Following up and observing on cdfox's post--
Harvard (est. 1636 - oldest university in US) and Boston Latin (est. 1635 - oldest public school and grammar school in US) were originally, primarily established as a training ground for the ministry and thus an educated populace since books were not readily available or accessible. Wealthy merchants contributed to both of these institutions due to the overall benefits to society at large. Bright, poor boys who qualified based on their talents attended these schools and were supported. For many years, it was no different at many boarding schools in New England, including Exeter, or other universities, including other ivies.
Has the
mission of such institutions drifted so substantially from that founding vision that "charity boys" (or girls) are no longer seen as a valid part of the model?
This is an honest question.
Not all prodigies
do come from affluent-enough homes.
Schools, such as Juilliard, were established for different reasons than the ivies or boarding schools such as Exeter. Juilliard was founded in 1905 because the US lacked a premier music school and many US students were going to Europe. Juilliard (and Vanderbilts) bequeathed a substantial amount of money for the advancement of music in the United States for the school. Juilliard wouldn't have been created IF exclusive boarding schools or other schools supported such training - but they did not.
Remember, this thread is about prodigies. Juilliard attracts prodigies because it's one of the few schools in the country where they can receive appropriate world-class musical training. Not everyone is a prodigy there, but they probably have a disproportionate just based on the fact that Juiliard is a singular type of place for such unique training. You don't go to Exeter or Eton for classical musical training; you go to Juilliard! And IF you're a child prodigy, you tend to go early too.
Perhaps the ethical onus is on such
singular institutions to make cost irrelevant to the most worthy (and the most needy-- in terms of the training, I mean) potential students. And perhaps that explains the rationale for institutional mission drift at places like Exeter and Harvard?
Don't know, just speculating.
After all, in 1700, there weren't that many places to
get a college education. So it would have been the equivalent of Julliard today, maybe Julliard in the 1950's, actually, since there are other prestigious conservatories now.
