the legacy figure was 23% in 2004. At the Ivies other
than Harvard, estimates run between 10% - 15%

http://www.economist.com/node/2333345?story_id=2333345

When I lived in Princeton, 20% was the figure you'd get if you asked a
faculty member.

--
Ed Huntress



There is nothing special about being the valedictorian of your high
school class.
I mentioned that because it shows how hard it is to get into an Ivy
League school. You have to be intelligent and you have to work at
learning. No special route. Just hard work and intelligence. No
luck required. Luck will not get you good grades. Hard work and
intelligence will. And you can get into an Ivy League school without
being the valedictorian. But if you do, there is an excellent chance
the valedictorian of your class also got accepted by an Ivy League
school.


Dan

On 4/17/2012 5:14 AM, wrote:
On Apr 17, 1:13 am, wrote:


So you either are connected like a George W. Bush who couldn't qualify
for Yale except for money, name, and a legacy. Or you are the
valedictorian of your high school. Nothing special about that, right?
Are you serious? If you aren't well connected or lucky you can forget
getting into any of those schools.



I will answer in detail later. Right now I have a bunch of things to
do. But you are wrong about what you say in the paragraph above.

It is true that there are a few legacy students. But the number is
almost non existent. For example the freshman class at Harvard is
about 1700. Out of that number I would estimate the number of legacy
students at maybe 4. Probably less than 4. That comes out to about
0.2 percent.

It's much higher. Legacy admissions are about 12% to 13% of all
undergraduates, according to the Harvard dean of admissions
(http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...acy-legacies/).
It's also irrelevant. As Larry Summers, former Harvard president, put
it, "Legacy admissions are integral to the kind of community that any
private educational institution is." It's their business, not the public's.


There is nothing special about being the valedictorian of your high
school class.
I mentioned that because it shows how hard it is to get into an Ivy
League school. You have to be intelligent and you have to work at
learning. No special route. Just hard work and intelligence. No
luck required. Luck will not get you good grades. Hard work and
intelligence will. And you can get into an Ivy League school without
being the valedictorian. But if you do, there is an excellent chance
the valedictorian of your class also got accepted by an Ivy League
school.

In recent decades, the Ivies have all reduced the weight given to being
valedictorian.

On 4/17/2012 6:45 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 05:14:56 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 17, 1:13 am, wrote:


So you either are connected like a George W. Bush who couldn't qualify
for Yale except for money, name, and a legacy. Or you are the
valedictorian of your high school. Nothing special about that, right?
Are you serious? If you aren't well connected or lucky you can forget
getting into any of those schools.



I will answer in detail later. Right now I have a bunch of things to
do. But you are wrong about what you say in the paragraph above.

It is true that there are a few legacy students. But the number is
almost non existent. For example the freshman class at Harvard is
about 1700. Out of that number I would estimate the number of legacy
students at maybe 4. Probably less than 4. That comes out to about
0.2 percent.

Harvard's legacies may run as high as 30%:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...gacy-legacies/

You idiot: that's the admission *rate* of all legacy applications.
Legacies as a percentage of the student body is about 12%-13%. It says
it right in the article you linked, stupid.

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:47:47 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

On 4/17/2012 6:45 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 05:14:56 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 17, 1:13 am, wrote:


So you either are connected like a George W. Bush who couldn't qualify
for Yale except for money, name, and a legacy. Or you are the
valedictorian of your high school. Nothing special about that, right?
Are you serious? If you aren't well connected or lucky you can forget
getting into any of those schools.



I will answer in detail later. Right now I have a bunch of things to
do. But you are wrong about what you say in the paragraph above.

It is true that there are a few legacy students. But the number is
almost non existent. For example the freshman class at Harvard is
about 1700. Out of that number I would estimate the number of legacy
students at maybe 4. Probably less than 4. That comes out to about
0.2 percent.

Harvard's legacies may run as high as 30%:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...gacy-legacies/

You idiot: that's the admission *rate* of all legacy applications.
Legacies as a percentage of the student body is about 12%-13%. It says
it right in the article you linked, stupid.

Up yours, you pathetic, lazy slob.

I suspect that this statement in Wikipedia is high (which is why I
said "may be as high as"), but this is where the 30% comes from:

"The Ivy League institutions are estimated to admit 10% to 30% of each
entering class using this factor [legacy status]."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences

That's not the RATE they're talking about. That's PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL
ADMISSIONS.

The number varies quite a bit by year. Here's Harvard's admission RATE
for legacy students in 2003:

"In 2003, Harvard admitted 40 percent of legacy applicants, compared
to an overall 11 percent acceptance rate."

("Family Ties: Preference for Alumni Children In College Admission
Draws Fire" -- Wall Street Journal, Jan. 15, 2003)

On that basis, the percentage of legacy students was 19%.

'Don't have access to old WSL archives? That's why I don't post every
link to everything. You need a subscription to Factiva, Dow Jones's
archiving service, or a LexisNexis account. The WSJ doesn't directly
archive its own stories back that far.

When I post a link, sometimes it's to an interesting or useful
discussion of a subject, not necessarily to documentation of a
specific point. I have access to a lot of things that aren't on the
Web and I don't post links to them. Factiva, for example, runs
$69/year.

But you're willing to try to contradict it, if you want to. In this
case, the number, which I hedged with my "may be," came from
Wikipedia, which I did not link to. I generally don't, because
Wikipedia is not an original source, even of newspaper articles.

It's not for obnoxious pricks like you who are just looking for
something to put someone else down in order to pump up your own ego.
It's for people who have an actual interest in the subject.

If you question a number or fact, ask me. I'll tell you where I got
it.

--
Ed Huntress

On Apr 17, 9:45*am, Ed Huntress wrote:


It is true that there are a few legacy students. *But the number is
almost non existent. *For example the freshman class at Harvard is
about 1700. *Out of *that number I would estimate the number of legacy
students at maybe 4. *Probably less than 4. * That comes out to about
0.2 percent.

Harvard's legacies may run as high as 30%:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...fitzsimmons-le...


Ed Huntress

I think my figure is more accurate if you define a Legacy Student as a
student that would not be admitted if the student was not the child of
someone famous or the child of an alumnae.

There are certainly many students whose parents attended the same
school. But that is mostly because the parents were successful and
lived in an area with good schools. And the parents actively
encouraged the child to excel in school. It does not surprise me that
a child brought up by Ivy League parents tend to be intelligent and
believe in studying.

I know three people whom you might consider Legacy Students, but I do
not. One made a lot of money by working at start up companies in
California, but then got his MBA at the University of Washington and
now is a professor at a Swiss business school.

A second one got her Phd at Harvard and now is a European History
professor at the University of Texas.

The third one got her MBA , worked for a while and then went to Boston
University as a Phd candidate in Economics. But did not get her Phd.
Well maybe she has by now. I think she completed all the courses ,but
never wrote her thesis. She now works for the government in
Washington , D. C.

From your cite.

Fitzsimmons also said that Harvard’s undergraduate population is
comprised of approximately 12 to 13 percent legacies, a group he
defined as children of Harvard College alumni and Radcliffe College
alumnae.

Like I said, I do not count someone as a Legacy Student unless they
would not have gotten into the college except they were the child of
someone famous. Al Gore might fit my definition.

Dan

On Apr 17, 10:45*am, George Plimpton wrote:


In recent decades, the Ivies have all reduced the weight given to being
valedictorian.

I do not think they ever cared. What they cared about was excellent
grades in tough schools. But the effect was that many valedictorians
went to Ivy League schools.

Dan

On Apr 17, 1:13*am, Hawke wrote:

Or you are the
valedictorian of your high school. Nothing special about that, right?

I was the valedictorian of my high school class. At the time that and
a dime would get you a cup of coffee.




If everyone going to those schools is the valedictorian of their high
school or something equivalent then who do you think they are giving out
scholarships to?

Dud. They are giving the scholarships to the bright kids that get
high grades and great SAT scores , but whose parents did not have much
money. Their parents probably did not go to an Ivy League school.

Only to someone truly special in some way. When a
former graduate from Dartmouth and a wealthy Newport Beach doctor's son
can't get accepted, and he did have great grades and brains, that
illustrates what it takes to get in one of those schools. If brains,
grades, money, and having a father who went there isn't enough to get
someone accepted then only a very special select group can. That was the
point of the anecdote. Which you missed or ignored.

I did not miss that or ignored it. What you are missing is that your
idea of great grades might not hack it. Did this guy get the best
grades in his high school? Was it a good high school? Did this kid
have any special talents? Did he do science projects? Did he take
advanced courses? Did he write a good admissions essay? How well did
his interview go? Remember only intelligent kids apply to Ivy League
schools. And still only about ten percent get accepted.

**** you! I had the same opportunity as Luke Russert. No one believes
that bull****. Being Tim Russert's son guaranteed open doors in the TV
news business. You had the same opportunity as he did too. What
happened? You had that opportunity and turned out to have a nothing
life. How did that happen?

I think I have had an excellent life.


I guess I could just as well say you had the same opportunity as John
Glenn as far as getting accepted into astronaut training too. But it
seems you failed to do all the required things to get in the astronaut
program. Which I understand because you probably weren't bright enough
to be an astronaut and you lacked the physical ability they require too.
Did you not take your high school seriously enough to be chosen for the
astronaut program?

I never wanted to be an astronaut. But I did take high school
seriously enough .

I say that to show you how ludicrous your contention is that I had the
same opportunity as Luke Russert. Because I didn't. You have no idea
what kind of student he was or what he had accomplished to set him above
the thousands of others who had worked their butts off to get the same
job. He got it because of his father's name and connections in the
industry. Saying I had the same opportunity as that is a flat out lie.



That's a roger on that, Dan. I failed miserably in high school, got
horrible grades, never did any homework, and did nothing but goof around
and get high. I blame no one for that but me. I hated high school. It
was not a pleasant time for me. How about you? Was high school the best
time of your life?

High school was not the best time of my life. Had to do homework,
could not go out on school night. Had to study. I spent two or three
hours every night doing homework or studying.


But most people have a lot more problems in their lives that keep them
from being a high achiever, number one being that their talent, brains,
and abilities fall into the average range. To expect average people to
excel is stupid. The people who excel are not average.

Asian kids tend to excel. Their parents expect it. They probably
have to study four or five hours a night.

Yep, that I agree with. Had I gotten educated in my early 20s I'm sure I
would have had a different life than the one I had. But that's water
under the bridge. As for a 50 year old graduate not having potential,
you're crazy. As someone who went back to college later in life I can
tell you that many people are retraining and are getting jobs in all
kinds of new areas. Also employers prefer older employees because they
are better workers.

A fifty year old may have potential, but it is kind of like sports.
Do you pick the young rookie that has promise or choose the older
player that only has a few more playing years. If you are going to
hire someone you want someone young that will be around for a while.
You only pick older employees for jobs that are pretty cut and dried.


That's true in a way. But people have to learn lessons in life when they
are ready for them.

It is not my fault that you were not ready. You have to work at being
ready.
The opportunities were there , but you were not ready.

Dan

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 19:22:08 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 17, 9:45*am, Ed Huntress wrote:


It is true that there are a few legacy students. *But the number is
almost non existent. *For example the freshman class at Harvard is
about 1700. *Out of *that number I would estimate the number of legacy
students at maybe 4. *Probably less than 4. * That comes out to about
0.2 percent.

Harvard's legacies may run as high as 30%:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...fitzsimmons-le...


Ed Huntress

I think my figure is more accurate if you define a Legacy Student as a
student that would not be admitted if the student was not the child of
someone famous or the child of an alumnae.

There are certainly many students whose parents attended the same
school. But that is mostly because the parents were successful and
lived in an area with good schools. And the parents actively
encouraged the child to excel in school. It does not surprise me that
a child brought up by Ivy League parents tend to be intelligent and
believe in studying.

If you read those links and other sources, they're talking about
students who were *admitted* largely, or partly, because of their
legacy status.


I know three people whom you might consider Legacy Students, but I do
not. One made a lot of money by working at start up companies in
California, but then got his MBA at the University of Washington and
now is a professor at a Swiss business school.

A second one got her Phd at Harvard and now is a European History
professor at the University of Texas.

The third one got her MBA , worked for a while and then went to Boston
University as a Phd candidate in Economics. But did not get her Phd.
Well maybe she has by now. I think she completed all the courses ,but
never wrote her thesis. She now works for the government in
Washington , D. C.

From your cite.

Fitzsimmons also said that Harvard’s undergraduate population is
comprised of approximately 12 to 13 percent legacies, a group he
defined as children of Harvard College alumni and Radcliffe College
alumnae.

We know the number is closer to 20%, just from the figures in _The
Economist_ and elsewhere, taken from Harvard's own figures.

There is an entire book, or maybe two, written about this subject.
It's been well researched. I also spent some time looking through the
professional journal sites, which are all paid academic sources, and
they confirm the conclusions posted on the free sites.


Like I said, I do not count someone as a Legacy Student unless they
would not have gotten into the college except they were the child of
someone famous. Al Gore might fit my definition.

Most of the legacy students who are admitted with sub-par SATs and/or
grades got there not because they are famous, but because their
parents contribute to the schools. I'm hammered monthly by Washington
& Lee. g That's what top private schools live on, and it's a big
influence in admitting children of those contributors.

One of the sources calculates that being a legacy student is worth 160
points in SAT scores.

--
Ed Huntress

On Apr 17, 11:21*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 19:22:08 -0700 (PDT), "



wrote:
On Apr 17, 9:45*am, Ed Huntress wrote:

It is true that there are a few legacy students. *But the number is
almost non existent. *For example the freshman class at Harvard is
about 1700. *Out of *that number I would estimate the number of legacy
students at maybe 4. *Probably less than 4. * That comes out to about
0.2 percent.

Harvard's legacies may run as high as 30%:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...fitzsimmons-le....

Ed Huntress

I think my figure is more accurate if you define a Legacy Student as a
student that would not be admitted if the student was not the child of
someone famous or the child of an alumnae.

There are certainly many students whose parents attended the same
school. *But that is mostly because the parents were successful and
lived in an area with good schools. *And the parents actively
encouraged the child to excel in school. It does not surprise me that
a child brought up by Ivy League *parents tend to be intelligent and
believe in studying.

If you read those links and other sources, they're talking about
students who were *admitted* largely, or partly, because of their
legacy status.





I know three people whom you might consider Legacy Students, but I do
not. *One made a lot of money by working at start up companies in
California, *but then got his MBA at the University of Washington and
now is a professor at a Swiss business school.

A second one got her Phd *at Harvard *and now is a European History
professor at the University of Texas.

The third one got her MBA , worked for a while and then went to Boston
University as a Phd candidate in Economics. *But did not get her Phd.
Well maybe she has by now. *I think she completed all the courses ,but
never wrote her thesis. *She now works for the government in
Washington , D. C.

From your cite.

Fitzsimmons also said that Harvard’s undergraduate population is
comprised of approximately 12 to 13 percent legacies, a group he
defined as children of Harvard College alumni and Radcliffe College
alumnae.

We know the number is closer to 20%, just from the figures in _The
Economist_ and elsewhere, taken from Harvard's own figures.

There is an entire book, or maybe two, written about this subject.
It's been well researched. I also spent some time looking through the
professional journal sites, which are all paid academic sources, and
they confirm the conclusions posted on the free sites.



Like I said, I do not count someone as a Legacy Student unless they
would not have gotten into the college except they were the child of
someone famous. *Al Gore might fit my definition.

Most of the legacy students who are admitted with sub-par SATs and/or
grades got there not because they are famous, but because their
parents contribute to the schools. I'm hammered monthly by Washington
& Lee. g That's what top private schools live on, and it's a big
influence in admitting children of those contributors.

One of the sources calculates that being a legacy student is worth 160
points in SAT scores.

--
Ed Huntress

I still think my figures are more accurate. The Harvard website says
that having a parent that is an alumnus only makes a difference if two
students are equal in other respects.

From Harvard's viewpoint that makes sense. Harvard has a huge
endowment. Gifts of a million or so do not make much difference.
Harvard has much more to gain from admitting people like Bill Gates
and Mark Zuckerberg. Much better to admit students that will make
millions, than to admit students whose parents have made millions.
Maybe it is different for Washington and Lee. But then Washington and
Lee is not an Ivy League school.

Dan

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 20:54:21 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 17, 11:21*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 19:22:08 -0700 (PDT), "



wrote:
On Apr 17, 9:45*am, Ed Huntress wrote:

It is true that there are a few legacy students. *But the number is
almost non existent. *For example the freshman class at Harvard is
about 1700. *Out of *that number I would estimate the number of legacy
students at maybe 4. *Probably less than 4. * That comes out to about
0.2 percent.

Harvard's legacies may run as high as 30%:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...fitzsimmons-le...

Ed Huntress

I think my figure is more accurate if you define a Legacy Student as a
student that would not be admitted if the student was not the child of
someone famous or the child of an alumnae.

There are certainly many students whose parents attended the same
school. *But that is mostly because the parents were successful and
lived in an area with good schools. *And the parents actively
encouraged the child to excel in school. It does not surprise me that
a child brought up by Ivy League *parents tend to be intelligent and
believe in studying.

If you read those links and other sources, they're talking about
students who were *admitted* largely, or partly, because of their
legacy status.





I know three people whom you might consider Legacy Students, but I do
not. *One made a lot of money by working at start up companies in
California, *but then got his MBA at the University of Washington and
now is a professor at a Swiss business school.

A second one got her Phd *at Harvard *and now is a European History
professor at the University of Texas.

The third one got her MBA , worked for a while and then went to Boston
University as a Phd candidate in Economics. *But did not get her Phd.
Well maybe she has by now. *I think she completed all the courses ,but
never wrote her thesis. *She now works for the government in
Washington , D. C.

From your cite.

Fitzsimmons also said that Harvard’s undergraduate population is
comprised of approximately 12 to 13 percent legacies, a group he
defined as children of Harvard College alumni and Radcliffe College
alumnae.

We know the number is closer to 20%, just from the figures in _The
Economist_ and elsewhere, taken from Harvard's own figures.

There is an entire book, or maybe two, written about this subject.
It's been well researched. I also spent some time looking through the
professional journal sites, which are all paid academic sources, and
they confirm the conclusions posted on the free sites.



Like I said, I do not count someone as a Legacy Student unless they
would not have gotten into the college except they were the child of
someone famous. *Al Gore might fit my definition.

Most of the legacy students who are admitted with sub-par SATs and/or
grades got there not because they are famous, but because their
parents contribute to the schools. I'm hammered monthly by Washington
& Lee. g That's what top private schools live on, and it's a big
influence in admitting children of those contributors.

One of the sources calculates that being a legacy student is worth 160
points in SAT scores.

--
Ed Huntress

I still think my figures are more accurate. The Harvard website says
that having a parent that is an alumnus only makes a difference if two
students are equal in other respects.

Don't believe them on that point. If you want more sources, I'll
supply them.

Harvard and Princeton are full of legacy students, many of which
wouldn't be there if they were regular applicants. I don't know if
it's getting better or worse, but it's been that way for a long time.


From Harvard's viewpoint that makes sense. Harvard has a huge
endowment. Gifts of a million or so do not make much difference.
Harvard has much more to gain from admitting people like Bill Gates
and Mark Zuckerberg. Much better to admit students that will make
millions, than to admit students whose parents have made millions.
Maybe it is different for Washington and Lee. But then Washington and
Lee is not an Ivy League school.

Dan

Again, if you want sources I'll put together a list. You're not right
about your conclusions. The legacy students get a better ride and
there are quite a lot of them who wouldn't have gotten in otherwise.

The Ivies are loathe to talk much about this. They were investigated
by Congress on the issue not too many years ago and they're very
sensitive about it.

--
Ed Huntress

On Apr 18, 12:01*am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 20:54:21 -0700 (PDT), "



wrote:
On Apr 17, 11:21*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 19:22:08 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
On Apr 17, 9:45*am, Ed Huntress wrote:

It is true that there are a few legacy students. *But the number is
almost non existent. *For example the freshman class at Harvard is
about 1700. *Out of *that number I would estimate the number of legacy
students at maybe 4. *Probably less than 4. * That comes out to about
0.2 percent.

Harvard's legacies may run as high as 30%:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...fitzsimmons-le...

Ed Huntress

I think my figure is more accurate if you define a Legacy Student as a
student that would not be admitted if the student was not the child of
someone famous or the child of an alumnae.

There are certainly many students whose parents attended the same
school. *But that is mostly because the parents were successful and
lived in an area with good schools. *And the parents actively
encouraged the child to excel in school. It does not surprise me that
a child brought up by Ivy League *parents tend to be intelligent and
believe in studying.

If you read those links and other sources, they're talking about
students who were *admitted* largely, or partly, because of their
legacy status.

I know three people whom you might consider Legacy Students, but I do
not. *One made a lot of money by working at start up companies in
California, *but then got his MBA at the University of Washington and
now is a professor at a Swiss business school.

A second one got her Phd *at Harvard *and now is a European History
professor at the University of Texas.

The third one got her MBA , worked for a while and then went to Boston
University as a Phd candidate in Economics. *But did not get her Phd.
Well maybe she has by now. *I think she completed all the courses ,but
never wrote her thesis. *She now works for the government in
Washington , D. C.

From your cite.

Fitzsimmons also said that Harvard’s undergraduate population is
comprised of approximately 12 to 13 percent legacies, a group he
defined as children of Harvard College alumni and Radcliffe College
alumnae.

We know the number is closer to 20%, just from the figures in _The
Economist_ and elsewhere, taken from Harvard's own figures.

There is an entire book, or maybe two, written about this subject.
It's been well researched. I also spent some time looking through the
professional journal sites, which are all paid academic sources, and
they confirm the conclusions posted on the free sites.

Like I said, I do not count someone as a Legacy Student unless they
would not have gotten into the college except they were the child of
someone famous. *Al Gore might fit my definition.

Most of the legacy students who are admitted with sub-par SATs and/or
grades got there not because they are famous, but because their
parents contribute to the schools. I'm hammered monthly by Washington
& Lee. g That's what top private schools live on, and it's a big
influence in admitting children of those contributors.

One of the sources calculates that being a legacy student is worth 160
points in SAT scores.

--
Ed Huntress

I still think my figures are more accurate. *The Harvard website says
that having a parent that is an alumnus only makes a difference if two
students are equal in other respects.

Don't believe them on that point. If you want more sources, I'll
supply them.

Harvard and Princeton are full of legacy students, many of which
wouldn't be there if they were regular applicants. I don't know if
it's getting better or worse, but it's been that way for a long time.



From Harvard's viewpoint that makes sense. *Harvard has a huge
endowment. *Gifts of a million or so do not make much difference.
Harvard has much more to gain from admitting people like Bill Gates
and Mark Zuckerberg. *Much better to admit students that will make
millions, than to admit students whose parents have made millions.
Maybe it is different for Washington and Lee. *But then Washington and
Lee is not an Ivy League school.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

Again, if you want sources I'll put together a list. You're not right
about your conclusions. The legacy students get a better ride and
there are quite a lot of them who wouldn't have gotten in otherwise.

The Ivies are loathe to talk much about this. They were investigated
by Congress on the issue not too many years ago and they're very
sensitive about it.

--
Ed Huntress

I still think you are mislead.

Dan

On 4/17/2012 7:25 PM, wrote:
On Apr 17, 10:45 am, George wrote:


In recent decades, the Ivies have all reduced the weight given to being
valedictorian.

I do not think they ever cared.

Sure they did. The percentage used to be even higher.

I don't have a problem with legacy admits. I accept what Summers said
about them: they're an intrinsic part of a private university
community. There is nothing in the least "unjust" about them.


What they cared about was excellent
grades in tough schools. But the effect was that many valedictorians
went to Ivy League schools.

On 4/17/2012 8:21 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 19:22:08 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 17, 9:45 am, Ed wrote:


It is true that there are a few legacy students. But the number is
almost non existent. For example the freshman class at Harvard is
about 1700. Out of that number I would estimate the number of legacy
students at maybe 4. Probably less than 4. That comes out to about
0.2 percent.

Harvard's legacies may run as high as 30%:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...fitzsimmons-le...


Ed Huntress

I think my figure is more accurate if you define a Legacy Student as a
student that would not be admitted if the student was not the child of
someone famous or the child of an alumnae.

There are certainly many students whose parents attended the same
school. But that is mostly because the parents were successful and
lived in an area with good schools. And the parents actively
encouraged the child to excel in school. It does not surprise me that
a child brought up by Ivy League parents tend to be intelligent and
believe in studying.

If you read those links and other sources, they're talking about
students who were *admitted* largely, or partly, because of their
legacy status.


I know three people whom you might consider Legacy Students, but I do
not. One made a lot of money by working at start up companies in
California, but then got his MBA at the University of Washington and
now is a professor at a Swiss business school.

A second one got her Phd at Harvard and now is a European History
professor at the University of Texas.

The third one got her MBA , worked for a while and then went to Boston
University as a Phd candidate in Economics. But did not get her Phd.
Well maybe she has by now. I think she completed all the courses ,but
never wrote her thesis. She now works for the government in
Washington , D. C.

From your cite.

Fitzsimmons also said that Harvard’s undergraduate population is
comprised of approximately 12 to 13 percent legacies, a group he
defined as children of Harvard College alumni and Radcliffe College
alumnae.

We know the number is closer to 20%, just from the figures in _The
Economist_ and elsewhere, taken from Harvard's own figures.

The percentage of the Harvard undergraduate student body who are legacy
admits is about 12%-13%.

On 4/17/2012 9:01 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 20:54:21 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 17, 11:21 pm, Ed wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 19:22:08 -0700 (PDT), "



wrote:
On Apr 17, 9:45 am, Ed wrote:

It is true that there are a few legacy students. But the number is
almost non existent. For example the freshman class at Harvard is
about 1700. Out of that number I would estimate the number of legacy
students at maybe 4. Probably less than 4. That comes out to about
0.2 percent.

Harvard's legacies may run as high as 30%:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...fitzsimmons-le...

Ed Huntress

I think my figure is more accurate if you define a Legacy Student as a
student that would not be admitted if the student was not the child of
someone famous or the child of an alumnae.

There are certainly many students whose parents attended the same
school. But that is mostly because the parents were successful and
lived in an area with good schools. And the parents actively
encouraged the child to excel in school. It does not surprise me that
a child brought up by Ivy League parents tend to be intelligent and
believe in studying.

If you read those links and other sources, they're talking about
students who were *admitted* largely, or partly, because of their
legacy status.





I know three people whom you might consider Legacy Students, but I do
not. One made a lot of money by working at start up companies in
California, but then got his MBA at the University of Washington and
now is a professor at a Swiss business school.

A second one got her Phd at Harvard and now is a European History
professor at the University of Texas.

The third one got her MBA , worked for a while and then went to Boston
University as a Phd candidate in Economics. But did not get her Phd.
Well maybe she has by now. I think she completed all the courses ,but
never wrote her thesis. She now works for the government in
Washington , D. C.

From your cite.

Fitzsimmons also said that Harvard’s undergraduate population is
comprised of approximately 12 to 13 percent legacies, a group he
defined as children of Harvard College alumni and Radcliffe College
alumnae.

We know the number is closer to 20%, just from the figures in _The
Economist_ and elsewhere, taken from Harvard's own figures.

There is an entire book, or maybe two, written about this subject.
It's been well researched. I also spent some time looking through the
professional journal sites, which are all paid academic sources, and
they confirm the conclusions posted on the free sites.



Like I said, I do not count someone as a Legacy Student unless they
would not have gotten into the college except they were the child of
someone famous. Al Gore might fit my definition.

Most of the legacy students who are admitted with sub-par SATs and/or
grades got there not because they are famous, but because their
parents contribute to the schools. I'm hammered monthly by Washington
& Lee.g That's what top private schools live on, and it's a big
influence in admitting children of those contributors.

One of the sources calculates that being a legacy student is worth 160
points in SAT scores.

--
Ed Huntress

I still think my figures are more accurate. The Harvard website says
that having a parent that is an alumnus only makes a difference if two
students are equal in other respects.

Don't believe them on that point. If you want more sources, I'll
supply them.

Harvard and Princeton are full of legacy students,

Harvard's undergraduate student body is about 12%-13% legacy admits.
Cut the ****.

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 22:25:41 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

On 4/17/2012 9:01 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 20:54:21 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 17, 11:21 pm, Ed wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 19:22:08 -0700 (PDT), "



wrote:
On Apr 17, 9:45 am, Ed wrote:

It is true that there are a few legacy students. But the number is
almost non existent. For example the freshman class at Harvard is
about 1700. Out of that number I would estimate the number of legacy
students at maybe 4. Probably less than 4. That comes out to about
0.2 percent.

Harvard's legacies may run as high as 30%:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...fitzsimmons-le...

Ed Huntress

I think my figure is more accurate if you define a Legacy Student as a
student that would not be admitted if the student was not the child of
someone famous or the child of an alumnae.

There are certainly many students whose parents attended the same
school. But that is mostly because the parents were successful and
lived in an area with good schools. And the parents actively
encouraged the child to excel in school. It does not surprise me that
a child brought up by Ivy League parents tend to be intelligent and
believe in studying.

If you read those links and other sources, they're talking about
students who were *admitted* largely, or partly, because of their
legacy status.





I know three people whom you might consider Legacy Students, but I do
not. One made a lot of money by working at start up companies in
California, but then got his MBA at the University of Washington and
now is a professor at a Swiss business school.

A second one got her Phd at Harvard and now is a European History
professor at the University of Texas.

The third one got her MBA , worked for a while and then went to Boston
University as a Phd candidate in Economics. But did not get her Phd.
Well maybe she has by now. I think she completed all the courses ,but
never wrote her thesis. She now works for the government in
Washington , D. C.

From your cite.

Fitzsimmons also said that Harvard’s undergraduate population is
comprised of approximately 12 to 13 percent legacies, a group he
defined as children of Harvard College alumni and Radcliffe College
alumnae.

We know the number is closer to 20%, just from the figures in _The
Economist_ and elsewhere, taken from Harvard's own figures.

There is an entire book, or maybe two, written about this subject.
It's been well researched. I also spent some time looking through the
professional journal sites, which are all paid academic sources, and
they confirm the conclusions posted on the free sites.



Like I said, I do not count someone as a Legacy Student unless they
would not have gotten into the college except they were the child of
someone famous. Al Gore might fit my definition.

Most of the legacy students who are admitted with sub-par SATs and/or
grades got there not because they are famous, but because their
parents contribute to the schools. I'm hammered monthly by Washington
& Lee.g That's what top private schools live on, and it's a big
influence in admitting children of those contributors.

One of the sources calculates that being a legacy student is worth 160
points in SAT scores.

--
Ed Huntress

I still think my figures are more accurate. The Harvard website says
that having a parent that is an alumnus only makes a difference if two
students are equal in other respects.

Don't believe them on that point. If you want more sources, I'll
supply them.

Harvard and Princeton are full of legacy students,

Harvard's undergraduate student body is about 12%-13% legacy admits.
Cut the ****.

As I said, the percentage is higher than the admissions departments
are willing to admit:

"At Elite Colleges, Legacy Status May Count More Than Was Previously
Thought"

http://chronicle.com/article/Legacys...May-Be/125812/

There's a lot more out there if you look, particularly if you look in
the education journals.

--
Ed Huntress

On Apr 18, 5:42*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 22:25:41 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:



On 4/17/2012 9:01 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 20:54:21 -0700 (PDT), "
*wrote:

On Apr 17, 11:21 pm, Ed *wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 19:22:08 -0700 (PDT), "

*wrote:
On Apr 17, 9:45 am, Ed *wrote:

It is true that there are a few legacy students. *But the number is
almost non existent. *For example the freshman class at Harvard is
about 1700. *Out of *that number I would estimate the number of legacy
students at maybe 4. *Probably less than 4. * That comes out to about
0.2 percent.

Harvard's legacies may run as high as 30%:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...fitzsimmons-le...

Ed Huntress

I think my figure is more accurate if you define a Legacy Student as a
student that would not be admitted if the student was not the child of
someone famous or the child of an alumnae.

There are certainly many students whose parents attended the same
school. *But that is mostly because the parents were successful and
lived in an area with good schools. *And the parents actively
encouraged the child to excel in school. It does not surprise me that
a child brought up by Ivy League *parents tend to be intelligent and
believe in studying.

If you read those links and other sources, they're talking about
students who were *admitted* largely, or partly, because of their
legacy status.

I know three people whom you might consider Legacy Students, but I do
not. *One made a lot of money by working at start up companies in
California, *but then got his MBA at the University of Washington and
now is a professor at a Swiss business school.

A second one got her Phd *at Harvard *and now is a European History
professor at the University of Texas.

The third one got her MBA , worked for a while and then went to Boston
University as a Phd candidate in Economics. *But did not get her Phd.
Well maybe she has by now. *I think she completed all the courses ,but
never wrote her thesis. *She now works for the government in
Washington , D. C.

From your cite.

Fitzsimmons also said that Harvard’s undergraduate population is
comprised of approximately 12 to 13 percent legacies, a group he
defined as children of Harvard College alumni and Radcliffe College
alumnae.

We know the number is closer to 20%, just from the figures in _The
Economist_ and elsewhere, taken from Harvard's own figures.

There is an entire book, or maybe two, written about this subject.
It's been well researched. I also spent some time looking through the
professional journal sites, which are all paid academic sources, and
they confirm the conclusions posted on the free sites.

Like I said, I do not count someone as a Legacy Student unless they
would not have gotten into the college except they were the child of
someone famous. *Al Gore might fit my definition.

Most of the legacy students who are admitted with sub-par SATs and/or
grades got there not because they are famous, but because their
parents contribute to the schools. I'm hammered monthly by Washington
& *Lee.g *That's what top private schools live on, and it's a big
influence in admitting children of those contributors.

One of the sources calculates that being a legacy student is worth 160
points in SAT scores.

--
Ed Huntress

I still think my figures are more accurate. *The Harvard website says
that having a parent that is an alumnus only makes a difference if two
students are equal in other respects.

Don't believe them on that point. If you want more sources, I'll
supply them.

Harvard and Princeton are full of legacy students,

Harvard's undergraduate student body is about 12%-13% legacy admits.
Cut the ****.

As I said, the percentage is higher than the admissions departments
are willing to admit:

"At Elite Colleges, Legacy Status May Count More Than Was Previously
Thought"

http://chronicle.com/article/Legacys...May-Be/125812/

There's a lot more out there if you look, particularly if you look in
the education journals.

--
Ed Huntress

I am sure there are lots of people that want to read about how the
legacy students kept them from being accepted into a Ivy League
school. Much nicer to believe that than to think one did not get
admitted because one was not as good as those that did get admitted.
So I am sure there are lots of sources for such articles.

However Harvard is going to spend 172 million dollars in aid to the
undergraduates. That amounts to $ 25,294 dollars per undergraduate
student based on 1700 students in a class and 4 classes. Now it seems
pretty absurd that Harvard would spend that much to aid students and
then take anyone who is not absolutely the best. Harvard gets top
notch professors. And one reason for being a professor at Harvard is
that you get to teach the most intelligent students instead of having
second rate students to teach. Harvard has the reputation of being
the best college and that a Harvard degree means the person is one of
the most qualified people. It seems pretty absurd that they would
risk that reputation by admitting very many legacy students.

Now I do think they admit a few students because they are pretty sure
the student will end up in a place of power. And that the world will
be better if that person has a good education. For example the Saudi
prince.

Early life and education

Turki was born on February 15, 1945 in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. He is the
eighth and last son of the late King Faisal by Princess Iffat Al-
Thunayyan.[2]

He received his primary and some secondary education at a school in
Taif built by his parents.[3] When he was fourteen, his father sent
him to Princeton, New Jersey to complete his secondary education at
the Lawrenceville School, from which he graduated from in 1963.[4] He
then attended the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at
Georgetown University, graduating in the class of 1968 (alongside
future U.S. President Bill Clinton).[5] Turki has also done post-
graduate work at Princeton,[citation needed] Cambridge,[citation
needed] and the University of London, where he took courses in Islamic
law and jurisprudence.[6]

After returning to the Kingdom, Turki was appointed an Adviser in the
Royal Court in 1973.[7]

From the source you cited.

For an individual applicant, legacy or nonlegacy status may indeed
matter a lot. But Mr. Hurwitz cautions that because of the size of the
applicant pools at the sample colleges, legacy admits don't greatly
decrease other students' already-long odds of acceptance. Of the
290,000-plus applications he studied, only about 6 percent had legacy
status.

and

Mr. Hurwitz also looked at how students within certain SAT ranges
fared against one another. There wasn't a clear-cut pattern, but
generally the higher the SAT score, the more legacy status mattered.
That finding, Mr. Hurwitz says, seems in line with colleges' argument
that legacy status matters the most in deciding between two highly-
qualified candidates. "It's easier to justify nudging the student if
they're really strong academically," he says.

So horse **** on your claims. Your own source refuts what you say.

Dan

On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:20:09 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 18, 5:42*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 22:25:41 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:



On 4/17/2012 9:01 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 20:54:21 -0700 (PDT), "
*wrote:

On Apr 17, 11:21 pm, Ed *wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 19:22:08 -0700 (PDT), "

*wrote:
On Apr 17, 9:45 am, Ed *wrote:

It is true that there are a few legacy students. *But the number is
almost non existent. *For example the freshman class at Harvard is
about 1700. *Out of *that number I would estimate the number of legacy
students at maybe 4. *Probably less than 4. * That comes out to about
0.2 percent.

Harvard's legacies may run as high as 30%:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...fitzsimmons-le...

Ed Huntress

I think my figure is more accurate if you define a Legacy Student as a
student that would not be admitted if the student was not the child of
someone famous or the child of an alumnae.

There are certainly many students whose parents attended the same
school. *But that is mostly because the parents were successful and
lived in an area with good schools. *And the parents actively
encouraged the child to excel in school. It does not surprise me that
a child brought up by Ivy League *parents tend to be intelligent and
believe in studying.

If you read those links and other sources, they're talking about
students who were *admitted* largely, or partly, because of their
legacy status.

I know three people whom you might consider Legacy Students, but I do
not. *One made a lot of money by working at start up companies in
California, *but then got his MBA at the University of Washington and
now is a professor at a Swiss business school.

A second one got her Phd *at Harvard *and now is a European History
professor at the University of Texas.

The third one got her MBA , worked for a while and then went to Boston
University as a Phd candidate in Economics. *But did not get her Phd.
Well maybe she has by now. *I think she completed all the courses ,but
never wrote her thesis. *She now works for the government in
Washington , D. C.

From your cite.

Fitzsimmons also said that Harvard’s undergraduate population is
comprised of approximately 12 to 13 percent legacies, a group he
defined as children of Harvard College alumni and Radcliffe College
alumnae.

We know the number is closer to 20%, just from the figures in _The
Economist_ and elsewhere, taken from Harvard's own figures.

There is an entire book, or maybe two, written about this subject.
It's been well researched. I also spent some time looking through the
professional journal sites, which are all paid academic sources, and
they confirm the conclusions posted on the free sites.

Like I said, I do not count someone as a Legacy Student unless they
would not have gotten into the college except they were the child of
someone famous. *Al Gore might fit my definition.

Most of the legacy students who are admitted with sub-par SATs and/or
grades got there not because they are famous, but because their
parents contribute to the schools. I'm hammered monthly by Washington
& *Lee.g *That's what top private schools live on, and it's a big
influence in admitting children of those contributors.

One of the sources calculates that being a legacy student is worth 160
points in SAT scores.

--
Ed Huntress

I still think my figures are more accurate. *The Harvard website says
that having a parent that is an alumnus only makes a difference if two
students are equal in other respects.

Don't believe them on that point. If you want more sources, I'll
supply them.

Harvard and Princeton are full of legacy students,

Harvard's undergraduate student body is about 12%-13% legacy admits.
Cut the ****.

As I said, the percentage is higher than the admissions departments
are willing to admit:

"At Elite Colleges, Legacy Status May Count More Than Was Previously
Thought"

http://chronicle.com/article/Legacys...May-Be/125812/

There's a lot more out there if you look, particularly if you look in
the education journals.

--
Ed Huntress

I am sure there are lots of people that want to read about how the
legacy students kept them from being accepted into a Ivy League
school. Much nicer to believe that than to think one did not get
admitted because one was not as good as those that did get admitted.
So I am sure there are lots of sources for such articles.

That's _The Chronicle of Higher Education_, a consistent finalist for
the National Magazine Award, Dan.

You just don't want to believe the facts because they contradict the
script you have running in your head. Some people will be interested;
most won't care.

--
Ed Huntress




However Harvard is going to spend 172 million dollars in aid to the
undergraduates. That amounts to $ 25,294 dollars per undergraduate
student based on 1700 students in a class and 4 classes. Now it seems
pretty absurd that Harvard would spend that much to aid students and
then take anyone who is not absolutely the best. Harvard gets top
notch professors. And one reason for being a professor at Harvard is
that you get to teach the most intelligent students instead of having
second rate students to teach. Harvard has the reputation of being
the best college and that a Harvard degree means the person is one of
the most qualified people. It seems pretty absurd that they would
risk that reputation by admitting very many legacy students.

Now I do think they admit a few students because they are pretty sure
the student will end up in a place of power. And that the world will
be better if that person has a good education. For example the Saudi
prince.

Early life and education

Turki was born on February 15, 1945 in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. He is the
eighth and last son of the late King Faisal by Princess Iffat Al-
Thunayyan.[2]

He received his primary and some secondary education at a school in
Taif built by his parents.[3] When he was fourteen, his father sent
him to Princeton, New Jersey to complete his secondary education at
the Lawrenceville School, from which he graduated from in 1963.[4] He
then attended the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at
Georgetown University, graduating in the class of 1968 (alongside
future U.S. President Bill Clinton).[5] Turki has also done post-
graduate work at Princeton,[citation needed] Cambridge,[citation
needed] and the University of London, where he took courses in Islamic
law and jurisprudence.[6]

After returning to the Kingdom, Turki was appointed an Adviser in the
Royal Court in 1973.[7]

From the source you cited.

For an individual applicant, legacy or nonlegacy status may indeed
matter a lot. But Mr. Hurwitz cautions that because of the size of the
applicant pools at the sample colleges, legacy admits don't greatly
decrease other students' already-long odds of acceptance. Of the
290,000-plus applications he studied, only about 6 percent had legacy
status.

and

Mr. Hurwitz also looked at how students within certain SAT ranges
fared against one another. There wasn't a clear-cut pattern, but
generally the higher the SAT score, the more legacy status mattered.
That finding, Mr. Hurwitz says, seems in line with colleges' argument
that legacy status matters the most in deciding between two highly-
qualified candidates. "It's easier to justify nudging the student if
they're really strong academically," he says.

So horse **** on your claims. Your own source refuts what you say.

Dan

On Apr 18, 8:49*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:


That's _The Chronicle of Higher Education_, a consistent finalist for
the National Magazine Award, Dan.

You just don't want to believe the facts because they contradict the
script you have running in your head. Some people will be interested;
most won't care.

--
Ed Huntress

Yes but the source you cited says only about 6 percent of the
applicants had legacy status. And that Legacy mostly counted when
both candidates were highly qualified.

So it is you that does not want to believe the facts. The script you
have running in your head does not agree with the source you
provided. I think you applied to Princeton and got rejected. So
you believe there is a conspiracy that kept you from being accepted.
I did not apply to an Ivy League school and get rejected, so
do not believe in a conspiracy against me.

From the source you cited.

For an individual applicant, legacy or nonlegacy status may indeed
matter a lot. But Mr. Hurwitz cautions that because of the size of the
applicant pools at the sample colleges, legacy admits don't greatly
decrease other students' already-long odds of acceptance. Of the
290,000-plus applications he studied, only about 6 percent had legacy
status.

and

Mr. Hurwitz also looked at how students within certain SAT ranges
fared against one another. There wasn't a clear-cut pattern, but
generally the higher the SAT score, the more legacy status mattered.
That finding, Mr. Hurwitz says, seems in line with colleges' argument
that legacy status matters the most in deciding between two highly-
qualified candidates. "It's easier to justify nudging the student if
they're really strong academically," he says.

So horse **** on your claims. *Your own source refutes what you say.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:30:02 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 18, 8:49*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:


That's _The Chronicle of Higher Education_, a consistent finalist for
the National Magazine Award, Dan.

You just don't want to believe the facts because they contradict the
script you have running in your head. Some people will be interested;
most won't care.

--
Ed Huntress

Yes but the source you cited says only about 6 percent of the
applicants had legacy status. And that Legacy mostly counted when
both candidates were highly qualified.

Only 6% of APPLICANTS had legacy status. But at Harvard, for example,
only 7% or 8% of all applicants are ADMITTED. You need to know the
percentage of legacy students admitted OR the percentage of legacy
students in the admitted class to judge the effect of the legacy
status. And I've provided several links in this thread that tell you
just that.


So it is you that does not want to believe the facts.

You've just selected a meaningless fact. That percentage of legacy
applicants is not the issue. The percentage who are ADMITTED is one
issue, and the percentage of legacy students making up the class is
another issue.

As that article said, quoting research published in the journal
_Economics of Education Review_, "In other words, if a nonlegacy
applicant faced a 15-percent chance of admission, an identical
applicant who was a primary legacy would have a 60-percent chance of
getting in."

The script you
have running in your head does not agree with the source you
provided. I think you applied to Princeton and got rejected.

You have another baloney script running around in your head, Dan. How
would you know where I applied?

You're off on another one of your merry-go-'round arguments, only this
time you're making wild guesses in addition to torturing the facts. Go
find something else to occupy your time. You're not getting any more
of mine.

--
Ed Huntress


So
you believe there is a conspiracy that kept you from being accepted.
I did not apply to an Ivy League school and get rejected, so
do not believe in a conspiracy against me.

From the source you cited.

For an individual applicant, legacy or nonlegacy status may indeed
matter a lot. But Mr. Hurwitz cautions that because of the size of the
applicant pools at the sample colleges, legacy admits don't greatly
decrease other students' already-long odds of acceptance. Of the
290,000-plus applications he studied, only about 6 percent had legacy
status.

and

Mr. Hurwitz also looked at how students within certain SAT ranges
fared against one another. There wasn't a clear-cut pattern, but
generally the higher the SAT score, the more legacy status mattered.
That finding, Mr. Hurwitz says, seems in line with colleges' argument
that legacy status matters the most in deciding between two highly-
qualified candidates. "It's easier to justify nudging the student if
they're really strong academically," he says.

So horse **** on your claims. *Your own source refutes what you say.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

On 4/18/2012 5:49 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:20:09 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 18, 5:42 pm, Ed wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 22:25:41 -0700, George
wrote:



On 4/17/2012 9:01 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 20:54:21 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 17, 11:21 pm, Ed wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 19:22:08 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
On Apr 17, 9:45 am, Ed wrote:

It is true that there are a few legacy students. But the number is
almost non existent. For example the freshman class at Harvard is
about 1700. Out of that number I would estimate the number of legacy
students at maybe 4. Probably less than 4. That comes out to about
0.2 percent.

Harvard's legacies may run as high as 30%:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...fitzsimmons-le...

Ed Huntress

I think my figure is more accurate if you define a Legacy Student as a
student that would not be admitted if the student was not the child of
someone famous or the child of an alumnae.

There are certainly many students whose parents attended the same
school. But that is mostly because the parents were successful and
lived in an area with good schools. And the parents actively
encouraged the child to excel in school. It does not surprise me that
a child brought up by Ivy League parents tend to be intelligent and
believe in studying.

If you read those links and other sources, they're talking about
students who were *admitted* largely, or partly, because of their
legacy status.

I know three people whom you might consider Legacy Students, but I do
not. One made a lot of money by working at start up companies in
California, but then got his MBA at the University of Washington and
now is a professor at a Swiss business school.

A second one got her Phd at Harvard and now is a European History
professor at the University of Texas.

The third one got her MBA , worked for a while and then went to Boston
University as a Phd candidate in Economics. But did not get her Phd.
Well maybe she has by now. I think she completed all the courses ,but
never wrote her thesis. She now works for the government in
Washington , D. C.

From your cite.

Fitzsimmons also said that Harvard’s undergraduate population is
comprised of approximately 12 to 13 percent legacies, a group he
defined as children of Harvard College alumni and Radcliffe College
alumnae.

We know the number is closer to 20%, just from the figures in _The
Economist_ and elsewhere, taken from Harvard's own figures.

There is an entire book, or maybe two, written about this subject.
It's been well researched. I also spent some time looking through the
professional journal sites, which are all paid academic sources, and
they confirm the conclusions posted on the free sites.

Like I said, I do not count someone as a Legacy Student unless they
would not have gotten into the college except they were the child of
someone famous. Al Gore might fit my definition.

Most of the legacy students who are admitted with sub-par SATs and/or
grades got there not because they are famous, but because their
parents contribute to the schools. I'm hammered monthly by Washington
& Lee.g That's what top private schools live on, and it's a big
influence in admitting children of those contributors.

One of the sources calculates that being a legacy student is worth 160
points in SAT scores.

--
Ed Huntress

I still think my figures are more accurate. The Harvard website says
that having a parent that is an alumnus only makes a difference if two
students are equal in other respects.

Don't believe them on that point. If you want more sources, I'll
supply them.

Harvard and Princeton are full of legacy students,

Harvard's undergraduate student body is about 12%-13% legacy admits.
Cut the ****.

As I said, the percentage is higher than the admissions departments
are willing to admit:

"At Elite Colleges, Legacy Status May Count More Than Was Previously
Thought"

http://chronicle.com/article/Legacys...May-Be/125812/

There's a lot more out there if you look, particularly if you look in
the education journals.

--
Ed Huntress

I am sure there are lots of people that want to read about how the
legacy students kept them from being accepted into a Ivy League
school. Much nicer to believe that than to think one did not get
admitted because one was not as good as those that did get admitted.
So I am sure there are lots of sources for such articles.

That's _The Chronicle of Higher Education_, a consistent finalist for
the National Magazine Award, Dan.

It's a ****ing left-wing rag. Here's a recent example:
http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstor...ttention/44865

On Apr 18, 10:54*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:



Only 6% of APPLICANTS had legacy status. But at Harvard, for example,
only 7% or 8% of all applicants are ADMITTED. You need to know the
percentage of legacy students admitted OR the percentage of legacy
students in the admitted class to judge the effect of the legacy
status. And I've provided several links in this thread that tell you
just that.

Harvard.edu has the percentage of legacy students admitted. As
I remember it was about 12 percent. The Harvard website also says
that Legacy is used when there are two highly qualified applicants.
Which your cite seems to support.




You've just selected a meaningless fact. That percentage of legacy
applicants is not the issue. The percentage who are ADMITTED is one
issue, and the percentage of legacy students making up the class is
another issue.

You see it as an issue, but I see it only as an issue if the legacy
candidates were not just as qualified as the non legacy candidates.
Why do you think it is an issue when the highest qualified candidates
are selected? Sons and daughters of Ivy League parents tend to be
highly qualified.



The script you
have running in your head does not agree with the source you
provided. * *I think you applied to Princeton and got rejected.

You have another baloney script running around in your head, Dan. How
would you know where I applied?

I do not know, but you have mentioned you lived in Princeton , N.J.
so it would not be surprising if you applied. You also did not deny
applying to Princeton, and I know you went to Michigan. So I still
think you applied and were rejected.

You're off on another one of your merry-go-'round arguments, only this
time you're making wild guesses in addition to torturing the facts. Go
find something else to occupy your time. You're not getting any more
of mine.

--
Ed Huntress



For an individual applicant, legacy or nonlegacy status may indeed
matter a lot. But Mr. Hurwitz cautions that because of the size of the
applicant pools at the sample colleges, legacy admits don't greatly
decrease other students' already-long odds of acceptance. Of the
290,000-plus applications he studied, only about 6 percent had legacy
status.

and

Mr. Hurwitz also looked at how students within certain SAT ranges
fared against one another. There wasn't a clear-cut pattern, but
generally the higher the SAT score, the more legacy status mattered.
That finding, Mr. Hurwitz says, seems in line with colleges' argument
that legacy status matters the most in deciding between two highly-
qualified candidates. "It's easier to justify nudging the student if
they're really strong academically," he says.

So horse **** on your claims. *Your own source refutes what you say..

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:18:12 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

On 4/18/2012 5:49 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:20:09 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 18, 5:42 pm, Ed wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 22:25:41 -0700, George
wrote:



On 4/17/2012 9:01 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 20:54:21 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 17, 11:21 pm, Ed wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 19:22:08 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
On Apr 17, 9:45 am, Ed wrote:

It is true that there are a few legacy students. But the number is
almost non existent. For example the freshman class at Harvard is
about 1700. Out of that number I would estimate the number of legacy
students at maybe 4. Probably less than 4. That comes out to about
0.2 percent.

Harvard's legacies may run as high as 30%:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...fitzsimmons-le...

Ed Huntress

I think my figure is more accurate if you define a Legacy Student as a
student that would not be admitted if the student was not the child of
someone famous or the child of an alumnae.

There are certainly many students whose parents attended the same
school. But that is mostly because the parents were successful and
lived in an area with good schools. And the parents actively
encouraged the child to excel in school. It does not surprise me that
a child brought up by Ivy League parents tend to be intelligent and
believe in studying.

If you read those links and other sources, they're talking about
students who were *admitted* largely, or partly, because of their
legacy status.

I know three people whom you might consider Legacy Students, but I do
not. One made a lot of money by working at start up companies in
California, but then got his MBA at the University of Washington and
now is a professor at a Swiss business school.

A second one got her Phd at Harvard and now is a European History
professor at the University of Texas.

The third one got her MBA , worked for a while and then went to Boston
University as a Phd candidate in Economics. But did not get her Phd.
Well maybe she has by now. I think she completed all the courses ,but
never wrote her thesis. She now works for the government in
Washington , D. C.

From your cite.

Fitzsimmons also said that Harvard’s undergraduate population is
comprised of approximately 12 to 13 percent legacies, a group he
defined as children of Harvard College alumni and Radcliffe College
alumnae.

We know the number is closer to 20%, just from the figures in _The
Economist_ and elsewhere, taken from Harvard's own figures.

There is an entire book, or maybe two, written about this subject.
It's been well researched. I also spent some time looking through the
professional journal sites, which are all paid academic sources, and
they confirm the conclusions posted on the free sites.

Like I said, I do not count someone as a Legacy Student unless they
would not have gotten into the college except they were the child of
someone famous. Al Gore might fit my definition.

Most of the legacy students who are admitted with sub-par SATs and/or
grades got there not because they are famous, but because their
parents contribute to the schools. I'm hammered monthly by Washington
& Lee.g That's what top private schools live on, and it's a big
influence in admitting children of those contributors.

One of the sources calculates that being a legacy student is worth 160
points in SAT scores.

--
Ed Huntress

I still think my figures are more accurate. The Harvard website says
that having a parent that is an alumnus only makes a difference if two
students are equal in other respects.

Don't believe them on that point. If you want more sources, I'll
supply them.

Harvard and Princeton are full of legacy students,

Harvard's undergraduate student body is about 12%-13% legacy admits.
Cut the ****.

As I said, the percentage is higher than the admissions departments
are willing to admit:

"At Elite Colleges, Legacy Status May Count More Than Was Previously
Thought"

http://chronicle.com/article/Legacys...May-Be/125812/

There's a lot more out there if you look, particularly if you look in
the education journals.

--
Ed Huntress

I am sure there are lots of people that want to read about how the
legacy students kept them from being accepted into a Ivy League
school. Much nicer to believe that than to think one did not get
admitted because one was not as good as those that did get admitted.
So I am sure there are lots of sources for such articles.

That's _The Chronicle of Higher Education_, a consistent finalist for
the National Magazine Award, Dan.

It's a ****ing left-wing rag. Here's a recent example:
http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstor...ttention/44865

That's a blog, you moron. They have provocative opinions in their
blogs, like most publications. And you probably think the WSJ is a
left-wing rag, anyway.

--
Ed Huntress

On 4/18/2012 8:33 PM, wrote:
On Apr 18, 10:54 pm, Ed wrote:



Only 6% of APPLICANTS had legacy status. But at Harvard, for example,
only 7% or 8% of all applicants are ADMITTED. You need to know the
percentage of legacy students admitted OR the percentage of legacy
students in the admitted class to judge the effect of the legacy
status. And I've provided several links in this thread that tell you
just that.

Harvard.edu has the percentage of legacy students admitted. As
I remember it was about 12 percent. The Harvard website also says
that Legacy is used when there are two highly qualified applicants.
Which your cite seems to support.

You have to be careful with your percentages. Legacy admissions
comprise about 12% to 13% of the undergraduate student body, but the
legacy admission rate is 30% - that is, 30% of legacy applicants are
admitted, a much higher rate than of non-legacy applicants.

It's not an issue, except in the minds of left-wing redistributionist
assholes.



You've just selected a meaningless fact. That percentage of legacy
applicants is not the issue. The percentage who are ADMITTED is one
issue, and the percentage of legacy students making up the class is
another issue.

You see it as an issue, but I see it only as an issue if the legacy
candidates were not just as qualified as the non legacy candidates.
Why do you think it is an issue when the highest qualified candidates
are selected? Sons and daughters of Ivy League parents tend to be
highly qualified.



The script you
have running in your head does not agree with the source you
provided. I think you applied to Princeton and got rejected.

You have another baloney script running around in your head, Dan. How
would you know where I applied?

I do not know, but you have mentioned you lived in Princeton , N.J.
so it would not be surprising if you applied. You also did not deny
applying to Princeton, and I know you went to Michigan. So I still
think you applied and were rejected.

You're off on another one of your merry-go-'round arguments, only this
time you're making wild guesses in addition to torturing the facts. Go
find something else to occupy your time. You're not getting any more
of mine.

--
Ed Huntress



For an individual applicant, legacy or nonlegacy status may indeed
matter a lot. But Mr. Hurwitz cautions that because of the size of the
applicant pools at the sample colleges, legacy admits don't greatly
decrease other students' already-long odds of acceptance. Of the
290,000-plus applications he studied, only about 6 percent had legacy
status.

and

Mr. Hurwitz also looked at how students within certain SAT ranges
fared against one another. There wasn't a clear-cut pattern, but
generally the higher the SAT score, the more legacy status mattered.
That finding, Mr. Hurwitz says, seems in line with colleges' argument
that legacy status matters the most in deciding between two highly-
qualified candidates. "It's easier to justify nudging the student if
they're really strong academically," he says.

So horse **** on your claims. Your own source refutes what you say.

Dan

On 4/18/2012 8:59 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:18:12 -0700, George
wrote:

On 4/18/2012 5:49 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:20:09 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 18, 5:42 pm, Ed wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 22:25:41 -0700, George
wrote:



On 4/17/2012 9:01 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 20:54:21 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 17, 11:21 pm, Ed wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 19:22:08 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
On Apr 17, 9:45 am, Ed wrote:

It is true that there are a few legacy students. But the number is
almost non existent. For example the freshman class at Harvard is
about 1700. Out of that number I would estimate the number of legacy
students at maybe 4. Probably less than 4. That comes out to about
0.2 percent.

Harvard's legacies may run as high as 30%:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...fitzsimmons-le...

Ed Huntress

I think my figure is more accurate if you define a Legacy Student as a
student that would not be admitted if the student was not the child of
someone famous or the child of an alumnae.

There are certainly many students whose parents attended the same
school. But that is mostly because the parents were successful and
lived in an area with good schools. And the parents actively
encouraged the child to excel in school. It does not surprise me that
a child brought up by Ivy League parents tend to be intelligent and
believe in studying.

If you read those links and other sources, they're talking about
students who were *admitted* largely, or partly, because of their
legacy status.

I know three people whom you might consider Legacy Students, but I do
not. One made a lot of money by working at start up companies in
California, but then got his MBA at the University of Washington and
now is a professor at a Swiss business school.

A second one got her Phd at Harvard and now is a European History
professor at the University of Texas.

The third one got her MBA , worked for a while and then went to Boston
University as a Phd candidate in Economics. But did not get her Phd.
Well maybe she has by now. I think she completed all the courses ,but
never wrote her thesis. She now works for the government in
Washington , D. C.

From your cite.

Fitzsimmons also said that Harvard’s undergraduate population is
comprised of approximately 12 to 13 percent legacies, a group he
defined as children of Harvard College alumni and Radcliffe College
alumnae.

We know the number is closer to 20%, just from the figures in _The
Economist_ and elsewhere, taken from Harvard's own figures.

There is an entire book, or maybe two, written about this subject.
It's been well researched. I also spent some time looking through the
professional journal sites, which are all paid academic sources, and
they confirm the conclusions posted on the free sites.

Like I said, I do not count someone as a Legacy Student unless they
would not have gotten into the college except they were the child of
someone famous. Al Gore might fit my definition.

Most of the legacy students who are admitted with sub-par SATs and/or
grades got there not because they are famous, but because their
parents contribute to the schools. I'm hammered monthly by Washington
& Lee.g That's what top private schools live on, and it's a big
influence in admitting children of those contributors.

One of the sources calculates that being a legacy student is worth 160
points in SAT scores.

--
Ed Huntress

I still think my figures are more accurate. The Harvard website says
that having a parent that is an alumnus only makes a difference if two
students are equal in other respects.

Don't believe them on that point. If you want more sources, I'll
supply them.

Harvard and Princeton are full of legacy students,

Harvard's undergraduate student body is about 12%-13% legacy admits.
Cut the ****.

As I said, the percentage is higher than the admissions departments
are willing to admit:

"At Elite Colleges, Legacy Status May Count More Than Was Previously
Thought"

http://chronicle.com/article/Legacys...May-Be/125812/

There's a lot more out there if you look, particularly if you look in
the education journals.

--
Ed Huntress

I am sure there are lots of people that want to read about how the
legacy students kept them from being accepted into a Ivy League
school. Much nicer to believe that than to think one did not get
admitted because one was not as good as those that did get admitted.
So I am sure there are lots of sources for such articles.

That's _The Chronicle of Higher Education_, a consistent finalist for
the National Magazine Award, Dan.

It's a ****ing left-wing rag. Here's a recent example:
http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstor...ttention/44865

That's a blog, you moron. They have provocative opinions in their
blogs, like most publications.

*Everything* in it is left-wing, douchebag. Their ****ing "10 Myths
About Legacy Preferences in College Admissions" article by that far-left
****bag Kahlenberg is passed off as "news", but Kahlenberg is a known
educrat organized labor shill.

****, not-so-fast eddie, do you *really* think this stuff isn't obvious?

On 4/18/2012 10:17 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/18/2012 8:59 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:18:12 -0700, George
wrote:

On 4/18/2012 5:49 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:20:09 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 18, 5:42 pm, Ed wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 22:25:41 -0700, George
wrote:



On 4/17/2012 9:01 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 20:54:21 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 17, 11:21 pm, Ed wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 19:22:08 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
On Apr 17, 9:45 am, Ed wrote:

It is true that there are a few legacy students. But the
number is
almost non existent. For example the freshman class at
Harvard is
about 1700. Out of that number I would estimate the number
of legacy
students at maybe 4. Probably less than 4. That comes out
to about
0.2 percent.

Harvard's legacies may run as high as 30%:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...fitzsimmons-le...


Ed Huntress

I think my figure is more accurate if you define a Legacy
Student as a
student that would not be admitted if the student was not the
child of
someone famous or the child of an alumnae.

There are certainly many students whose parents attended the
same
school. But that is mostly because the parents were
successful and
lived in an area with good schools. And the parents actively
encouraged the child to excel in school. It does not surprise
me that
a child brought up by Ivy League parents tend to be
intelligent and
believe in studying.

If you read those links and other sources, they're talking about
students who were *admitted* largely, or partly, because of their
legacy status.

I know three people whom you might consider Legacy Students,
but I do
not. One made a lot of money by working at start up companies in
California, but then got his MBA at the University of
Washington and
now is a professor at a Swiss business school.

A second one got her Phd at Harvard and now is a European
History
professor at the University of Texas.

The third one got her MBA , worked for a while and then went
to Boston
University as a Phd candidate in Economics. But did not get
her Phd.
Well maybe she has by now. I think she completed all the
courses ,but
never wrote her thesis. She now works for the government in
Washington , D. C.

From your cite.

Fitzsimmons also said that Harvard’s undergraduate population is
comprised of approximately 12 to 13 percent legacies, a group he
defined as children of Harvard College alumni and Radcliffe
College
alumnae.

We know the number is closer to 20%, just from the figures in
_The
Economist_ and elsewhere, taken from Harvard's own figures.

There is an entire book, or maybe two, written about this
subject.
It's been well researched. I also spent some time looking
through the
professional journal sites, which are all paid academic
sources, and
they confirm the conclusions posted on the free sites.

Like I said, I do not count someone as a Legacy Student
unless they
would not have gotten into the college except they were the
child of
someone famous. Al Gore might fit my definition.

Most of the legacy students who are admitted with sub-par SATs
and/or
grades got there not because they are famous, but because their
parents contribute to the schools. I'm hammered monthly by
Washington
& Lee.g That's what top private schools live on, and it's a big
influence in admitting children of those contributors.

One of the sources calculates that being a legacy student is
worth 160
points in SAT scores.

--
Ed Huntress

I still think my figures are more accurate. The Harvard website
says
that having a parent that is an alumnus only makes a difference
if two
students are equal in other respects.

Don't believe them on that point. If you want more sources, I'll
supply them.

Harvard and Princeton are full of legacy students,

Harvard's undergraduate student body is about 12%-13% legacy admits.
Cut the ****.

As I said, the percentage is higher than the admissions departments
are willing to admit:

"At Elite Colleges, Legacy Status May Count More Than Was Previously
Thought"

http://chronicle.com/article/Legacys...May-Be/125812/

There's a lot more out there if you look, particularly if you look in
the education journals.

--
Ed Huntress

I am sure there are lots of people that want to read about how the
legacy students kept them from being accepted into a Ivy League
school. Much nicer to believe that than to think one did not get
admitted because one was not as good as those that did get admitted.
So I am sure there are lots of sources for such articles.

That's _The Chronicle of Higher Education_, a consistent finalist for
the National Magazine Award, Dan.

It's a ****ing left-wing rag. Here's a recent example:
http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstor...ttention/44865


That's a blog, you moron. They have provocative opinions in their
blogs, like most publications.

*Everything* in it is left-wing, douchebag. Their ****ing "10 Myths
About Legacy Preferences in College Admissions" article by that far-left
****bag Kahlenberg is passed off as "news", but Kahlenberg is a known
educrat organized labor shill.

****, not-so-fast eddie, do you *really* think this stuff isn't obvious?

You ****ing clown, not-so-fast eddie - you start looking at the
backgrounds of everyone associated with the organization and you find
the Who's Who of "progressive" [gag] left-wing organizations listed time
and again.

On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 22:17:58 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

On 4/18/2012 8:59 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:18:12 -0700, George
wrote:

On 4/18/2012 5:49 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:20:09 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 18, 5:42 pm, Ed wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 22:25:41 -0700, George
wrote:



On 4/17/2012 9:01 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 20:54:21 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 17, 11:21 pm, Ed wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 19:22:08 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
On Apr 17, 9:45 am, Ed wrote:

It is true that there are a few legacy students. But the number is
almost non existent. For example the freshman class at Harvard is
about 1700. Out of that number I would estimate the number of legacy
students at maybe 4. Probably less than 4. That comes out to about
0.2 percent.

Harvard's legacies may run as high as 30%:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...fitzsimmons-le...

Ed Huntress

I think my figure is more accurate if you define a Legacy Student as a
student that would not be admitted if the student was not the child of
someone famous or the child of an alumnae.

There are certainly many students whose parents attended the same
school. But that is mostly because the parents were successful and
lived in an area with good schools. And the parents actively
encouraged the child to excel in school. It does not surprise me that
a child brought up by Ivy League parents tend to be intelligent and
believe in studying.

If you read those links and other sources, they're talking about
students who were *admitted* largely, or partly, because of their
legacy status.

I know three people whom you might consider Legacy Students, but I do
not. One made a lot of money by working at start up companies in
California, but then got his MBA at the University of Washington and
now is a professor at a Swiss business school.

A second one got her Phd at Harvard and now is a European History
professor at the University of Texas.

The third one got her MBA , worked for a while and then went to Boston
University as a Phd candidate in Economics. But did not get her Phd.
Well maybe she has by now. I think she completed all the courses ,but
never wrote her thesis. She now works for the government in
Washington , D. C.

From your cite.

Fitzsimmons also said that Harvard’s undergraduate population is
comprised of approximately 12 to 13 percent legacies, a group he
defined as children of Harvard College alumni and Radcliffe College
alumnae.

We know the number is closer to 20%, just from the figures in _The
Economist_ and elsewhere, taken from Harvard's own figures.

There is an entire book, or maybe two, written about this subject.
It's been well researched. I also spent some time looking through the
professional journal sites, which are all paid academic sources, and
they confirm the conclusions posted on the free sites.

Like I said, I do not count someone as a Legacy Student unless they
would not have gotten into the college except they were the child of
someone famous. Al Gore might fit my definition.

Most of the legacy students who are admitted with sub-par SATs and/or
grades got there not because they are famous, but because their
parents contribute to the schools. I'm hammered monthly by Washington
& Lee.g That's what top private schools live on, and it's a big
influence in admitting children of those contributors.

One of the sources calculates that being a legacy student is worth 160
points in SAT scores.

--
Ed Huntress

I still think my figures are more accurate. The Harvard website says
that having a parent that is an alumnus only makes a difference if two
students are equal in other respects.

Don't believe them on that point. If you want more sources, I'll
supply them.

Harvard and Princeton are full of legacy students,

Harvard's undergraduate student body is about 12%-13% legacy admits.
Cut the ****.

As I said, the percentage is higher than the admissions departments
are willing to admit:

"At Elite Colleges, Legacy Status May Count More Than Was Previously
Thought"

http://chronicle.com/article/Legacys...May-Be/125812/

There's a lot more out there if you look, particularly if you look in
the education journals.

--
Ed Huntress

I am sure there are lots of people that want to read about how the
legacy students kept them from being accepted into a Ivy League
school. Much nicer to believe that than to think one did not get
admitted because one was not as good as those that did get admitted.
So I am sure there are lots of sources for such articles.

That's _The Chronicle of Higher Education_, a consistent finalist for
the National Magazine Award, Dan.

It's a ****ing left-wing rag. Here's a recent example:
http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstor...ttention/44865

That's a blog, you moron. They have provocative opinions in their
blogs, like most publications.

*Everything* in it is left-wing, douchebag. Their ****ing "10 Myths
About Legacy Preferences in College Admissions" article by that far-left
****bag Kahlenberg is passed off as "news", but Kahlenberg is a known
educrat organized labor shill.

****, not-so-fast eddie, do you *really* think this stuff isn't obvious?

You argue like a right-wing moron, Plumper. When a highly regarded
publication publishes something you don't like -- in this case, a
review of a paper written by some researcher at Harvard -- your
response is not to investigate the data in the paper, but to attack
the publication for being "far left."

This goes hand-in-hand with your lazy, sloppy, and accusatory style.
You're wasting all your time catching up, trying to support things you
already said out of ignorance, and then floundering around to find
some put-downs to cover up the fact that you spoke foolishly off the
top of your head.

Once again, you're Gunner with better grammar.

--
Ed Huntress

On 4/17/2012 7:22 PM, wrote:
On Apr 17, 9:45 am, Ed wrote:


It is true that there are a few legacy students. But the number is
almost non existent. For example the freshman class at Harvard is
about 1700. Out of that number I would estimate the number of legacy
students at maybe 4. Probably less than 4. That comes out to about
0.2 percent.

Harvard's legacies may run as high as 30%:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...fitzsimmons-le...


Ed Huntress

I think my figure is more accurate if you define a Legacy Student as a
student that would not be admitted if the student was not the child of
someone famous or the child of an alumnae.

There are certainly many students whose parents attended the same
school. But that is mostly because the parents were successful and
lived in an area with good schools. And the parents actively
encouraged the child to excel in school. It does not surprise me that
a child brought up by Ivy League parents tend to be intelligent and
believe in studying.

I know three people whom you might consider Legacy Students, but I do
not. One made a lot of money by working at start up companies in
California, but then got his MBA at the University of Washington and
now is a professor at a Swiss business school.

A second one got her Phd at Harvard and now is a European History
professor at the University of Texas.

The third one got her MBA , worked for a while and then went to Boston
University as a Phd candidate in Economics. But did not get her Phd.
Well maybe she has by now. I think she completed all the courses ,but
never wrote her thesis. She now works for the government in
Washington , D. C.

From your cite.

Fitzsimmons also said that Harvard’s undergraduate population is
comprised of approximately 12 to 13 percent legacies, a group he
defined as children of Harvard College alumni and Radcliffe College
alumnae.

Like I said, I do not count someone as a Legacy Student unless they
would not have gotten into the college except they were the child of
someone famous. Al Gore might fit my definition.

Dan



From now on don't you dare say a damn thing about me making up the
meanings of words the way I want them. You just did that right here. You
don't count someone as a legacy student unless they would not have
gotten into the college. That's the Dan meaning you made up yourself. So
here you are doing exactly what you berated me for. Want to check the
dictionary and see what a legacy student is? By the way, it's anyone
that goes to the school of their parent.

Hawke

On 4/17/2012 9:01 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 20:54:21 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 17, 11:21 pm, Ed wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 19:22:08 -0700 (PDT), "



wrote:
On Apr 17, 9:45 am, Ed wrote:

It is true that there are a few legacy students. But the number is
almost non existent. For example the freshman class at Harvard is
about 1700. Out of that number I would estimate the number of legacy
students at maybe 4. Probably less than 4. That comes out to about
0.2 percent.

Harvard's legacies may run as high as 30%:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...fitzsimmons-le...

Ed Huntress

I think my figure is more accurate if you define a Legacy Student as a
student that would not be admitted if the student was not the child of
someone famous or the child of an alumnae.

There are certainly many students whose parents attended the same
school. But that is mostly because the parents were successful and
lived in an area with good schools. And the parents actively
encouraged the child to excel in school. It does not surprise me that
a child brought up by Ivy League parents tend to be intelligent and
believe in studying.

If you read those links and other sources, they're talking about
students who were *admitted* largely, or partly, because of their
legacy status.





I know three people whom you might consider Legacy Students, but I do
not. One made a lot of money by working at start up companies in
California, but then got his MBA at the University of Washington and
now is a professor at a Swiss business school.

A second one got her Phd at Harvard and now is a European History
professor at the University of Texas.

The third one got her MBA , worked for a while and then went to Boston
University as a Phd candidate in Economics. But did not get her Phd.
Well maybe she has by now. I think she completed all the courses ,but
never wrote her thesis. She now works for the government in
Washington , D. C.

From your cite.

Fitzsimmons also said that Harvard’s undergraduate population is
comprised of approximately 12 to 13 percent legacies, a group he
defined as children of Harvard College alumni and Radcliffe College
alumnae.

We know the number is closer to 20%, just from the figures in _The
Economist_ and elsewhere, taken from Harvard's own figures.

There is an entire book, or maybe two, written about this subject.
It's been well researched. I also spent some time looking through the
professional journal sites, which are all paid academic sources, and
they confirm the conclusions posted on the free sites.



Like I said, I do not count someone as a Legacy Student unless they
would not have gotten into the college except they were the child of
someone famous. Al Gore might fit my definition.

Most of the legacy students who are admitted with sub-par SATs and/or
grades got there not because they are famous, but because their
parents contribute to the schools. I'm hammered monthly by Washington
& Lee.g That's what top private schools live on, and it's a big
influence in admitting children of those contributors.

One of the sources calculates that being a legacy student is worth 160
points in SAT scores.

--
Ed Huntress

I still think my figures are more accurate. The Harvard website says
that having a parent that is an alumnus only makes a difference if two
students are equal in other respects.

Don't believe them on that point. If you want more sources, I'll
supply them.

Harvard and Princeton are full of legacy students, many of which
wouldn't be there if they were regular applicants. I don't know if
it's getting better or worse, but it's been that way for a long time.


From Harvard's viewpoint that makes sense. Harvard has a huge
endowment. Gifts of a million or so do not make much difference.
Harvard has much more to gain from admitting people like Bill Gates
and Mark Zuckerberg. Much better to admit students that will make
millions, than to admit students whose parents have made millions.
Maybe it is different for Washington and Lee. But then Washington and
Lee is not an Ivy League school.

Dan

Again, if you want sources I'll put together a list. You're not right
about your conclusions. The legacy students get a better ride and
there are quite a lot of them who wouldn't have gotten in otherwise.

The Ivies are loathe to talk much about this. They were investigated
by Congress on the issue not too many years ago and they're very
sensitive about it.



Argue all you want over the exact percentages of legacy students. It
just proves my point about getting breaks in life. All those legacy
students are getting awesome breaks getting into Ivy League schools. We
don't all get that kind of break in life, ever. I've also heard that the
reason for going to those schools is not because the education they
offer is the best you can get. I had a teacher with a PhD from Princeton
tell me that. In addition, she told me we were learning the same things
the students there were learning because she wasn't going to teach us
differently from how she would teach at Princeton.

People go to those schools because of who you meet there and where you
can get in life meeting the young elite children of America's
aristocracy. You make a lot of friends that come from the best families
in America and you get breaks later on down the road. So going there is
all about where it's going to get you. To get there you need a break or
you need to be in the 2% of the population that is exceptionally
talented in some area. I haven't heard anything that has changed my mind
on that either.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...


Argue all you want over the exact percentages of legacy students. It just
proves my point about getting breaks in life. All those legacy students
are getting awesome breaks getting into Ivy League schools. We don't all
get that kind of break in life, ever. I've also heard that the reason for
going to those schools is not because the education they offer is the best
you can get. I had a teacher with a PhD from Princeton tell me that. In
addition, she told me we were learning the same things the students there
were learning because she wasn't going to teach us differently from how
she would teach at Princeton.

Not reallly because the students are not as smart or motivated so it's
impossible to teach to the same standards. It is something that professors
like to say to make their students feel good.

On Apr 24, 4:06*pm, Hawke wrote:

*From now on don't you dare say a damn thing about me making up the
meanings of words the way I want them. You just did that right here. You
don't count someone as a legacy student unless they would not have
gotten into the college. That's the Dan meaning you made up yourself. So
here you are doing exactly what you berated me for. Want to check the
dictionary and see what a legacy student is? By the way, it's anyone
that goes to the school of their parent.

Hawke

I just looked at Wiki. And they say...............

Legacy preferences or legacy admission is a type of preference given
by educational institutions to certain applicants on the basis of
their familial relationship to alumni of that institution.

So it is not anyone that goes to a school of their parent. It is
someone who gets a preference based on their relationship to the
alumni.

I think that agrees pretty much with my definition. If there is no
preference because the student is highly qualified and would get in
regardless, then it is not a legacy admission.

And I told you exactly how I was using the definition at the
beginning. You usually wait until someone points out that what you
said was wrong.

You really need to think before typing.

Dan

On Apr 24, 4:17*pm, Hawke wrote:


Argue all you want over the exact percentages of legacy students. It
just proves my point about getting breaks in life. All those legacy
students are getting awesome breaks getting into Ivy League schools. We
don't all get that kind of break in life, ever. I've also heard that the
reason for going to those schools is not because the education they
offer is the best you can get. I had a teacher with a PhD from Princeton
tell me that. In addition, she told me we were learning the same things
the students there were learning because she wasn't going to teach us
differently from how she would teach at Princeton.

People go to those schools because of who you meet there and where you
can get in life meeting the young elite children of America's
aristocracy. You make a lot of friends that come from the best families
in America and you get breaks later on down the road. So going there is
all about where it's going to get you. To get there you need a break or
you need to be in the 2% of the population that is exceptionally
talented in some area. I haven't heard anything that has changed my mind
on that either.

Hawke

Yep, that is how you think it is. But you really do not have a clue.
The real reason people go to the Ivy League schools is that they are
among the best colleges. I say among because of schools like MIT and
Cal Tech who are top notch, but not Ivy League. And to get there you
have to be better than in the top 2 %. If you are in the top 2
percent, you might consider applying, but you need to be better than
that to be accepted. Most of the Ivy League schools admit about 1 in
10 of those that apply. So if the top 2 % apply, then about only the
top 0.2 % get accepted. But it is more like the top 0.5 % apply and
the top 0.05% get accepted.

Harvard accepts about 1700 students. More than 1700 kids with perfect
SAT scores apply.

But I will agree with you that you have not heard anything that would
change your mind. I am pretty sure there is nothing that can change
your mind.

Dan