The comedian Bill Barr (Burr?) asked Conan O'Brien (Harvard grad) this question.

How do legacy admissions or building fund admissions (like parents make huge contributions) perform at elite schools like Harvard?

So how did George Bush Jr. do at Yale?

Also some celebrities go to Ivys or other big name schools, are they held to the same standards?

Natalie Portman took a break from acting to attend Harvard.

Emma Watson attended Brown intermittently eventually graduating from Brown University.

Jodie Foster took a break from acting to go to Yale.

 

How rigorous are the standards really?

Is everyone treated the same?

I can't imagine George Bush Jr. as a top notch scholar.

 

28 minutes ago, atpeace said:

If you read my post then why did you supply numbers to refute it that had nothing to do with my post? Not going to read this new  post of yours because you still refuse to address why  you  used set of numbers that had nothing to do with my post.  I probably agree with much of what you wrote above but don't engage in this silly game.  Harvard is embarrassed I assume because of its VERY VERY low income student enrollment. 

 

Harvard supports work force quotas and diversity but  being an elite  institution they don't feel the rules apply to them.  Only other lesser institutions...  They are the Nancy Pelosi of the elite institutions.

 

You presented a nonsensical statement  referencing "earners". 

To show that your statement was  without standing, I provided  data that shows that people of limited financial means  are not stopped from attending Harvard  because they do not have  means to pay for the costs of the  education.

This proves that your attempt to link earners and admission to Harvard, was  unfounded.

 

You  then replied that I had not read your statement , and now you  write that Harvard must be embarrassed because  of the "very very low income enrollment" (sic).  On the contrary, Harvard has an excellent and well regarded  position on low income students. They  get a full ride education. Moderate income students  have their tuition covered, and can apply for additional aid. This is better than other educational institutions. There is praise and admiration, not embarrassment.

 

22 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Better to move into a commune, take drugs and live off welfare.

Hard work is for suckers (I know, I did it).

 

Not for me. I worked very few years but figured out quickly I could separate myself easily by working harder from my piers.  Within months usually the separation was obvious to others and money came next. Also, very lucky along the way and it could have gone pear shaped a couple times.  I was hot headed back then.

 

I never liked working easy nor hard. Figured make just enough to retire and get out.

3 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

 

The comedian Bill Barr (Burr?) asked Conan O'Brien (Harvard grad) this question.

How do legacy admissions or building fund admissions (like parents make huge contributions) perform at elite schools like Harvard?

So how did George Bush Jr. do at Yale?

Also some celebrities go to Ivys or other big name schools, are they held to the same standards?

Natalie Portman took a break from acting to attend Harvard.

Emma Watson attended Brown intermittently eventually graduating from Brown University.

Jodie Foster took a break from acting to go to Yale.

 

How rigorous are the standards really?

Is everyone treated the same?

I can't imagine George Bush Jr. as a top notch scholar.

 

 

The actors you reference  are all intelligent people  and none made  large financial contributions to attend their universities.  They gained admission based on their own merits.

 

Natlie Portman: Her undergrad was in psychology at Harvard University. She also pursued graduate courses at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. She’s been published twice in scientific journals, was a research assistant at Harvard, and is fluent in over five languages. Her IQ is reported  to be 140. She comes from a talented family, her father is a physician and her mother an accomplished artist well known for her illustrations and abstract art.

 

Emma Watson - Her undergrad was in english literature.  She  has a reported IQ of 125+, and she came from a family of lawyers.   I don't know why she is singled out here, as she is typical of  many people who  attend Brown. 

 

Jodie Foster: She is the product of a typical US middle class upbringing. She was a gifted child and  attended a private french school in Los Angeles. Her command of  the french language is  astounding. She could teach it in a  French university. She graduated from Yale magna cum laude which was no easy task.She has had a stellar career.

 

George Bush Jr.: I know he is the butt of alot of jokes, but he is anything but stupid. He attended several  academically tough schools prior to his attending undergrad at  Yale. He was a college jock and never changed much. He attended the Harvard MBA program and graduated  during a time when MBAs were rigorous and academically tough to get.

The man was a relatively successful business man, and he did manage to get elected president twice.

26 minutes ago, Wingate said:

LOL.

 

Like the OP, you're obsessed with a place that was never ever going to be an option for those with your genes, and that reality gets stuck in your craw.

 

I doubt DEI got me in, though perhaps. Class Valedictorian and near perfect SATs (lost a few points on the Verbal, but none on the math), plus a host of letters in sports.....just maybe influenced the Admissions Committee. Or maybe the DEI part was they needed a few science nerds, and I fit the bill.

Wingate an embittered cowardly hidebehind troll profile created that got bruised up and couldn’t even get past the Micky Mouse graduate program.

Just now, Patong2021 said:

 

You presented a nonsensical statement  referencing "earners". 

To show that your statement was  without standing, I provided  data that shows that people of limited financial means  are not stopped from attending Harvard  because they do not have  means to pay for the costs of the  education.

This proves that your attempt to link earners and admission to Harvard, was  unfounded.

 

You  then replied that I had not read your statement , and now you  write that Harvard must be embarrassed because  of the "very very low income enrollment" (sic).  On the contrary, Harvard has an excellent and well regarded  position on low income students. They  get a full ride education. Moderate income students  have their tuition covered, and can apply for additional aid. This is better than other educational institutions. There is praise and admiration, not embarrassment.

 

Again - address why you supplied numbers that had nothing to do with my post. Let it go.  Below is a research paper done  by two  "HARVARD" professors.  Of course it isn't what the marketing department sells the gullible but it commendable the data is  public but not easy to find.  It is 144 pages and basically it states exactly what I did state in the my post you replied to originally with a strange set of number that had nothing to do with my post. 

 

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Paper.pdf

 

I repeat HARVARD is an elite institution that has VERY VERY VERY few low income enrollees.  How you don't grasp this is difficult to comprehend.  Below (Second post of  link because you seem to need reminders) is a 2023 research paper.  It is 144 pages so I bet you can find a way to spin it 🙂 Again - Harvard doesn't enroll many low income students. 4.5% roughly of the bottom 20% and 70% of belong to the top 20%.  

 

 

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Paper.pdf

 

Please don't come back with unrelated numbers.  I want to be a billionaire but this doesn't make me a billionaire.  It is mostly about results- yes?  Reality is usually a better reflection than what an institution tell us all it promotes.

6 hours ago, Ralf001 said:

I livre in Thailand... What does Maga have to do with a minibus ride to Harvard ?

Obviously lacking a good Harvard education if you cannot figure that out 🙂

8 hours ago, atpeace said:

Cool story! I would never make those type of sacrifices knowing the end result is far from guaranteed.  Probably why I don't have children.  Also, the wife and I are smart enough and exceptionally gifted at enjoying ourselves  but lets just say the kid would have to hit well above his/her level.

Well, I worked as a civil servent for 35+ years, as a professional linguist and manager having numerous workers, some with several masters degrees and a lot with their PHD's and I without a college degree corrected their English translations, and know how to quantify the foreign language talents of many people.  My daughter could run rings around many of those professionals plus she is also a computer whiz.  Like I mentioned, we as parents never pushed her, she is self-driven and we couldn't be prouder of her thus we support her in whatever she really wants to do and we discuss different options as she still has several more years of schooling.  As for me, my first family made many sacrifices while travelling around the world and living in foreign lands and this second family I am willing to sacrifice whatever is necessary to make my girls happy!

9 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Good point. I would only send my child to University if they were interested in pursuing a vocation that had significant demand, such as certain medical specialties and health care technicians, any type of engineering, cyber security, an MBA from a top ten school, or fine art restoration. 

 

So many other professions are obsolete and so many college graduates are having a very hard time finding quality work. When you graduate with a quarter of a million dollars in debt and you can't find a job, or the job pays marginally more than someone without a degree, you know you've been suckered by the system. 

 

 

 

It depends.  I mean so long as you are going in knowing the price tag if it is worth it to you for junior to be a world class expert in 15th century pottery then fine.  I mean I know if I had kids I could afford to send them through any schools and write it off and not saddle them with debt.  Let them learn about the dark ages poetry and Shakespeare.  We do need people educated in history and arts as part of our culture.

 

What grinds my gears is the ease with which kids can borrow massive sums thinking they will earn it back but are then allowed to study something with zero employable skills.  THAT needs to stop.  

 

In short if you can pay for it and it doesn't cause financial ruin  spend as you want.  Just stop the madness of every kid can borrow enough money to own a home with no ability to repay it in sight.  

 

In addition if we stop having every kid think college is what they should aim for the price of it should drop.  These easy loans have flooded our higher education raising the price massively.

11 hours ago, atpeace said:

Again - address why you supplied numbers that had nothing to do with my post. Let it go.  Below is a research paper done  by two  "HARVARD" professors.  Of course it isn't what the marketing department sells the gullible but it commendable the data is  public but not easy to find.  It is 144 pages and basically it states exactly what I did state in the my post you replied to originally with a strange set of number that had nothing to do with my post. 

 

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Paper.pdf

 

I repeat HARVARD is an elite institution that has VERY VERY VERY few low income enrollees.  How you don't grasp this is difficult to comprehend.  Below (Second post of  link because you seem to need reminders) is a 2023 research paper.  It is 144 pages so I bet you can find a way to spin it 🙂 Again - Harvard doesn't enroll many low income students. 4.5% roughly of the bottom 20% and 70% of belong to the top 20%.  

 

 

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Paper.pdf

 

Please don't come back with unrelated numbers.  I want to be a billionaire but this doesn't make me a billionaire.  It is mostly about results- yes?  Reality is usually a better reflection than what an institution tell us all it promotes.

 

Again you have referred to "earners" without defining what the earner is and what the income levels are.

 

I read the 2023 paper you reference sometime ago. Reading comprehension is obviously not one your skills as you did not understand the context, nor the data presented in the article. The document is not specific to Harvard. On the contrary it contrasts 24 selective private colleges with 9 Highly Selective Public Flagship Colleges. The paper confirms what I already stated, that successful parents tend to have successful children. It is why parents work hard and sacrifice to provide opportunities for their children.

 

The 24 universities emphasize on creating  innovators, leaders and  great thinkers. Therefore, their selection criteria is different. That is why they look at the  extracurricular activities of students and have interviews. The public schools do not. You blame income, when the reality is that higher income earners are the people who typically fund the charities and the social progress of society. You also ignore the fact that sports scholarships skew admissions. College football and basketball is big money in the USA and Harvard is not recruiting marginal students into its football program the way Ole Miss or Alabama does. A low income student almost always picks the university that has the  best compensation options, not academic options.

 

The reality of the world is that people who have contributed and will be able to sustain an institution will be given an edge in their family's admissions because that is how the educational facility survives. The marginal student from a  background of not having supported the community is not going to contribute to the continuation of the facility. This is why many universities in Europe and Canada have seen their campuses deteriorate and become dens of selfishness. Canada pursued foreign students from India. It was a self destructive spiral. The students generated income for the schools but  imposed a burden on social structure such as affordable housing. These students gave nothing back to the schools, and the corruption that  attached to their admissions became too much, such that the scheme finally collapsed as the social costs became too heavy.

 

Lower income students can go to Harvard. The barrier is not income. It is the qualification of the student that is the   obstacle. The flaw of the study of the paper you referenced is that it was based on the premise that income is the  primary barrier to success. The reality of life is that the obstacles are multiple and include, character, intellectual  ability,discipline, focus, socialization, contribution to society, personality as well as financial status. And sometimes not attending Harvard or Yale or other Ivy league universities is the best thing that can happen to a student. No one asks me about my universities, and most people in the workplace are focused on results and achievements. The people who matter, that can provide the  juice and connections to move ahead are looking at the person, not the frat or undergrad history.

 

11 hours ago, jimmybcool said:

 

It depends.  I mean so long as you are going in knowing the price tag if it is worth it to you for junior to be a world class expert in 15th century pottery then fine.  I mean I know if I had kids I could afford to send them through any schools and write it off and not saddle them with debt.  Let them learn about the dark ages poetry and Shakespeare.  We do need people educated in history and arts as part of our culture.

 

What grinds my gears is the ease with which kids can borrow massive sums thinking they will earn it back but are then allowed to study something with zero employable skills.  THAT needs to stop.  

 

In short if you can pay for it and it doesn't cause financial ruin  spend as you want.  Just stop the madness of every kid can borrow enough money to own a home with no ability to repay it in sight.  

 

In addition if we stop having every kid think college is what they should aim for the price of it should drop.  These easy loans have flooded our higher education raising the price massively.

totally agree with these comments.  O especially when president "enticed" kids to do whatever possible (take out big loans) to get that piece of paper when many of the kids did so with no real thought of what they might not be able to do with that piece of paper.  Now they are hampered in living well trying to stay up with the loans.  Then Biden and company decided that the government would forgive many of these people so what does that teach folks - don't be responsible is what it seems to me and trade schools would have been a much better choice for many.  we always need plumbers, electricions, etc and computer gurus who can earn good wages.  But yeah, if a family can afford any college for any degree without having to consider the future of their children that is their choice.  I think most parents want only the best for their children and that is why they have them and care for them but seems society has a way of destroying the best efforts of parents today.  A scary world awaits those college grads and the careers have been changing rapidly too and people must learn to adjust.

Best of luck.

15 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

 

Again you have referred to "earners" without defining what the earner is and what the income levels are.

 

I read the 2023 paper you reference sometime ago. Reading comprehension is obviously not one your skills as you did not understand the context, nor the data presented in the article. The document is not specific to Harvard. On the contrary it contrasts 24 selective private colleges with 9 Highly Selective Public Flagship Colleges. The paper confirms what I already stated, that successful parents tend to have successful children. It is why parents work hard and sacrifice to provide opportunities for their children.

 

The 24 universities emphasize on creating  innovators, leaders and  great thinkers. Therefore, their selection criteria is different. That is why they look at the  extracurricular activities of students and have interviews. The public schools do not. You blame income, when the reality is that higher income earners are the people who typically fund the charities and the social progress of society. You also ignore the fact that sports scholarships skew admissions. College football and basketball is big money in the USA and Harvard is not recruiting marginal students into its football program the way Ole Miss or Alabama does. A low income student almost always picks the university that has the  best compensation options, not academic options.

 

The reality of the world is that people who have contributed and will be able to sustain an institution will be given an edge in their family's admissions because that is how the educational facility survives. The marginal student from a  background of not having supported the community is not going to contribute to the continuation of the facility. This is why many universities in Europe and Canada have seen their campuses deteriorate and become dens of selfishness. Canada pursued foreign students from India. It was a self destructive spiral. The students generated income for the schools but  imposed a burden on social structure such as affordable housing. These students gave nothing back to the schools, and the corruption that  attached to their admissions became too much, such that the scheme finally collapsed as the social costs became too heavy.

 

Lower income students can go to Harvard. The barrier is not income. It is the qualification of the student that is the   obstacle. The flaw of the study of the paper you referenced is that it was based on the premise that income is the  primary barrier to success. The reality of life is that the obstacles are multiple and include, character, intellectual  ability,discipline, focus, socialization, contribution to society, personality as well as financial status. And sometimes not attending Harvard or Yale or other Ivy league universities is the best thing that can happen to a student. No one asks me about my universities, and most people in the workplace are focused on results and achievements. The people who matter, that can provide the  juice and connections to move ahead are looking at the person, not the frat or undergrad history.

 

 

Weird post.  I stated that Harvard has few lower income students.  You tell me I'm wrong and then go on to list the reasons  Harvard doesn't have more lower income students. We seem to agree! Harvard has few lower income students for many reasons including what you detailed in your reply.  

 

I'm OK that you agree with me that Harvard has few lower income students and I have not disputed Harvard's nor your justifications for the low number of poorer students.  There are many obstacles for poorer students and you detailed many of them.  I agree!  Am I missing something???

If they wanted to go to Harvard (and were accepted), then yes.  I would prefer Cambridge or Oxford though personally.

 

 

Harvard used to be one of the best schools renowned in the world. They produced the highest standards and their level of education was also the best. Now though, they changed their bylaws to encourage the sort of people who are rich but have no morals. They value hate and violence instead of peace and improving the lives of those around the world. Racism runs amuck there. Even through the teachers the school hired. I would not say Harvard is a good school to go to anymore. I also seriously doubt they are producing high quality students.anymore. Now the school is all about money. 

Assuming that I had the money for the fees, the decision to go to Harvard would not be mine - it would be a decision made by my offspring as to whether the university offered a suitable course for them.

 

My 2 brothers went to colleges at Cambridge, but I declined that location and instead went to London University (UCL).  Why?  Because USL offered the course (MSc in Microwaves and Fourier Optics) that I felt was more relevant to my intended career (radio frequency Engineer).  Cambridge offered no suitable course..

On 7/10/2025 at 8:34 AM, jimmybcool said:

They then learn that degree is meaningless. 

as seen world wide