CNN's Silver Spoon admissions for IVY leaguers

[WhiteHatDoc]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Heya fellas,

Did anyone else notice the video on cnn's website about how uber-rich students get special treatment? Of course everyone knows about it but I'm posting it here because what I found to be most interesting in that segment was when he talked about how asian americans and whites from working class backgrounds lose out the biggest due to these procedures.

He mentions the "Asian Failure" which is basically an asian kid not getting a perfect score on SAT's. I know they're focused on undergrad admissions but I'm pretty sure the same applies for grad schools.

I thought I'd mention it since there's so many AA posts going on. Those white students suing the college in mich should cite the acceptances of super rich kids too instead of blaming their rejections on URMs only.


P.S. Is Denmark Doctor banned yet? I noticed it has been pretty quiet around here. If you're reading this doc, two words: "haha!" Alwaysaangel and I both smelled troll before you even got to your 10th post trying to be sneaky, eh?

 

[alwaysaangel]

Yeah uber rich kids get special treatment - but in all fairness. Its good for the school's endowment to do that. Which helps the students who need scholarships so it works out - mostly.

And yeah - he got banned.

 

[NonTradMed]

I think it's pretty much expected that rich kids get have advantages that most others do not...so much so that in AA debates, rarely do people bring the subject up. But there is a financial incentive for this as well. At my (nonIvy) school, which has a fairly selective admissions, I knew rich kids who got in with the minimal stats that may or may not have allowed them in, but their parents were willing to pay the full ride ($30k) so the school let them in. However, plenty of kids at my school required financial aid and extensive scholarships to attend our school, so I guess the rich kids' tuition is paying for the poor students' tuition.

 

[BigRedPremed]

I think the reason most anti-AAers never complain about kids who get in via athletic scholarships or legacy status is that they can see how these types of students benefit the school in an obvious way. Athletes boost the atheletic programs of colleges, bringing them revenue and prestige (so much so there's been talk about paying NCAA atheletes). Letting in a legacy will ensure that mommy and daddy keep writing that $10,000 check to the university each year. Letting in rich students allows the university to save money in the terms of the amount of financial aid they have to give out.

The direct benefits of "diversity" are not so tangible. Consequently, many people see AA as simply colleges biting the bullet in order to be more politically correct.

 

[OB/GYN Sim]

Would this mean that it would benifit me as an applicant to use my parents for as much as they can pay about 20,000 a year and only ask for the rest or to give my parents a break and ask for loans. Since i was in seventh grade they have been paying 20,000 a year for private school and then for college. I know they would do anything to help me but this is money they could start to put away for retirement even though when i start actually making money 10 years from now i would gladly support them finicially their house will be paid for and all they would need are expenses. I am applying to mostly California schools as i am a resident but i know they have lower acceptance rates and anything that would help me i would do. I just feel guilty living off of my parents until 30.

 

[CTSballer11]

I think the reason most anti-AAers never complain about kids who get in via athletic scholarships or legacy status is that they can see how these types of students benefit the school in an obvious way. Athletes boost the atheletic programs of colleges, bringing them revenue and prestige (so much so there's been talk about paying NCAA atheletes). Letting in a legacy will ensure that mommy and daddy keep writing that $10,000 check to the university each year. Letting in rich students allows the university to save money in the terms of the amount of financial aid they have to give out.

The direct benefits of "diversity" are not so tangible. Consequently, many people see AA as simply colleges biting the bullet in order to be more politically correct.

While the benefits of AA are not immediate ones, some would say that it benefits the Hispanic, black, Native American communities. Hypothetically, these groups of people will be more willing to give jobs and work with other minorities, thus spreading the wealth among their communities. This would obviously benefit other minorities and the cycle continues until these minorities are lifted out of poverty, etc. I do not believe in AA, I am like Steven Colbert. I do not see color, I only see Americans.

 

[BigRedPremed]

While the benefits of AA are not immediate ones, some would say that it benefits the Hispanic, black, Native American communities. Hypothetically, these groups of people will be more willing to give jobs and work with other minorities, thus spreading the wealth among their communities. This would obviously benefit other minorities and the cycle continues until these minorities are lifted out of poverty, etc. I do not believe in AA, I am like Steven Colbert. I do not see color, I only see Americans.

I certainly do think there are benefits to AA. I was simply addressing the question that gets asked again and again by pro-AAers: "Why don't anti-AA people complain about athletes or legacies who get preferential treatment in admissions?"

 

[alwaysaangel]

Would this mean that it would benifit me as an applicant to use my parents for as much as they can pay about 20,000 a year and only ask for the rest or to give my parents a break and ask for loans. Since i was in seventh grade they have been paying 20,000 a year for private school and then for college. I know they would do anything to help me but this is money they could start to put away for retirement even though when i start actually making money 10 years from now i would gladly support them finicially their house will be paid for and all they would need are expenses. I am applying to mostly California schools as i am a resident but i know they have lower acceptance rates and anything that would help me i would do. I just feel guilty living off of my parents until 30.

I don't think it will help you at a UC medical school. Especially since you're just talking them paying the tuition. Money only helps you when your parents are legacy and bought the new science building.

 

[Llenroc]

Do you also have an objection to the special treatment colleges give atheletes? 😴 I thought college was supposed to be about learning, but when I got here I saw that you could have the IQ of a shrub but if you had skills running around with a ball they'd treat you like royalty. Boo hoo.

 

[OB/GYN Sim]

Is being bilingual a factor of any importance when applying? I was wondering if taking the extra classes for a language is worth it but in California i do see spanish as being a useful language to speak.

 

[CTSballer11]

Do you also have an objection to the special treatment colleges give atheletes? 😴 I thought college was supposed to be about learning, but when I got here I saw that you could have the IQ of a shrub but if you had skills running around with a ball they'd treat you like royalty. Boo hoo.

The almighty dollar makes the world go round.

 

[CptCrunch]

My name is CptCrunch and I am an Asian Failure.

 

[maestro1625]

The Economist 2 weeks ago noted that Harvard's acceptance rate for legacys is 40% while 11% for everyone else...

...undergrad, for the record.

 

[Wannabemed]

Just my 2 cents:

The Ivy League can do whatever the hell they want to do as they are private institutions. 100% legacy admit rate? Who f'in cares. In the end, the only *******es are those that place such high value on a meaningless concept called "prestige". Effectively, this is reputation by association, and time and time again people will realize that reputation by association often doesn't mean jack (e.g. look at Bush, who has degrees from Yale and Harvard). If you're smart, you'd do well coming out of HoDunk State U, or from Princeton. HYPSM kids find this out the hard way when they discover that most of their profs/TAs did their undergrad at no-name schools and state schools.

 

[dopaminesurge]

Heya fellas,

Did anyone else notice the video on cnn's website about how uber-rich students get special treatment? Of course everyone knows about it but I'm posting it here because what I found to be most interesting in that segment was when he talked about how asian americans and whites from working class backgrounds lose out the biggest due to these procedures.

He mentions the "Asian Failure" which is basically an asian kid not getting a perfect score on SAT's. I know they're focused on undergrad admissions but I'm pretty sure the same applies for grad schools.

I thought I'd mention it since there's so many AA posts going on. Those white students suing the college in mich should cite the acceptances of super rich kids too instead of blaming their rejections on URMs only.


P.S. Is Denmark Doctor banned yet? I noticed it has been pretty quiet around here. If you're reading this doc, two words: "haha!" Alwaysaangel and I both smelled troll before you even got to your 10th post trying to be sneaky, eh?

Do you have a bigger version of your avatar?

I've wanted to stare at that thing forever

 

[riceman04]

I think the reason most anti-AAers never complain about kids who get in via athletic scholarships or legacy status is that they can see how these types of students benefit the school in an obvious way. Athletes boost the atheletic programs of colleges, bringing them revenue and prestige (so much so there's been talk about paying NCAA atheletes). Letting in a legacy will ensure that mommy and daddy keep writing that $10,000 check to the university each year. Letting in rich students allows the university to save money in the terms of the amount of financial aid they have to give out.

The direct benefits of "diversity" are not so tangible. Consequently, many people see AA as simply colleges biting the bullet in order to be more politically correct.

NOPE...wrong...cop out (or however you spell it)!!!!!👎 👎 👎

Wait I thought in that video that they said that $ received from those groups does not go towards scholarships/etc...

Regardless...anti-aa supporters dont bother mentioning this issue b/c they assume that they are not keeping them out of college

 

[Smiles91084]

People with connections always benefit. I have a friend who got in to Johns Hopkins School of Medicine because his daddy knows someone on the admissions committee. He got in without even interviewing at that school.

 

[etf]

People with connections always benefit. I have a friend who got in to Johns Hopkins School of Medicine because his daddy knows someone on the admissions committee. He got in without even interviewing at that school.

i'm sure this kid at least had above average stats, cause i think it would be unethical to let in someone who has a 1.9 and a 21 on the mcat.

 

[Stolenspatulas]

People with connections always benefit. I have a friend who got in to Johns Hopkins School of Medicine because his daddy knows someone on the admissions committee. He got in without even interviewing at that school.

this is a hoax. my bro goes to jhu-med and he's told me a story about how this girl in his class didnt get a straight acceptance and her dad IS one of the heads of the adcomm there (the dad agreed to not have a say when her file was to be judged since it was the honorable thing to do).... she later got in off the waitlist in the summer. there is NO WAY someone got in WITHOUT interviewing at all.

medschool is different then undergrad. legacies dont carry as much weight. theres so many fewer spots that legacies become negligible.

btw, if steven colbert was on SDN he would say the following:
"Steven Colbert doesn't see legacies and URMs, he sees Med students"

 

[NonTradMed]

. HYPSM kids find this out the hard way when they discover that most of their profs/TAs did their undergrad at no-name schools and state schools.

I don't believe that's completely true. If you look at the top schools, I think there is a disproportionate amount of profs coming from similarly elite institutions. At least that's what I've seen at the schools I've been to. Academia is kind of snooty about the academic "prestige" and it's one of the few places in the US that puts some weight on what school you went to (the other places being at top corporate law firms and top consulting firms like McKinsey). That's why it's helpful to get into a top 20 med school if you want to do academic medicine. Also, my parents worked in academia for over 20 years. While one can make the argument that a professor at Podunk U can teach just as well as at Harvard, the fact that a job applicant got his PhD at Harvard vs. Podunk U means something when interviewing for a position in their labs (of course other things like compatibility of research is also helpful but they won't deny that the name isn't a big boon).

 

[Wannabemed]

I don't believe that's completely true. If you look at the top schools, I think there is a disproportionate amount of profs coming from similarly elite institutions. At least that's what I've seen at the schools I've been to. Academia is kind of snooty about the academic "prestige" and it's one of the few places in the US that puts some weight on what school you went to (the other places being at top corporate law firms and top consulting firms like McKinsey). That's why it's helpful to get into a top 20 med school if you want to do academic medicine. Also, my parents worked in academia for over 20 years. While one can make the argument that a professor at Podunk U can teach just as well as at Harvard, the fact that a job applicant got his PhD at Harvard vs. Podunk U means something when interviewing for a position in their labs (of course other things like compatibility of research is also helpful but they won't deny that the name isn't a big boon).

You're right....for some aspects of the job sector (mainly in business), where you went to school does matter. Btw, I am talking about UNDERGRAD education........where you get your PhD matters quite a bit. My point is that you don't have to go to an "elite" school for undergrad to do well, as the most lucrative jobs require grad/professional school, and getting into a top grad/professional program is much much much much more dependent on the quality of the applicant than where he/she went to school. Hence my statement: "HYPSM kids find this out the hard way when they discover that most of their profs/TAs did their undergrad at no-name schools and state schools".

 

[BleepTastic]

Effectively, this is reputation by association, and time and time again people will realize that reputation by association often doesn't mean jack (e.g. look at Bush, who has degrees from Yale and Harvard). If you're smart, you'd do well coming out of HoDunk State U, or from Princeton. HYPSM kids find this out the hard way when they discover that most of their profs/TAs did their undergrad at no-name schools and state schools.

You contradict yourself while trying to devalue the Ivy League education. Reputation by association doesn't mean jack, but you include Bush in your example....a guy who made it to leader of the Free World based on that very reputation by association? Doesn't that then show how much of a monumental advantage these people have??
Besides that, if you come from an Ivy League, the world is yours to lose. If you come from Podunk U., you have to work extra hard. I don't see the point in denying the truth of this fact because then you're saying "hey, it's ok that you got in because your daddy bought a new athletic field because I'm going to Crappy University and By Golly that doesn't give me a disadvantage at all! No sir!"

 

[riceman04]

You contradict yourself while trying to devalue the Ivy League education. Reputation by association doesn't mean jack, but you include Bush in your example....a guy who made it to leader of the Free World based on that very reputation by association? Doesn't that then show how much of a monumental advantage these people have??
Besides that, if you come from an Ivy League, the world is yours to lose. If you come from Podunk U., you have to work extra hard. I don't see the point in denying the truth of this fact because then you're saying "hey, it's ok that you got in because your daddy bought a new athletic field because I'm going to Crappy University and By Golly that doesn't give me a disadvantage at all! No sir!"

 

[Smiles91084]

this is a hoax. my bro goes to jhu-med and he's told me a story about how this girl in his class didnt get a straight acceptance and her dad IS one of the heads of the adcomm there (the dad agreed to not have a say when her file was to be judged since it was the honorable thing to do).... she later got in off the waitlist in the summer. there is NO WAY someone got in WITHOUT interviewing at all.

medschool is different then undergrad. legacies dont carry as much weight. theres so many fewer spots that legacies become negligible.

btw, if steven colbert was on SDN he would say the following:
"Steven Colbert doesn't see legacies and URMs, he sees Med students"

Sorry that your friend's connection isn't good enough. OK, my friend is definitely not stupid. He's got the stats, and I'm sure if he interviewed, he would've gotten in anyway, but the truth is he got the acceptance before he even interviewed. And this is true, so please don't call it a hoax. I SAW the acceptance email myself. Your friend's connection just wasn't enough I guess. Sorry to your friend.

 

[Wannabemed]

You contradict yourself while trying to devalue the Ivy League education. Reputation by association doesn't mean jack, but you include Bush in your example....a guy who made it to leader of the Free World based on that very reputation by association? Doesn't that then show how much of a monumental advantage these people have??
Besides that, if you come from an Ivy League, the world is yours to lose. If you come from Podunk U., you have to work extra hard. I don't see the point in denying the truth of this fact because then you're saying "hey, it's ok that you got in because your daddy bought a new athletic field because I'm going to Crappy University and By Golly that doesn't give me a disadvantage at all! No sir!"

Obviously you missed the point. I mentioned Bush because he is a famous ******* with degrees from Yale and Harvard. I didn't deny that "these people" have an advantage in certain areas of life (e.g., politics and certain business jobs)...they do. I was pointing out that non-academia people who use prestige to guide their thinking/decision-making often end up misled-----> in the extreme example, a Harvard/Yale man was elected president of the US....and he turned out to be an embarrassment because he is a *****. This demonstrates why prestige is not an issue in grad/med school admissions. In the world of med/grad school admissions, it doesn't seem to MAKE A DAMN DIFFERENCE WHERE YOU WENT TO SCHOOL, because adcoms for med/grad school are not like the general public as in they couldn't give a rat's ass about your school's prestige if your numbers suck, as they have a more or less objective way of evaluating an applicant's credentials/suitability (ie, publications, MCATs, GPA, ECs, essays, etc etc etc). THAT'S what I'm pointing out, as we are pre-meds and not pre-McKinsey-consultants nor are we pre-politicians.

In summary:
1) People who use prestige to guide their decision-making are *******es. I'm not denying that there are a lot of *******es out there. The Bush example was used to demonstrate the absurdity of using prestige as a measuring stick....and the fact that he is president makes it OBVIOUS that prestige plays a role in success in certain areas outside of professional/grad school.
2) If you're interested in professional/graduate school, it doesn't matter where you do your undergrad because adcoms don't use prestige to evaluate the applicants......AS MOST (IF NOT ALL) OF US HERE ARE PRE-MEDS, I was pointing this out.

Hope that clears things up, clown.

 

[CTSballer11]

this is a hoax. my bro goes to jhu-med and he's told me a story about how this girl in his class didnt get a straight acceptance and her dad IS one of the heads of the adcomm there (the dad agreed to not have a say when her file was to be judged since it was the honorable thing to do).... she later got in off the waitlist in the summer. there is NO WAY someone got in WITHOUT interviewing at all.

medschool is different then undergrad. legacies dont carry as much weight. theres so many fewer spots that legacies become negligible.

btw, if steven colbert was on SDN he would say the following:
"Steven Colbert doesn't see legacies and URMs, he sees Med students"

I wonder how that happened............

 

[CTSballer11]

Obviously you missed the point. I mentioned Bush because he is a famous ******* with degrees from Yale and Harvard. I didn't deny that "these people" have an advantage in certain areas of life (e.g., politics and certain business jobs)...they do. I was pointing out that non-academia people who use prestige to guide their thinking/decision-making often end up misled-----> in the extreme example, a Harvard/Yale man was elected president of the US....and he turned out to be an embarrassment because he is a *****. This demonstrates why prestige is not an issue in grad/med school admissions. In the world of med/grad school admissions, it doesn't seem to MAKE A DAMN DIFFERENCE WHERE YOU WENT TO SCHOOL, because adcoms for med/grad school are not like the general public as in they couldn't give a rat's ass about your school's prestige if your numbers suck, as they have a more or less objective way of evaluating an applicant's credentials/suitability (ie, publications, MCATs, GPA, ECs, essays, etc etc etc). THAT'S what I'm pointing out, as we are pre-meds and not pre-McKinsey-consultants nor are we pre-politicians.

In summary:
1) People who use prestige to guide their decision-making are *******es. I'm not denying that there are a lot of *******es out there.
2) If you're interested in professional/graduate school, it doesn't matter where you do your undergrad because adcoms don't use prestige to evaluate the applicants......as most (if not all) of us here are pre-meds, I was pointing this out.

Hope that clears things up, clown.

You made many good points but I have to disagree with you about politicians and the prestige of their schools. At the high levels like President etc, prestige matters much more than it does at the congressional or even senatorial level. Most people in this country prefer that their congressman is "home grown".

 

[Ambiptosis]

Sorry that your friend's connection isn't good enough. OK, my friend is definitely not stupid. He's got the stats, and I'm sure if he interviewed, he would've gotten in anyway, but the truth is he got the acceptance before he even interviewed. And this is true, so please don't call it a hoax. I SAW the acceptance email myself. Your friend's connection just wasn't enough I guess. Sorry to your friend.

What year at Hopkins is your friend? I haven't spoken to anyone in my class (2010) that didn't have to interview...

 

[Wannabemed]

Obviously you missed the point. I mentioned Bush because he is a famous ******* with degrees from Yale and Harvard. I didn't deny that "these people" have an advantage in certain areas of life (e.g., politics and certain business jobs)...they do. I was pointing out that non-academia people who use prestige to guide their thinking/decision-making often end up misled-----> in the extreme example, a Harvard/Yale man was elected president of the US....and he turned out to be an embarrassment because he is a *****. This demonstrates why prestige is not an issue in grad/med school admissions. In the world of med/grad school admissions, it doesn't seem to MAKE A DAMN DIFFERENCE WHERE YOU WENT TO SCHOOL, because adcoms for med/grad school are not like the general public as in they couldn't give a rat's ass about your school's prestige if your numbers suck, as they have a more or less objective way of evaluating an applicant's credentials/suitability (ie, publications, MCATs, GPA, ECs, essays, etc etc etc). THAT'S what I'm pointing out, as we are pre-meds and not pre-McKinsey-consultants nor are we pre-politicians.

In summary:
1) People who use prestige to guide their decision-making are *******es. I'm not denying that there are a lot of *******es out there. The Bush example was used to demonstrate the absurdity of using prestige as a measuring stick....and the fact that he is president makes it OBVIOUS that prestige plays a role in success in certain areas outside of professional/grad school.
2) If you're interested in professional/graduate school, it doesn't matter where you do your undergrad because adcoms don't use prestige to evaluate the applicants......AS MOST (IF NOT ALL) OF US HERE ARE PRE-MEDS, I was pointing this out.

Hope that clears things up, clown.

Awwww man, I was looking forward to an argument with my new ******ed friend BleepTastic, but it looks like he went to bed. Tears

 

[searun]

You contradict yourself while trying to devalue the Ivy League education. Reputation by association doesn't mean jack, but you include Bush in your example....a guy who made it to leader of the Free World based on that very reputation by association? Doesn't that then show how much of a monumental advantage these people have??
Besides that, if you come from an Ivy League, the world is yours to lose. If you come from Podunk U., you have to work extra hard. I don't see the point in denying the truth of this fact because then you're saying "hey, it's ok that you got in because your daddy bought a new athletic field because I'm going to Crappy University and By Golly that doesn't give me a disadvantage at all! No sir!"

their kids to top liberal arts colleges like Williams, Amherst, Pomona, and Careton because they know that you get a much better undergraduate education at those schools that at Harvard and Yale. You are taught by experienced professors not TA's.No joke, just fact. If my son or daughter is a great student, I will do my best to persuade them not to apply to Harvard or Yale...Williams, yes!

Searun

Searun

 

[solitude]

2) If you're interested in professional/graduate school, it doesn't matter where you do your undergrad because adcoms don't use prestige to evaluate the applicants......AS MOST (IF NOT ALL) OF US HERE ARE PRE-MEDS, I was pointing this out.

If you and 5000 others post this comment on SDN enough, maybe you'll convince adcoms everywhere. But I doubt it.

 

[BleepTastic]

Oh man immaturity abounds with you wannabe. When you contradict yourself more than once in an assertion, you aren't helping your point.

Obviously you missed the point.

Because you're pretty bad at making it. You said reputation means jack and brought up a couple spurious generic pieces of evidence to support it. Then, later, you resorted to infantile names like clown and ******ed? Nice.

Heres the truth: reputation gets you places. You will get a good education at Harvard, and you'll also get a good education at some small liberal arts school. At the same time, reputation does mean something. It opens doors while other people have to break in through the window. You have to deal with it. And btw school reputation does play at least a small role in where you get admitted because it reflects on the academic rigor to some degree. Again, deal with it instead of denying it or weakly insulting anyone who mentions it.

I made my point, I'm not being extreme like you, and I hope you work on your anger management before you treat patients.

 

[solitude]

Take your modest, well-reasoned arguments and get out of here!

Oh man immaturity abounds with you wannabe. When you contradict yourself more than once in an assertion, you aren't helping your point.

Because you're pretty bad at making it. You said reputation means jack and brought up a couple spurious generic pieces of evidence to support it. Then, later, you resorted to infantile names like clown and ******ed? Nice.

Heres the truth: reputation gets you places. You will get a good education at Harvard, and you'll also get a good education at some small liberal arts school. At the same time, reputation does mean something. It opens doors while other people have to break in through the window. You have to deal with it. And btw school reputation does play at least a small role in where you get admitted because it reflects on the academic rigor to some degree. Again, deal with it instead of denying it or weakly insulting anyone who mentions it.

I made my point, I'm not being extreme like you, and I hope you work on your anger management before you treat patients.

 

[Kashala]

Listen there are some gunners out here where you go to medical school doesn't matter it is your residency that matters take that as you may.

 

[Wannabemed]

Oh man immaturity abounds with you wannabe. When you contradict yourself more than once in an assertion, you aren't helping your point.

Because you're pretty bad at making it. You said reputation means jack and brought up a couple spurious generic pieces of evidence to support it. Then, later, you resorted to infantile names like clown and ******ed? Nice.

Heres the truth: reputation gets you places. You will get a good education at Harvard, and you'll also get a good education at some small liberal arts school. At the same time, reputation does mean something. It opens doors while other people have to break in through the window. You have to deal with it. And btw school reputation does play at least a small role in where you get admitted because it reflects on the academic rigor to some degree. Again, deal with it instead of denying it or weakly insulting anyone who mentions it.

I made my point, I'm not being extreme like you, and I hope you work on your anger management before you treat patients.

I didn't say prestige (or reputation as you call it) of an undergrad institution means jack....I said it DOES play a large role outside of academia and it results in misleading conclusions about a graduate's true potentials. I said it DOES open doors in certain areas of society, but that it DOESN'T in terms of grad/med school admissions as there are more objective processes of evaluation that are much much much more reliable (eg, MCAT, research productivity, volunteering history, etc etc). You're obviously STILL missing the point if you STILL think that I do not believe that prestige (or reputation) has a role in society. IT OBVIOUSLY DOES, and I'm saying it SHOULDN'T. How many times do you want me to write the same thing? And how am I contradicting myself? If you're not a clown, don't act like one and start making sense.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

I think the reason most anti-AAers never complain about kids who get in via athletic scholarships or legacy status is that they can see how these types of students benefit the school in an obvious way.

I don't believe in AA, just like I don't believe there should be athletics in colleges- you are there to learn after all, not have your grades fixed just because you can run fast or throw a football X yards. Yes I know there are bright athletes, but for every football player out there who actually earns his GPA, there are three more who you listen to them talk and rapidly discover why they are a history major with a solid C average (because if the NCAA ever bothered to check this crap out it would be obvious that he's not capable of pulling A's).

Of course, if I had the money I would have absolutely zero problem with buying my way into a school. "Look Lizzy, I hear you all have been talking about a new pediatric cancer center.... *wink, wink, opens suitcase full of money" Yes, I may be a hypocrite, but at least I'm honest about where my priorities lay.

 

[zimmie256]

Ivy does not necessarily equal academic rigor. Look at the grade inflation that is rampant at places like Harvard (and lots of other schools from all tiers as well). Of course it varies by department, and I know some schools (Princeton comes to mind) have started aggressively dealing with the problem of grade inflation.

The fact is that you will have highly qualified talented people coming out of all sorts of institutions. But the assumption (right or wrong) is that if you're coming out of an Ivy or similarly prestigious institution that you're sort of given the benefit of the doubt, whereas those from other schools may have to plead their case a bit more.

One thing that always cracks me up a bit when people get so overly proud of where they went to undergrad, is that their acceptance was based in part on work they did when they were 14 years old in 9th grade... Haha... I don't know, be proud of the work you did and what you learned and don't worry so much about where you did it. If it helps you out great, if not get over it and worry about what you can do now to improve your situation.