Elite Colleges’ Quiet Fight to Favor Alumni Children

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you that are okay with legacy preference, are you okay with affirmative action? Same thing but in reverse.

I am ok with both.

+2. DC1 is the 3rd generation at Brown, where DH's grandmother established a scholarship. I can see why the school would want us versus someone who sent 25 copy/paste applications to whatever US News ranked at the top that year.

How special for your DC1. I guess she didn’t need to send 25 applications like the rest of the unwashed masses because she knew she had an advantage as a legacy.

The unwashed masses don't care about the school's culture or fit. All they care about is social mobility/ finally making money. It doesn't matter if they attend MIT or Dartmouth, as long as they end up in a hardie planked SFH in McLean. We've been paying tuition for URMs for years now and fulfilling the promise of a life of "usefulness and reputation". It's not an advantage, it's a commitment. What are you bringing to the table that is so incredibly valuable?

If your daughter has the intelligence level you show in the above posts, I bet the poor students you look down upon are running circles around her academically, despite all the financial resources you’ve provided. You may have taught your daughter that she hit a triple because she was born on third base but her fellow students will be smart enough to understand that Brown was fairly easy to get into at the time of her grandparent’s admission and rewarding her for her birthright seems pretty ridiculous.

I'm sorry that you are suffering and I understand that rejection is painful. My son is in med school now in a research powerhouse program and pretty much everyone in his class is coming from wealth. Meritocracy is an illusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you that are okay with legacy preference, are you okay with affirmative action? Same thing but in reverse.

I am ok with both.

+2. DC1 is the 3rd generation at Brown, where DH's grandmother established a scholarship. I can see why the school would want us versus someone who sent 25 copy/paste applications to whatever US News ranked at the top that year.

How special for your DC1. I guess she didn’t need to send 25 applications like the rest of the unwashed masses because she knew she had an advantage as a legacy.

Do you think only rich heiress legacies are capable of tailoring an essay to explain why Brown? Brown has more than its fair share of mediocre wealthy kids and was the last Ivy to become need blind.

You're not explaining why your child wants Brown or other elite college. She seems desperate to join this "mediocre wealthy kids" club, despite the fact that these schools are terrible and admit lowlife idiots like us who can't stand strivers and desperate social climbers. She would be better off at a college without legacy consideration, where her 10 point SAT increase will lead to a life of greatness.

Who do you think you’re talking to? I have two Ivy League degrees (two colleges ranked far higher than Brown and accepted without any legacy privileges unlike your daughter) and kids who are far too young to think about college admissions. But if you want to demean everyone who doesn’t have your daughter’s legacy privileges and enough wealth to endow a scholarship at Brown as low life strivers, you’re just making the case for why some legacy applicants don’t deserve to be there. *** By the way, Brown is less transparent than Harvard and Yale about the admissions stats of legacy students but if it’s comparable to those two Ivies, the legacy bonus provided to your daughter was far more than 10 points on the SATs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you that are okay with legacy preference, are you okay with affirmative action? Same thing but in reverse.

I am ok with both.

+2. DC1 is the 3rd generation at Brown, where DH's grandmother established a scholarship. I can see why the school would want us versus someone who sent 25 copy/paste applications to whatever US News ranked at the top that year.

How special for your DC1. I guess she didn’t need to send 25 applications like the rest of the unwashed masses because she knew she had an advantage as a legacy.

The unwashed masses don't care about the school's culture or fit. All they care about is social mobility/ finally making money. It doesn't matter if they attend MIT or Dartmouth, as long as they end up in a hardie planked SFH in McLean. We've been paying tuition for URMs for years now and fulfilling the promise of a life of "usefulness and reputation". It's not an advantage, it's a commitment. What are you bringing to the table that is so incredibly valuable?

If your daughter has the intelligence level you show in the above posts, I bet the poor students you look down upon are running circles around her academically, despite all the financial resources you’ve provided. You may have taught your daughter that she hit a triple because she was born on third base but her fellow students will be smart enough to understand that Brown was fairly easy to get into at the time of her grandparent’s admission and rewarding her for her birthright seems pretty ridiculous.

I'm sorry that you are suffering and I understand that rejection is painful. My son is in med school now in a research powerhouse program and pretty much everyone in his class is coming from wealth. Meritocracy is an illusion.

Who has been rejected? Are those the imaginary friends you see in your head? You sound crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you that are okay with legacy preference, are you okay with affirmative action? Same thing but in reverse.

I am ok with both.

+2. DC1 is the 3rd generation at Brown, where DH's grandmother established a scholarship. I can see why the school would want us versus someone who sent 25 copy/paste applications to whatever US News ranked at the top that year.

How special for your DC1. I guess she didn’t need to send 25 applications like the rest of the unwashed masses because she knew she had an advantage as a legacy.

The unwashed masses don't care about the school's culture or fit. All they care about is social mobility/ finally making money. It doesn't matter if they attend MIT or Dartmouth, as long as they end up in a hardie planked SFH in McLean. We've been paying tuition for URMs for years now and fulfilling the promise of a life of "usefulness and reputation". It's not an advantage, it's a commitment. What are you bringing to the table that is so incredibly valuable?

If your daughter has the intelligence level you show in the above posts, I bet the poor students you look down upon are running circles around her academically, despite all the financial resources you’ve provided. You may have taught your daughter that she hit a triple because she was born on third base but her fellow students will be smart enough to understand that Brown was fairly easy to get into at the time of her grandparent’s admission and rewarding her for her birthright seems pretty ridiculous.

I'm sorry that you are suffering and I understand that rejection is painful. My son is in med school now in a research powerhouse program and pretty much everyone in his class is coming from wealth. Meritocracy is an illusion.

Who has been rejected? Are those the imaginary friends you see in your head? You sound crazy.

+1.People with inherited privilege don’t take kindly to being displaced by more successful people. That’s why this parent’s only retort to those who care about meritocracy is to say “sorry your kid has been rejected.” Never mind that a lot of parents whose kids were accepted to elite colleges without legacy affirmative action don’t support legacy preferences. Even many alum can see that legacy preferences have run their course. They were original instated to reduce the acceptance rates of Jews who were high performing students but whom WASPs deemed undesirable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you that are okay with legacy preference, are you okay with affirmative action? Same thing but in reverse.

I am ok with both.

+2. DC1 is the 3rd generation at Brown, where DH's grandmother established a scholarship. I can see why the school would want us versus someone who sent 25 copy/paste applications to whatever US News ranked at the top that year.

How special for your DC1. I guess she didn’t need to send 25 applications like the rest of the unwashed masses because she knew she had an advantage as a legacy.

Do you think only rich heiress legacies are capable of tailoring an essay to explain why Brown? Brown has more than its fair share of mediocre wealthy kids and was the last Ivy to become need blind.

You're not explaining why your child wants Brown or other elite college. She seems desperate to join this "mediocre wealthy kids" club, despite the fact that these schools are terrible and admit lowlife idiots like us who can't stand strivers and desperate social climbers. She would be better off at a college without legacy consideration, where her 10 point SAT increase will lead to a life of greatness.

Who do you think you’re talking to? I have two Ivy League degrees (two colleges ranked far higher than Brown and accepted without any legacy privileges unlike your daughter) and kids who are far too young to think about college admissions. But if you want to demean everyone who doesn’t have your daughter’s legacy privileges and enough wealth to endow a scholarship at Brown as low life strivers, you’re just making the case for why some legacy applicants don’t deserve to be there. *** By the way, Brown is less transparent than Harvard and Yale about the admissions stats of legacy students but if it’s comparable to those two Ivies, the legacy bonus provided to your daughter was far more than 10 points on the SATs.

Apparently with someone without a degree and with elementary school kids, who is having a mental crisis at 1 AM about college admissions. Get a Xanax, go to bed, and in 10 years make them apply to whatever top 25 will be at that time. Going back to my opinion about why rankings are so important for strivers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you that are okay with legacy preference, are you okay with affirmative action? Same thing but in reverse.

I am ok with both.

+2. DC1 is the 3rd generation at Brown, where DH's grandmother established a scholarship. I can see why the school would want us versus someone who sent 25 copy/paste applications to whatever US News ranked at the top that year.

How special for your DC1. I guess she didn’t need to send 25 applications like the rest of the unwashed masses because she knew she had an advantage as a legacy.

Do you think only rich heiress legacies are capable of tailoring an essay to explain why Brown? Brown has more than its fair share of mediocre wealthy kids and was the last Ivy to become need blind.

You're not explaining why your child wants Brown or other elite college. She seems desperate to join this "mediocre wealthy kids" club, despite the fact that these schools are terrible and admit lowlife idiots like us who can't stand strivers and desperate social climbers. She would be better off at a college without legacy consideration, where her 10 point SAT increase will lead to a life of greatness.

Who do you think you’re talking to? I have two Ivy League degrees (two colleges ranked far higher than Brown and accepted without any legacy privileges unlike your daughter) and kids who are far too young to think about college admissions. But if you want to demean everyone who doesn’t have your daughter’s legacy privileges and enough wealth to endow a scholarship at Brown as low life strivers, you’re just making the case for why some legacy applicants don’t deserve to be there. *** By the way, Brown is less transparent than Harvard and Yale about the admissions stats of legacy students but if it’s comparable to those two Ivies, the legacy bonus provided to your daughter was far more than 10 points on the SATs.

Apparently with someone without a degree and with elementary school kids, who is having a mental crisis at 1 AM about college admissions. Get a Xanax, go to bed, and in 10 years make them apply to whatever top 25 will be at that time. Going back to my opinion about why rankings are so important for strivers.

Who is having a mental crisis? Are you magically able to deduce that over the internet the way you deduced that everyone who is against legacy admissions is a lowlife striver? Maybe we’re just confident enough in our kids and their ability to succeed without endowing a scholarship at an Ivy that we don’t need legacy affirmative action the way your kids did. Sorry they weren’t stronger students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you that are okay with legacy preference, are you okay with affirmative action? Same thing but in reverse.

I am ok with both.

+2. DC1 is the 3rd generation at Brown, where DH's grandmother established a scholarship. I can see why the school would want us versus someone who sent 25 copy/paste applications to whatever US News ranked at the top that year.

How special for your DC1. I guess she didn’t need to send 25 applications like the rest of the unwashed masses because she knew she had an advantage as a legacy.

The unwashed masses don't care about the school's culture or fit. All they care about is social mobility/ finally making money. It doesn't matter if they attend MIT or Dartmouth, as long as they end up in a hardie planked SFH in McLean. We've been paying tuition for URMs for years now and fulfilling the promise of a life of "usefulness and reputation". It's not an advantage, it's a commitment. What are you bringing to the table that is so incredibly valuable?

If your daughter has the intelligence level you show in the above posts, I bet the poor students you look down upon are running circles around her academically, despite all the financial resources you’ve provided. You may have taught your daughter that she hit a triple because she was born on third base but her fellow students will be smart enough to understand that Brown was fairly easy to get into at the time of her grandparent’s admission and rewarding her for her birthright seems pretty ridiculous.

I'm sorry that you are suffering and I understand that rejection is painful. My son is in med school now in a research powerhouse program and pretty much everyone in his class is coming from wealth. Meritocracy is an illusion.

Who has been rejected? Are those the imaginary friends you see in your head? You sound crazy.

+1.People with inherited privilege don’t take kindly to being displaced by more successful people. That’s why this parent’s only retort to those who care about meritocracy is to say “sorry your kid has been rejected.” Never mind that a lot of parents whose kids were accepted to elite colleges without legacy affirmative action don’t support legacy preferences. Even many alum can see that legacy preferences have run their course. They were original instated to reduce the acceptance rates of Jews who were high performing students but whom WASPs deemed undesirable.

Some of the language used on this thread speaking resentfully about "strivers" is actually very similar to the anti-Semitic language used to justify restrictions on admissions for Jews in the 1920s. I guess things don't change much even 100 years later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you that are okay with legacy preference, are you okay with affirmative action? Same thing but in reverse.

I am ok with both.

+2. DC1 is the 3rd generation at Brown, where DH's grandmother established a scholarship. I can see why the school would want us versus someone who sent 25 copy/paste applications to whatever US News ranked at the top that year.

How special for your DC1. I guess she didn’t need to send 25 applications like the rest of the unwashed masses because she knew she had an advantage as a legacy.

The unwashed masses don't care about the school's culture or fit. All they care about is social mobility/ finally making money. It doesn't matter if they attend MIT or Dartmouth, as long as they end up in a hardie planked SFH in McLean. We've been paying tuition for URMs for years now and fulfilling the promise of a life of "usefulness and reputation". It's not an advantage, it's a commitment. What are you bringing to the table that is so incredibly valuable?

Gross. You sound racist. And your perspective that kids don't where they go as long as they end up in a SFH in McLean...what planet are you living on? No teenager wants that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people lament legacy advantages, but simultaneously want them for their own kids. Including the politicians.

And the Profs.

Limo Liberals at their best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you that are okay with legacy preference, are you okay with affirmative action? Same thing but in reverse.

I am ok with both.

+2. DC1 is the 3rd generation at Brown, where DH's grandmother established a scholarship. I can see why the school would want us versus someone who sent 25 copy/paste applications to whatever US News ranked at the top that year.

How special for your DC1. I guess she didn’t need to send 25 applications like the rest of the unwashed masses because she knew she had an advantage as a legacy.

The unwashed masses don't care about the school's culture or fit. All they care about is social mobility/ finally making money. It doesn't matter if they attend MIT or Dartmouth, as long as they end up in a hardie planked SFH in McLean. We've been paying tuition for URMs for years now and fulfilling the promise of a life of "usefulness and reputation". It's not an advantage, it's a commitment. What are you bringing to the table that is so incredibly valuable?

If your daughter has the intelligence level you show in the above posts, I bet the poor students you look down upon are running circles around her academically, despite all the financial resources you’ve provided. You may have taught your daughter that she hit a triple because she was born on third base but her fellow students will be smart enough to understand that Brown was fairly easy to get into at the time of her grandparent’s admission and rewarding her for her birthright seems pretty ridiculous.

I'm sorry that you are suffering and I understand that rejection is painful. My son is in med school now in a research powerhouse program and pretty much everyone in his class is coming from wealth. Meritocracy is an illusion.

Who has been rejected? Are those the imaginary friends you see in your head? You sound crazy.

+1.People with inherited privilege don’t take kindly to being displaced by more successful people. That’s why this parent’s only retort to those who care about meritocracy is to say “sorry your kid has been rejected.” Never mind that a lot of parents whose kids were accepted to elite colleges without legacy affirmative action don’t support legacy preferences. Even many alum can see that legacy preferences have run their course. They were original instated to reduce the acceptance rates of Jews who were high performing students but whom WASPs deemed undesirable.

Some of the language used on this thread speaking resentfully about "strivers" is actually very similar to the anti-Semitic language used to justify restrictions on admissions for Jews in the 1920s. I guess things don't change much even 100 years later.

They HAVE changed.

Distrimination today is not against Jews but against non-Jewish whites, and most openly against Asian Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people lament legacy advantages, but simultaneously want them for their own kids. Including the politicians.

And the Profs.

Limo Liberals at their best.

Maybe. But some people do support equity, even thought their kids might be a bit worse off when legacy admissions are gone. When Johns Hopkins ended legacy admissions, I think in 2020, it led to a huge increase in low-income and first-generation students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you that are okay with legacy preference, are you okay with affirmative action? Same thing but in reverse.

I am ok with both.

+2. DC1 is the 3rd generation at Brown, where DH's grandmother established a scholarship. I can see why the school would want us versus someone who sent 25 copy/paste applications to whatever US News ranked at the top that year.

How special for your DC1. I guess she didn’t need to send 25 applications like the rest of the unwashed masses because she knew she had an advantage as a legacy.

The unwashed masses don't care about the school's culture or fit. All they care about is social mobility/ finally making money. It doesn't matter if they attend MIT or Dartmouth, as long as they end up in a hardie planked SFH in McLean. We've been paying tuition for URMs for years now and fulfilling the promise of a life of "usefulness and reputation". It's not an advantage, it's a commitment. What are you bringing to the table that is so incredibly valuable?

If your daughter has the intelligence level you show in the above posts, I bet the poor students you look down upon are running circles around her academically, despite all the financial resources you’ve provided. You may have taught your daughter that she hit a triple because she was born on third base but her fellow students will be smart enough to understand that Brown was fairly easy to get into at the time of her grandparent’s admission and rewarding her for her birthright seems pretty ridiculous.

I'm sorry that you are suffering and I understand that rejection is painful. My son is in med school now in a research powerhouse program and pretty much everyone in his class is coming from wealth. Meritocracy is an illusion.

Who has been rejected? Are those the imaginary friends you see in your head? You sound crazy.

+1.People with inherited privilege don’t take kindly to being displaced by more successful people. That’s why this parent’s only retort to those who care about meritocracy is to say “sorry your kid has been rejected.” Never mind that a lot of parents whose kids were accepted to elite colleges without legacy affirmative action don’t support legacy preferences. Even many alum can see that legacy preferences have run their course. They were original instated to reduce the acceptance rates of Jews who were high performing students but whom WASPs deemed undesirable.

Some of the language used on this thread speaking resentfully about "strivers" is actually very similar to the anti-Semitic language used to justify restrictions on admissions for Jews in the 1920s. I guess things don't change much even 100 years later.

They HAVE changed.

Distrimination today is not against Jews but against non-Jewish whites, and most openly against Asian Americans.

Yes, obviously. But the language is the same. Except the strivers that people look down on today are the Asians rather than the Jews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you that are okay with legacy preference, are you okay with affirmative action? Same thing but in reverse.

I am ok with both.

+2. DC1 is the 3rd generation at Brown, where DH's grandmother established a scholarship. I can see why the school would want us versus someone who sent 25 copy/paste applications to whatever US News ranked at the top that year.

How special for your DC1. I guess she didn’t need to send 25 applications like the rest of the unwashed masses because she knew she had an advantage as a legacy.

The unwashed masses don't care about the school's culture or fit. All they care about is social mobility/ finally making money. It doesn't matter if they attend MIT or Dartmouth, as long as they end up in a hardie planked SFH in McLean. We've been paying tuition for URMs for years now and fulfilling the promise of a life of "usefulness and reputation". It's not an advantage, it's a commitment. What are you bringing to the table that is so incredibly valuable?

If your daughter has the intelligence level you show in the above posts, I bet the poor students you look down upon are running circles around her academically, despite all the financial resources you’ve provided. You may have taught your daughter that she hit a triple because she was born on third base but her fellow students will be smart enough to understand that Brown was fairly easy to get into at the time of her grandparent’s admission and rewarding her for her birthright seems pretty ridiculous.

I'm sorry that you are suffering and I understand that rejection is painful. My son is in med school now in a research powerhouse program and pretty much everyone in his class is coming from wealth. Meritocracy is an illusion.

What?? Those two things (wealth and merit) aren't mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people lament legacy advantages, but simultaneously want them for their own kids. Including the politicians.

Fully support it. Private colleges should be able to pick who they want for whatever reasons they want.

+1. Some schools want to be family traditions. Personally, I was crafting a class I would much rather have a kid who wants to be at my school than another kid who applied based on ranking and doesn't really care if they're at much school or another similar school.

This. Notre Dame is particularly interested in crafting a class of students who embrace the traditions and understand the culture. You can sense it on campus...the energy is outstanding. For selfish reasons, we hope they continue with legacy admissions, not just to help DD, but to maintain that level of cohesiveness and joy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did a degree at an Oxbridge school, and my classmates there thought my stories about my legacy undergrad roommate at my Ivy were funny. She went to an elite boarding school, and had a very rich family but had about a 2.7 GPA which is very difficult to do at an Ivy where most people get a 3.0 without trying just because of the ways grading curves are structured. My roommate was not the sharpest tool in the shed, but she was a legacy and she got in. These Oxbridge students who wore gowns and coattails regularly and bowed to the Queen and were part of a 1000 year old college thought it was ridiculously backwards that an American student might get into college with a big boost because their parents had attended the same college before them.

Sure, remember last year when teachers could just assess A levels and boarding school students where all qualified to attend schools they weren't remotely qualified to attend?

sh** happened during CoViD. It wasn’t perfect but it was a once in a century pandemic. What’s America’s excuse for giving people a leg up based on where their parents went to school. My spouse and I have 4 Ivy degrees between us (although I guess the graduate ones don’t count for legacy status for our kids) so we have a lot to lose if legacy preferences go away but I can’t defend my kids having a probability of getting admitted at 5x the rate of a comparable student in the applicant pool. It’s really unmeritocratic

But why does a kid who happened to have been born with a better capacity for doing well in high school than my learning disabled kid have a much better chance of getting in? He isn't a better person. He didn't work harder. He probably won't contribute more to making this world a better place. He was just lucky enough not to be born with a learning disability. Why does he have a better shot at a top school than my kid? Why is that fair?

colleges have no way of observing how hard a kid works to get a grade-they only see the grade. I also don’t know how you think colleges can assess how applicants will or won’t contribute more to making the world a better place. Maybe your kid is great but how would you assess that in an unbiased way beyond the essays, extracurricular and teacher references which they ask for already.

You can't. Which puts him a great disadvantage. Why is that fair? Why does a kid who can easily show it have more of a chance to get into a top school? According to this site, colleges have some sort of moral obligation to build their communities according to the highest GPAs, starting from the top and going down. Fortunately, the people who run those colleges aren't as stupid and narrow minded as the people who think this. They know they need diverse communities and a a strong foundation to stay relevant and solvent. People say "it's not fair" that legacies get an advantage. I say that it's not fair that neurotypical kids get an advantage. You see, fairness doesn't come into play and the stupid people on here complaining about it will never get it. They just think their neurotypical, above average, one-dimensional GPA chases is entitled to something more than others.

The debate about legacy is about a kid getting a substantial edge on admissions to an elite college over a kid with equivalent stats and extracurriculars simply because of who where their parents went to college. I don’t know why you’re complaining that college admissions officers can’t magically see that your special needs kid is better than a neurotypical applicant. Start your own thread if you want to complain about that.

Missing the point. There are many unfair aspects of college admissions. Ones that put some kids at advantages over others. Why does legacy get everybody so stirred up and not other things? The neurotypical kid has an edge on admissions over a kid born without that particular advantage simply because of who he was born to, just like the legacy kid. Why is that any more fair? And not, I really don't feel like starting my own thread. This is actually about the whiny babies who weren't smart enough to get into good colleges and are now mad that they can't get their kids into one either.

No you’re missing the point. The legacy kid will get admitted over the equivalent applicant or in many cases the superior applicant by virtue of being born to an alum. The kid born with special needs is presumably not performing as well as the neurotypical kid in the scenario you’re describing so it isn’t a case of a higher performing student being denied admissions. You may think that’s unfair because your child is a “better person” than the neurotypical applicant but colleges don’t admit applicants because their parents say they are better people than other applicants without any evidence to back up that assertion. And that is fair.

But why? It's the same thing. Some kids are born with advantages and some with disadvantages. Kids born with certain genes that enable them to do better in high school than others get to go to better schools and set themselves up for a better life. You are an elitist clown who misses the point. Unfortunately, you're an entitled elitist clown, who didn't go to a top school and is jealous and bitter that other people's kids get to go, while your above average, normal kid can't. Too bad. It's no different. There are a lot of paths to top schools and most are because of how you were born: smarts, skin color, athleticism, parents who were educated at the same school you want to go to.