Wesleyan University drops Legacy Preferences in Admissions Decisions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dont know why colleges have more sports than your average high school school. Football, basketball, swimming, tennis? Okay. Sailing, squash, fencing, water polo? Why?

I literally don't understand what these low/no spectator sports adds to a school? I played club sports and those were great, added a lot to school spirit, helped with community and mental health, I'm sure. Clubs cost the school very little and require no tips on the admission side. Just make these sports club sports.

Totally agree that the athletic departments are huge at a lot of top schools. Harvard, Stanford, Notre Dame, and Duke offer among the largest numbers of sports in the country. Harvard and Stanford are #1 and 2!

Obscure sports are side doors into the schools for wealthy full pay kids whose parents have the means to get their kid personal coaches and trainers. The schools expect the money that was spent on training in their youth then get rolled into the university as donations.

A kid might not be a recruiter athlete, but Coach still has a roster to fill.

This hasn't been my experience, and I know a lot of squash players and fencers. They're well off, but not super rich. Full pay but not donor class. And they aren't richer than, say, top level-in-their-city cello player parents who are ponying up for 15k cellos, private lessons, camps, etc. Music costs a lot of money too.

Yes, but don’t you get it? This is a false equivalency. Music is a pinky on the scale. Athletics is a fist. No fists should be allowed.

I'm agreeing with you. I'm disagreeing w the idea that colleges wants athletes as a side door bcs the kids are rich. If they only wanted rich kids, they'd go beyond athletics to things like music and they absolutely don't give music kids a leg up.

[Anonymous]

Virtue signaling. Please come here we treat everyone the same.

[Anonymous]

Re athletic preference. I think if it ended for most sports it would be great. Didn’t we all do miserable wasted hours of travel sports in the hopes our kids might be good enough for that college nudge? I want those wasted hours back. It would have made my kid less stressed too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Re athletic preference. I think if it ended for most sports it would be great. Didn’t we all do miserable wasted hours of travel sports in the hopes our kids might be good enough for that college nudge? I want those wasted hours back. It would have made my kid less stressed too.

If you made your kids do sports that they didn’t want to do, and made yourself and your kids miserable, that’s on you for being an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Aren’t colleges fighting back against the recent SCOTUS decision saying they are entitled to put together any kind of diverse class they want? They don’t just want high stats, they want a kid who is going to contribute in some way to a diverse community? Well, athletics is one way, music/theater another etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re athletic preference. I think if it ended for most sports it would be great. Didn’t we all do miserable wasted hours of travel sports in the hopes our kids might be good enough for that college nudge? I want those wasted hours back. It would have made my kid less stressed too.

If you made your kids do sports that they didn’t want to do, and made yourself and your kids miserable, that’s on you for being an idiot.

Are you also the young nerd poster? This name-calling is uncalled for and immature. If it continues, I will report you. This is a college board. CC would remove you immediately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t colleges fighting back against the recent SCOTUS decision saying they are entitled to put together any kind of diverse class they want? They don’t just want high stats, they want a kid who is going to contribute in some way to a diverse community? Well, athletics is one way, music/theater another etc.

The vast majority of athletes at the most selective schools — especially Division 3 — are rich (as in, no financial aid needed) white kids. Music and theater is treated like any other extracurricular for admissions. Athletics is not. In NESCAC, most schools have 1/3 of their admission spots set aside for athletes.

[Anonymous]

Legacy preference is NOT Unconstitutional!! What part of this is not clear to posters here. There is no mention of Legacy in Title VI or VII.
We didn't fight a civil war for legacy!!!
This "If, I can't have my special unconstitutional preference, then you can't have any yourself, even if it is constitutional" is just rage induced vindictiveness and will be thrown out of court.

So leechers want other folks to donate to the schools to build the endowment and will gladly use that endowment to get financial aid from the schools for their kids, but don't want the donors to GET ANY BENEFIT for their donations for their kids, even though many legacies have excellent grades and scores?

Do they think that tuition alone is enough to run these schools?

I have donated regularly to my alma mater and my kids are in the sweet spot for admissions in the unhooked category there based on their academics.

I fully expect the school to give my kids a tip. If they instead publicly announce that they will no longer support legacy admissions, I will be damned if I contribute a single additional dollar to them. They can look elsewhere to build up their endowment and support their expensive administrative bloat.

And if that pisses you off, you're welcome. C'est la vie

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Legacy preference is NOT Unconstitutional!! What part of this is not clear to posters here. There is no mention of Legacy in Title VI or VII.
We didn't fight a civil war for legacy!!!
This "If, I can't have my special unconstitutional preference, then you can't have any yourself, even if it is constitutional" is just rage induced vindictiveness and will be thrown out of court.

So leechers want other folks to donate to the schools to build the endowment and will gladly use that endowment to get financial aid from the schools for their kids, but don't want the donors to GET ANY BENEFIT for their donations for their kids, even though many legacies have excellent grades and scores?

Do they think that tuition alone is enough to run these schools?

I have donated regularly to my alma mater and my kids are in the sweet spot for admissions in the unhooked category there based on their academics.

I fully expect the school to give my kids a tip. If they instead publicly announce that they will no longer support legacy admissions, I will be damned if I contribute a single additional dollar to them. They can look elsewhere to build up their endowment and support their expensive administrative bloat.

And if that pisses you off, you're welcome. C'est la vie

So, you are saying you have no effing loyalty to your alma mater. You are donating only because you have a kid(s) and you want to buy admission. How much is your total donation per child? Tomorrow someone may say I will donate to buy a staff job or a faculty job for my kid at your alma mater. I suppose you are okay with your alma mater putting up for sale sign for their open positions among staff and faculty ranks. The pay to play has to stop! Or the private universities should be denied by law from enjoying federal funds for research and tax exemption status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Legacy preference is NOT Unconstitutional!! What part of this is not clear to posters here. There is no mention of Legacy in Title VI or VII.
We didn't fight a civil war for legacy!!!
This "If, I can't have my special unconstitutional preference, then you can't have any yourself, even if it is constitutional" is just rage induced vindictiveness and will be thrown out of court.

So leechers want other folks to donate to the schools to build the endowment and will gladly use that endowment to get financial aid from the schools for their kids, but don't want the donors to GET ANY BENEFIT for their donations for their kids, even though many legacies have excellent grades and scores?

Do they think that tuition alone is enough to run these schools?

I have donated regularly to my alma mater and my kids are in the sweet spot for admissions in the unhooked category there based on their academics.

I fully expect the school to give my kids a tip. If they instead publicly announce that they will no longer support legacy admissions, I will be damned if I contribute a single additional dollar to them. They can look elsewhere to build up their endowment and support their expensive administrative bloat.

And if that pisses you off, you're welcome. C'est la vie

ie, as a wealthy person, I should be able to bribe my kid's way into the school.

Legacy is just affirmative action for the rich, and you are using poor kids as an excuse to hoard opportunity.

It doesn't have to cost so much to run a school. Have you looked at the rise in college costs in relation to wages? It's ridiculous. Some of these schools have very large endowments, and they spend the money on non academic related expenses. Maybe if they lowered the tuition then more MC kids could afford to go there without needing aid (which you seem to think you're paying for) or loans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dont know why colleges have more sports than your average high school school. Football, basketball, swimming, tennis? Okay. Sailing, squash, fencing, water polo? Why?

I literally don't understand what these low/no spectator sports adds to a school? I played club sports and those were great, added a lot to school spirit, helped with community and mental health, I'm sure. Clubs cost the school very little and require no tips on the admission side. Just make these sports club sports.

Totally agree that the athletic departments are huge at a lot of top schools. Harvard, Stanford, Notre Dame, and Duke offer among the largest numbers of sports in the country. Harvard and Stanford are #1 and 2!

Obscure sports are side doors into the schools for wealthy full pay kids whose parents have the means to get their kid personal coaches and trainers. The schools expect the money that was spent on training in their youth then get rolled into the university as donations.

A kid might not be a recruiter athlete, but Coach still has a roster to fill.

This hasn't been my experience, and I know a lot of squash players and fencers. They're well off, but not super rich. Full pay but not donor class. And they aren't richer than, say, top level-in-their-city cello player parents who are ponying up for 15k cellos, private lessons, camps, etc. Music costs a lot of money too.

Yes, but don’t you get it? This is a false equivalency. Music is a pinky on the scale. Athletics is a fist. No fists should be allowed.

It really is about American society. Our colleges mirror the importance of sports in our culture. There is no comparing an orchestra to a football team. Sports are just flat out far more important in the US. It doesn't surprise me at all that they'd be far more important in terms of campus communities and admissions.
I think the bigger point is getting into a school really should only require some minimum academic qualifications needed to be able to handle the work and graduate. Schools don't want and shouldn't want, in my opinion, a class full of joiners with perfect scores. I wish admissions valued other ECs more too. Having a 35 ACT versus a 31 shouldn't cause anyone to say the first person "deserves" to be admitted over the second. Both will graduate from Harvard, Yale, MIT, Amherst, Swarthmore, Wesleyan or wherever. Both will also be able to go to college! There is no notion of desert in selective college admissions. No one deserves to go to an Ivy or NESCAC school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Legacy preference is NOT Unconstitutional!! What part of this is not clear to posters here. There is no mention of Legacy in Title VI or VII.
We didn't fight a civil war for legacy!!!
This "If, I can't have my special unconstitutional preference, then you can't have any yourself, even if it is constitutional" is just rage induced vindictiveness and will be thrown out of court.

So leechers want other folks to donate to the schools to build the endowment and will gladly use that endowment to get financial aid from the schools for their kids, but don't want the donors to GET ANY BENEFIT for their donations for their kids, even though many legacies have excellent grades and scores?

Do they think that tuition alone is enough to run these schools?

I have donated regularly to my alma mater and my kids are in the sweet spot for admissions in the unhooked category there based on their academics.

I fully expect the school to give my kids a tip. If they instead publicly announce that they will no longer support legacy admissions, I will be damned if I contribute a single additional dollar to them. They can look elsewhere to build up their endowment and support their expensive administrative bloat.

And if that pisses you off, you're welcome. C'est la vie

This is exactly how most alumni feel and why colleges are very reluctant to let go of the legacy preference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacy preference is NOT Unconstitutional!! What part of this is not clear to posters here. There is no mention of Legacy in Title VI or VII.
We didn't fight a civil war for legacy!!!
This "If, I can't have my special unconstitutional preference, then you can't have any yourself, even if it is constitutional" is just rage induced vindictiveness and will be thrown out of court.

So leechers want other folks to donate to the schools to build the endowment and will gladly use that endowment to get financial aid from the schools for their kids, but don't want the donors to GET ANY BENEFIT for their donations for their kids, even though many legacies have excellent grades and scores?

Do they think that tuition alone is enough to run these schools?

I have donated regularly to my alma mater and my kids are in the sweet spot for admissions in the unhooked category there based on their academics.

I fully expect the school to give my kids a tip. If they instead publicly announce that they will no longer support legacy admissions, I will be damned if I contribute a single additional dollar to them. They can look elsewhere to build up their endowment and support their expensive administrative bloat.

And if that pisses you off, you're welcome. C'est la vie

ie, as a wealthy person, I should be able to bribe my kid's way into the school.

Legacy is just affirmative action for the rich, and you are using poor kids as an excuse to hoard opportunity.

It doesn't have to cost so much to run a school. Have you looked at the rise in college costs in relation to wages? It's ridiculous. Some of these schools have very large endowments, and they spend the money on non academic related expenses. Maybe if they lowered the tuition then more MC kids could afford to go there without needing aid (which you seem to think you're paying for) or loans.

The top schools do a lot to make college affordable for MC and lower-income families. I give them a lot of credit there and over the last several years those programs have been extended to help MC people more.

There are some connection and large-scale fundraising rationales for legacies too. If you went to an elite school that still has legacy admissions, you may want to reach out and let them know you support it and why. The converse is also true. I know at least one person who is pushing for the top school I attended to end legacy preferences.

[Anonymous]

"The right question to ask is not whether athletes met the academic requirements but whether they displaced the nerds who exceeded the academic requirements. They took the place of others who are more deserving academically. So, yes athletic recruiting is biased. Is it wrong? That depends on what the sport bring to the school. I agree that "minor" sports that no students go watch in big numbers, or help with school spirit should be dropped from recruiting. It costs the school, and hence our tuition dollars, a lot of money to run these "minor" sports."

+1

[Anonymous]

What a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks