Parental Letter 2014-2021: Fill & Download for Free

I answered a question similar to this one two years ago in 2019. At the time, I didn’t have very many pictures of myself saved on my computer that I could share. Now, though, I have a lot more pictures.Below is a photograph my parents took of me on 21 December 2010 at the age of eleven in the cabin of the cruise ship that we were on at the time. We went on the cruise with my father’s whole family. It was my first (and only) time on a cruise ship. I wasn’t really interested in any of the entertainment options and I caught a terrible stomach flu, so I was absolutely miserable the whole time. I swore that I would never go on a cruise ship again, and so far I have kept that promise:Below is a picture of me with my pencil and one of my many notebooks, cropped from a photo of me with all my maternal cousins and my sister that was taken at my cousin’s house on 30 December 2010, only a few weeks after the picture I just showed:Below is another photograph of me at the age of eleven, taken on 9 April 2011 in a “dragon’s den” that my father and I built in our garage out of cardboard boxes for a party that I held for my friends from school. This photograph was taken at night, after the party was over, so the den is visibly in ruins:Below is me at the age of thirteen, cropped from a photo of me with my maternal cousins and my sister that was taken in my maternal grandparents’ backyard on 13 July 2013:Below is a photograph of me performing as the character Hippolytus in Curtain Call Children’s Theatre’s production of the play The Twelve Daughters of Hercules on 24 February 2014. I was fourteen at the time this photograph was taken and the two boys on stage with me are actually only two or three years older than me, but I was so cute and tiny that I was able to pass as the boy next to me’s son, despite us actually being only a few years apart in age:Below is me at sixteen, cropped from a photo of my whole family in front of a fountain at Walt Disney World on 17 October 2015:Below is a photograph of me standing in front of my science fair board at the Hoosier Science and Engineering Fair on 2 April 2016. I ended up going on to the INTEL International Science and Engineering Fair (ISEF) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where I experienced huge imposter syndrome:Below is a photograph of me at the age of seventeen, standing in front of a lamassu at the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago on 21 October 2016:Below is a photograph of me standing in front of a group of ancient Roman busts at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology on 29 March 2017:Below is a photograph my Mom took of me on 3 July 2017. I’m typing on my computer while sitting on a bed in the basement of my paternal aunt and uncle’s lake house, where we were visiting:Below is a photograph my Mom took of me at the age of eighteen holding my letter of acceptance to Indiana University Bloomington, right after we received it on 29 December 2017:Below is a photograph of me at my high school graduation in May 2018, wearing my hideous cap and gown:Below is a photograph that my parents took of me in my freshman dorm room right after I moved in on 15 August 2018:Below is a photograph that the classics department took on 16 May 2019 of all the people who were awarded scholarships from the department that year. I’m on the bottom right:Below is a terrible selfie I attempted to take of myself in front of one of my many bookshelves in my bedroom at my parents’ house on 14 August 2019:Below is a photograph my parents took of me in front of a glass case of Bronze Age Aegean pottery at the Eskenazi Museum of Art on the campus of Indiana University Bloomington in December 2019. The museum had just reopened about a month prior and I had gone to visit it on my own. When my parents came to pick me up to take me home for Christmas, I showed them around the museum and they took this photo:Below is another terrible selfie I attempted to take of myself in front of one of the many bookshelves in my bedroom at my parents’ house on 20 May 2020:Below is me at the age of twenty-one, cropped from a photograph my Mom took of me and my Dad playing chess together at the table in my apartment in Bloomington on 16 August 2020:Below is me, cropped from my family’s December 2020 Christmas photo:Finally, here is another terrible attempt at a selfie that I took today on 27 February 2021 in front of my bookcase:So that’s how my appearance has changed over the course of the past decade.

Before saying anything in the affirmative or not, think about the question the country must ask: Is it in Canada's long-term interest to be "dictated" by U.S. policies?Recently, a group of prominent former Canadian parliamentarians and diplomats wrote an open letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau urging him to end the extradition case against Huawei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou.They were right because it is in the country's national interest to do so. Resetting the China-Canada relationship would allow Canada to diversify its trade relationship and regain its sovereignty, both of which could enhance and sustain the country's long-term economic stability.The importance of the China-Canada relationship to the Canadian economy cannot be overstated. It was China's huge purchases of natural resources in 2008 that pulled Canada (and Australia) from the Deep Recession that buried its G7 partners by that year's financial crisis. China remained a major buyer of Canadian resources – commodities, agricultural products and fishery, resulting in the Asian country being Canada's second largest trade partner.Huawei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou leaves her residence for the extradition hearing in Vancouver, Canada, January 20, 2020. /XinhuaIt was the importance of the Chinese market that changed China hawk former Prime Minister Stephen Harper's mind about the country. When first elected to the office in 2006, he was about to derail the economically sensible relationship built by previous Liberal governments, vowing not to "sell Canadian values for the almighty dollar." But he changed his mind when China was the only country that helped Canada from falling into a recession in 2008-09. A few years later, Harper even canceled all commitments at home and abroad so that he could travel to China to reset the China-Canada relationship which he derailed in his early years as prime minister by accusing China of stealing Canadian technology.Perhaps to strengthen his relationship resetting efforts, Harper sent the governor general, Canada's head of state, and a large business delegation to the Asian country to drum up trade and investment opportunities. The gestures paid off handsomely, resulting in signing big trade and investment deals, including the China National Offshore Oil Corporation's 15-billion-U.S.-dollar takeover of Alberta's Nexen Inc. in 2014.China could pull the Canadian economy out of the COVID-19 driven recession, estimated by Deloitte Insights, a consultancy, to contract between 4 and 5 percent in 2020. China, having practically controlled the spread of COVID-19, has reopened its economy earlier than other major economies.Manufacturing, for example, is almost operating at 90 percent capacity, shops and malls are beginning to reopen as is the country's public transportation and other sectors. The country's plan to spend massively on infrastructures and other economic enhancement projects would suggest China could be buying significant quantities of resources from around the world, including Canada.China's economic recovery packages prompted the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to predict it is the only major economy bucking the world's economic downward trend, growing at 1 percent in 2020 and over 8 percent in 2021. In contrast, the global economy, U.S., UK, Japan and EU economies are expected to contract, respectively, by 4.9 percent, 8 percent, 8.3 percent, 5.5 percent and 10.2 percent. With Canada's major trade partners in a malaise not seen since the 1930s Great Depression, China might be the only major economy that could help Canada in reversing its downward economic trajectory.What is more, Canada's biggest trade partner, the U.S., has hardened its protectionist stance. President Trump reinstated a 10 percent tariff on Canadian aluminum as a way to protect the American industry. Since trade accounted for 40 percent of Canada's GDP and 75 percent of that is with America, a soft U.S. market and Trump's protectionist policies would pose a "severe blow" to the Canadian economy.If that weren't bad enough, corporate America practically "owns" Canada, controlling over 50 percent of the nation's total corporate assets or the economy, according to Statistics Canada figures. U.S. ownership of Canadian major industries – mining, automobile manufacturing, oil, retail trade, etc. – is even larger, estimated at well over 75 percent, practically making Canada a "branch of the U.S. economy."U.S. subsidiaries operating in Canada are subject to U.S. laws, culminating in truncating the Canadian economy: restricting research activities, infringing on trade, and producing resources largely to fuel the American economy. Major cutting-edge research takes place in the U.S.-based parent companies, pushing Canada behind in innovation and losing competitiveness. In addition, the U.S. blockade on Cuba barred U.S. companies in Canada from exporting to the communist island country, undermining Canadian sovereignty trade prospects.Huawei's exhibition booth during a press preview for the 2019 World 5G Convention in Beijing, China, November 20, 2019. /XinhuaOverly reliance on the U.S. for trade and investment has precluded Canada from forging independent monetary and foreign policies. Canadian monetary policies are largely influenced by U.S. Federal Reserve interest rate policies to prevent capital outflow and promote exports. With a few exceptions, Canadian foreign policies mirror or are similar to those of the U.S., like denouncing China's national security law on Hong Kong.It's true that U.S. investment and trade made Canada what it is today, bringing in new technology, capital, management methods and trade opportunities, thereby accelerating economic growth and development. But whether it is in Canada’s long-term interest to be “dictated” by U.S. policies is definitely the question the country must ask.The Canadian Confederation in 1867 was about charting the new country's own destiny, forging independent polices that are in the new country's best interests. However, huge injection of U.S. investment and "putting all eggs in one basket" on trade turned out to be a changing of "masters," creating vulnerability to U.S. laws and policies.Besides, the U.S. was not always a reliable trade partner. Although Canada has a free trade agreement with its southern neighbor, that did not stop the U.S. from imposing tariffs on Canadian lumber, aluminum, steel and a host of other products.President Trump was not the first or the last to promote the "America First" policy, he merely made it obvious. The U.S. slapped huge tariffs on Canadian lumber in 1982 because America's inefficient industry (relative to Canada) complained that the northern neighbor was "killing" it. It would therefore be naive to expect his successors will not act similarly.Furthermore, some legal experts claimed that the arrest of Ms. Meng was "abnormal" or violating the spirit of the extradition treaty in that few, if any, country has ever detained a foreign national for violating another country's sanction laws, particularly when sanctions were a unilateral decision that did not have international support. What's more, the sanction violators were usually fined, as with the ZTE case.To top it off, the evidence against Meng was circumstantial at best; the charge of fraud was based solely on her PowerPoint presentation to an HSBC executive. Besides, it was not clear that the bank would have incurred a risk.Last but not least, most if not all legal experts observed that Canada's attorney general/justice minister can intervene in Meng's case. Furthermore, Trudeau's claim of an independent judicial system rang "hollow" because he interceded in the SNC Lavalin corruption case, fearing the loss of thousands of jobs in his native Quebec.National interests and justice demand Meng should be freed. But sadly, that might not happen because of U.S. retaliation and domestic politics. Trump would penalize Canada with tariffs or other economically harmful measures. The prime minister's domestic political opponents would accuse him of "kowtowing" to China.Source:Why Canada should free Meng WanzhouAnalysis: What's behind Meng Wanzhou's extradition case?

[Warning: VERY LONG]Almost everything was known publicly before.Here are 23 things I learned while watching the lawsuit.Most surprising to me was #21 (Legacies):Out of the 233 (14%) legacies in class of 2022, maybe 82–105 are minorities.Asian-American 41-53African-American 22-28Latinos 19-24Also #23 (Legacies): In class of 2019, Crimson survey had legacies (2,269, 756 avg) averaging higher than non-legacies (2,221, 734 avg) on SATs.Jennifer Hu's answer to Harvard rated Asian American applicants lower on personality traits for admissions. What is the logic behind the decision for lower ratings? is a fantastic answer.I also highly recommend reading Karabel’s Chosen (2005, ~100 pages are free at Google Books) for long stories about the intricate history of HYP admissions (rather than sound bites in the newspapers)."Not only at Harvard, but at Yale and Princeton as well, the academic side of the college experiences ranked a distant third behind club life and campus activities.As a consequence, the competition for social position and the leadership of extracurricular activities could be - and often was - ferocious; in scholastic matters, however, the “gentleman’s C” reigned supreme.Competing in sports, Peabody believed, helped develop in students a multiplicity of virtues: loyalty, courage, cooperation, and masculine strength. By teaching young men to exert themselves to the fullest while playing within the rules, athletics would teach self-control and a sense of decency and fair play….Ranking lower still was intellect - a quality that was viewed with suspicion as oriented to the self rather than the community.”The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton: Jerome Karabel: 0046442773553: Amazon.com: Books (Jerome Karabel, 2005).More excerpts: https://www.quora.com/What-secrets-about-Harvard-s-admission-process-were-revealed-in-2018/answer/Mitchell-Tsai/comment/78578706Harvard originally did a lot of religious training. Then it became a finishing school for the upper class. Only in the late 1800s, did they try to become a top research university (An idea which came from Germany to the US with Johns Hopkins in 1876).The proportion of Harvard students which should be “smart” has been an issue of great debate in 1880–2018 (and probably even before). Harvard decided it wanted to become a top research university, not just a feeder for private clubs and the social world of the upper class.23 Things I learned during the lawsuit:(1) Strong ratings (1 or 2, on a scale of 1–6) are rare for non-Academics. This lawsuit is the first time I’ve seen exact numbers. 150,701 applicants in 2014–2019.“Everyone over decile 6 is lumped into Academic score 2. (Academic score 1 is reserved for faculty-reviewed academic submissions.)”- Jennifer Hu's answer to Harvard rated Asian American applicants lower on personality traits for admissions. What is the logic behind the decision for lower ratings?- David Card’s 12/15/17 Brief Exhibit 5(2) No model in the lawsuit (1–6 ratings, & other info) is better than 74%. Card estimates that 31–43% of admissions is decided by things not revealed in the lawsuit (such as teacher recommendations).This 31–43% leaves a huge window open for racial bias.It is also possible that there is no bias (or little bias) in the unobservables.- David Card’s 12/15/17 Brief Exhibits 20 & 30(3) Technical details from Slate article on Harvard Classes of 2014–2019 (6 years).What We’ve Learned About Who Gets Into Harvard From Its Discrimination LawsuitOnly about 439 domestic 1s each year out of 25,117 applicants (150,701 applicants for 6 years).A few tricky points which readers might not notice.(1) Domestic students only (1,858 admits/yr, rather than 2,000–2,000 admits)(2) People with multiple 1s: about 26/yr admitted with 1126 or better. Five 1133s were lumped into the “Solid candidates” (1/yr).(3) People with one or two 2s (and no 1’s) aren’t mentioned in Exhibit 4.(4) Well-rounded (Four 2s) is very rare (103 out of 25,117 applicants)(5) 2+/2/2- are very different(6) About 90/yr admits with 1 and two 2s (1226 or better).- David Card’s 12/15/17 Brief Exhibits 4 & 6.So here are my best guesses at filling in the gaps (domestic students only)Multiple 1s (? admission - 26? 1126+ admitted, 1 1133s applicant, 1134&below?)- 0.1%? of applicants (30?), 1.5%? of admits (26?)Non-Extracurricular 1s or Four 2s (66–88% admission)- 2% of applicants (444), 19% of admits (347)Extracurricular 1 or Three 2s & 4 (43–48% admission, 2224+) “Excellent Candidates”- 6% of applicants (1,620), 38% of admits (700)Two 2s & Two 3s (23% admission - might be any two 2s) “Solid Candidates”- 10% of applicants (2,500?), 31% of admits (580)One or Two 2s (2%? admission, Between 2234 & 2666)- 44% of applicants (11,100?), 11%? of admits (200?)Zero 2s (0.1% admission)- 37% of applicants (9,330), 0.5% of admits (10)Total admits - 1,858 domestic, 2,000-2,100 with internationalNote 1: Legacies (34% admission)- 3% of applicants (774), 13% of ALL admits (263), ALL = domestic + international- about 35–45%? are minorities (haven’t crunched numbers yet)Note 2: Children of faculty & staff (47% admission)- 0.2% of applicants (53), 1% of ALL admits (25)Data for notes 1 & 2 from What We’ve Learned About Who Gets Into Harvard From Its Discrimination Lawsuit(4) Even for non-recruited-athletes, Athletic 2 is a big help.Athletic 2 (12% admit) vs. Overall (7% admit) = +5%2222 (68% admit) vs. 222 w Athletic 3 (48% admit) = +20%Harvard’s history from the past 200 years shows that they consider athletics important for loyalty, courage, cooperation, self-control, and a sense of decency and fair play…“62. Harvard’s admissions data confirm the importance of the athletic rating. For example, applicants with an athletic rating of 2 have an admission rate of 12%.That is substantially higher than the overall admission rate of approximately 7%, and is the same as the admission rate of applicants with an academic rating of 2.Further, as shown above, receiving a rating of 2 on all four profile ratings is associated with an admission rate of 68%, while receiving a rating of 2 on the three non-athletic ratings and a rating of 3 or worse on the athletic rating is associated with an admission rate of only 48%.”- David Card’s 12/15/17 Brief(5) Asian-American females are stronger non-Academically and more likely to be multi-dimensional (Three 2s or better) than Asian-American males.Asian-American females are more slightly more likely to be admitted than average applicants (Advantage in 5 years out of 6. It’s some years, the advantage has statistical significance, but not in other years).- David Card’s 12/15/17 Brief Exhibits 23 & 24.(6) “Card said his model showed a slight advantage for Asian American female applicants, and Asian Americans who applied from California.”Harvard attorney appears confident in admissions case ruling(7) Harvard weighs both potential & accomplishment, and tries to balance the number of people in different concentrations and possible careers.Arcidiacono’s data did not reflect intended concentration, intended career, mother or father deceased, mother or father occupation, hours applicant works, whether they were born outside the US, etc…86. “For example, if the son of a professional writer and the son of a police officer display talent in writing, Harvard might regard the latter’s talent as more impressive than the former’s. The same might be true of the daughter of professional scientists and the daughter of factory workers, both of whom exhibit talent in a scientific field.”- David Card’s 12/15/17 Brief Exhibits 12–14.(8) The two sides have major differences in what is considered important.Arcidiacono contends that the personal rating is suspect. Harvard considers three 2s (and a 4) essential for an “excellent candidate” (43–48% admission), but you can’t get three 2s if you excel at academics and extracurriculars, but have low personal and athletic scores. You can’t get Two 2s and two 3s “strong candidate” (23% admission) either if you do no sports…or you get rated 4–6 in personal.(9) I would agree with Arcidiacono’s contention that to detect racial bias, you should compare “typical Asians”, “typical Whites”, and “typical AHOs” (African-American, Hispanic, Other).Or you could compare “legacy Asians”, “legacy Whites”, and “legacy AHOs”.When possible, try to compare apples to apples.“Professor Card makes a similar modeling error by always including recruited athletes, children of faculty and staff, applicants who are on the Dean’s List or Director’s List, and legacies in his models.”- http://samv91khoyt2i553a2t1s05i-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Doc-415-2-Arcidiacono-Rebuttal-Report.pdf(10) Until 2004, Texas A&M University gave legacy applicants a four-point boost on a 100-point scale. But the school ended that practice after being criticized for maintaining legacy preference when it had stopped considering race in admissions.Legacy Admissions Offer An Advantage — And Not Just At Schools Like Harvard(11) “There was no testimony from rejected students. The names of the Asian-Americans represented by Students for Fair Admissions were redacted from the record, because they were worried about being harassed and reviled for their views, according to the leader of the group, Edward Blum.”The Harvard Trial: A Double-Edged Sword for College AdmissionsIMO, none of the rejected students would have gotten in with race-neutral admissions.They probably would have gotten in if Hispanic or African-American, but not if they were white non-hispanic (This is in response to a commenter…who said they would have gotten in if African-American).(12) “In 1977, freshman class was 1,585 with endowment of $2 billion.In 2017, freshman class was 1,659 with endowment of $37 billion.”Harvard's Data Problem(13) “Athletes with the highest or second-highest academic rating on an internal Harvard admissions scale have an acceptance rate of 83 percent—compared to 16 percent for non-athletes—according to a report from the University’s Office of Internal Research.By Ivy League Conference rules, recruited athletes are placed on a 240-point Academic Index, which is calculated based on GPA and standardized test scores. While the minimum score required for Ivy League admissions is 176, the average Academic Index for recruited athletes cannot be more than one standard deviation below the index of the previous four freshmen classes.At Harvard, the student body index is roughly 220—approximately equivalent to a SAT score of 2200 and near 4.0 GPA, according to a 2014 Crimson report. Students who walk-on to teams are not included in the Athletic Department’s estimate.Coaches cannot guarantee admissions spots to prospective student-athletes, whose applications must be vetted by the full 40-member admissions committee.Recruited athletes who pass this process will receive a ‘likely letter,’ indicating the applicant is likely to be admitted by the University.”Filings Show Athletes With High Academic Scores Have 83 Percent Acceptance Rate | News | The Harvard Crimson(14) I liked this step-by-step article about the admissions process.Here’s How the Harvard Admissions Process Really Works | News | The Harvard Crimson(15) “It admitted 1,800 U.S.-based students to the graduating Class of 2019. But for those 1,800 slots, it received more than 37,000 applications, including 8,000 with grade point averages of a perfect 4.0 and 3,500 with perfect math SAT scores.”William Watson: Harvard, facing a lawsuit, discovers cries of ‘racism’ aren’t always fair(16) “Black students are much less likely to graduate from high school and attend college than white students with the same family income.The differences were substantial. Whereas poor white men graduated high school about 78 percent of the time, black men whose families had the same income graduated only 70 percent of the time. Disparities for women exist too, but were much smaller.The authors note a puzzling phenomenon: On average, black girls score lower on tests than white girls with the same family income, but there’s no such disparity in their adult earnings. This suggests that test scores don’t fully capture the skills of black girls.Ironically, Raj Chetty, coauthor of this study, is perhaps best known in the education world for pioneering but controversial research on the links between test scores and adult income. (That research focused on teachers’ impact on student scores, which was found to translate into higher earnings later in life.)The latest study doesn’t overturn the previous research, but it does raise questions about whether test scores may be less accurate for certain groups of students.The paper points out that kids of all races do better in certain neighborhoods.“Black and white boys who grow up in neighborhoods with lower poverty rates, higher test scores, higher median rents, and more two-parent households tend to have higher incomes in adulthood,” they write.The research finds that up to 25 percent of the black-white income disparity is connected to the neighborhood a student grows up in.That suggests that ensuring families of different races live in the same neighborhood and attend school together — integration — can have a significant effect.https://chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2018/03/23/race-not-just-poverty-shapes-who-graduates-in-america-and-other-education-lessons-from-a-big-new-study/(17) “At the postgraduate level, rates of African-American achievement are disheartening. According to the National Science Foundation, people who are “Black or African-American” earned barely 2 percent of Ph.D.s in physical sciences and earth sciences in 2016. Universities awarded 1,730 doctorates in math and computer sciences in 2016, but only 78 of them went to black or African-American individuals.Even in the humanities, where African-American studies programs and hiring have been an obsession for more than three decades, blacks and African-Americans didn’t even reach 4 percent of the total.Meanwhile, as academics and advocates have fervently defended the practice in spite of its small demonstrable advantages, the share of black children who live in single-parent households has risen to two-thirds.Given the high correlation between family structure and educational attainment, this trend casts affirmative action in a different light.Racial preferences boost a tiny cohort of African-Americans once they reach the point where they can seek entry into elite institutions. But for everyone else, it does little.”The Clock Ticks for Affirmative Action(18) “In one presentation, she noted that only a little over 2,000 African-American students in the United States score above 700 on the SAT, while more than 50,000 white and Asian-American students earn such a score.”Harvard Admissions Officials Are Grilled on How They Use Race in Admissions(19) Since Harvard is admitting 15% African-Americans (300 admits/yr), they could admit all African-Americans of deciles 6–10 (and half of decile 5). Academic Index deciles = SAT/GPA.Thanks to Jennifer Hu for turning Table 5.1 into a beautiful graph.Who could do the work at Harvard? Estimates are that anyone in deciles 3–10 (top 80%) could finish their classes & graduate in good standing.60% of African-American and 41% of Hispanic-American applicants might be under-qualified (13% of Whites & 9% of Asian-Americans). The applicants are correctly seeing that Harvard has much lower standards for African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans.Note: This table (only 129,861 out of 150,701 applicants) does not include internationals (?), legacies, recruited athletes, children of faculty & staff, dean’s interest list, people whose race could not be identified (Card did a better job than Arcidiacono and identified about 10,000 more people), and maybe other stuff.- Jennifer Hu's answer to Harvard rated Asian American applicants lower on personality traits for admissions. What is the logic behind the decision for lower ratings?(20) “Sixty-seven percent of the university’s undergraduates come from families that made about $110,000 or more a year. That share rises to 72 percent at Princeton University, and is 62 percent — the lowest in the Ivy League — at Columbia University.Fifteen percent of Harvard students come from families that made about $630,000 or more a year. Only two Ivy institutions — Columbia and Cornell Universities — have a smaller share of students from such families, at 13 percent and 10 percent, respectively. At the top of the list is Dartmouth College, with 21 percent.At Harvard, the median annual family income is $168,800. Columbia’s is the lowest, at $150,900, and Brown University’s is the highest, is $204,200.”Median Family Income for Harvard Undergrads Triple National Average, Study Finds | News | The Harvard Crimson(21) I tried to do a legacy analysis on the Class of 2022 from Harvard (1,661 people) & Crimson data (1,064 people). I would LOVE to see an actual total of legacy tips (people who otherwise would not have been admitted). But understandably, Harvard wants to keep that private.Class of 2022 By the Numbers (Crimson)82% of those admitted will join Harvard’s Class of ’22 (Harvard)233 legacies - 14% Legacy based on Harvard (18% based on Crimson survey)White 150-193Minorities 82–105Asian-American 41-53African-American 22-28Latinos 19-24If 50% of legacies got in on their own merits, 116 were legacy tips.If 75% of legacies got in on their own merits, 58 were legacy tips.(22) Admissions math - looking at a purely “academic merit” approach - ignoring empathy, compassion, ethics, creativity, social causes, activities, athletics, music, legacy, parents who didn’t go to college, parental occupations, race, intended concentration, teacher recommendations, personal essay, etc…4,300,000 US High school students3,600,000 US High School graduates (2017)2,100,000 SAT exam takers (2018)434,000 SAT 1,200+ (2018)413,680 Top 10 students of each high school (Class Rank)202,000 SAT Math 700+ (2018)145,000 SAT 1,400+ (2018)141,000 SAT English 700+ (2018)82,736+ Valedictorians, salutatorians, and co-valedictorians.41,368+ Valedictorians, co-valedictorians17,000–18,000 SAT 1500+ (750+ avg, 2014, 2,400 rescaled to 1,600)-> possibly 20,000-22,000 in 20181,400-1,700 Typical Ivy League class size (Cornell 3,400, U Penn 2,500, MIT 1,100, Caltech 240), which may include 5–20% international students.(23) Harvard is willing to take people with SAT 400s & 500s, GPA 2.8 & 3.0 - by looking at empathy, compassion, ethics, creativity, social causes, etc…What is the lowest SAT accepted to Harvard?Class of 2021 & 2022 - Crimson stopped publishing SAT/GPA charts.Class of 2020 - two people self-reported 1,320, 1,450 (out of 2,400).Class of 2019 - three people 1,240, 1260, 1,360 (out of 2,400).Legacies (2,269, 756 avg) averaged higher than non-legacies (2,221, 734 avg).Someone commented that these five sub-500 averages might have been on the new 1,600 SAT (incorrectly not converted to 2,400 in the Crimson survey), so here are seven people averaging 550–580.Class of 2020 - three people 1,650, 1,680, 1,730.Class of 2017 - four people 1,660, 1,680, 1690, 1,700.