How much does legacy matter at Ivy League schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?

I never said that but you cited the work of a paper that didn't work out so well because Arcidicano's work only gave the "right" answer if the model left out the personal factor which it did saying they it was a biased factor. Legacy benefits whites more because they are the largest proportion of the legacy pool, not because they are white. The proportion is dropping but the benefits will still favor whites by numbers until the proportion of whites at a school drops below 50% and then this change persists for a long enough period of time that there is a group of legacies which aren't majority white whose children are applying to a school. The benefits of a legacy tag are pretty equal for anyone who is a legacy regardless of race and actually on an individual level may disproportionaltely benefit Asian legacy applicants because they are the group that had the largest increase in admittance benefit for any single factor which was the personal rating.

I’ve posted some of this before, but perhaps not all: currently at Stanford, ~40% of legacy applicants and ~50% of legacy admits are of color. Legacy applicants as a group have higher stats than non-legacy applicants. Legacy kids make up ~10% of the class. Even if Stanford formally eliminates legacy preference next admissions cycle as the state of CA has mandated (and which I 100% support), there may not be any meaningful change to this percentage.

No idea about Ivies, but Stanford has been mentioned on this thread and the numbers above are not speculation but facts, provided directly by the university in November 2024.

What's your source for this? I've never seen data for Stanford, but a law professor at Stanford noted in an interview that legacy admits are more likely to be white and affluent.

“Insider’s View” webinar with Howard Wolf, Stanford Vice President for Alumni Affairs

So no rigorous study, just a university employee who maybe said something on a webinar that you don't even link to, but we're to accept this as fact while you tell us to disregard NBER reviewed research studies that don't support your worldview.

The webinar was for alumni only and legacy admissions was a formal agenda point. If you’re seriously trying to claim that the VP of Alumni Affairs made these numbers up - which are actually rather disappointing to many alumni who wish Stanford would place a greater emphasis on legacy - I can’t help you. Again, I personally support the end of legacy preferences altogether, and don’t know why you keep confusing me with other posters. Sincere best wishes to you and your DC.

If Stanford didn't make public that data you're saying the VP of Alumni Affairs stated in a closed door webinar, either via published research that has been peer reviewed or at the very list some sort of a university statement or report, there's no way to validate the data you're claiming as fact.

We also don't know from your post whether that privately divulged data was for a single year (for example when they were facing pressure to end legacy admissions) or a general trend. Personally, I would be very surprised if it were true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?

I never said that but you cited the work of a paper that didn't work out so well because Arcidicano's work only gave the "right" answer if the model left out the personal factor which it did saying they it was a biased factor. Legacy benefits whites more because they are the largest proportion of the legacy pool, not because they are white. The proportion is dropping but the benefits will still favor whites by numbers until the proportion of whites at a school drops below 50% and then this change persists for a long enough period of time that there is a group of legacies which aren't majority white whose children are applying to a school. The benefits of a legacy tag are pretty equal for anyone who is a legacy regardless of race and actually on an individual level may disproportionaltely benefit Asian legacy applicants because they are the group that had the largest increase in admittance benefit for any single factor which was the personal rating.

So non-white applicants today should be "understanding" of an unfair admissions advantage for whites simply because of historical reasons? Many white people were not particularly sympathetic to affirmative action that was designed to address historical inequities and injustices, yet many white people are happy to defend their own privilege and tell non-whites to wait a few decades so they too can have an unfair advantage over an equivalent applicant.

I did not say or imply anything of the sort. I just pointed out that legacy benefits were actually race neutral on their benefits within the legacy pool and pointed out that within that pool they might actually give Asian applicants a slightly higher boot than that received by others within that pool. Personally I think that the ultimate result of SFFA v Harvard was unfortunate; I am not in favor of eliminating affirmative action but rather reforming it to eliminate its benefit for High SES candidates of any race.

I get tired of people dragging out and citing the Arcidicano paper because it is crap. It was designed to achieve specific result and the only way that they could achieve that result was by dropping a real factor in Harvards admissions rubric (personal). David Card's rebuttal did a very thorough job of dismantling Arcidicano's work.

I’m not the poster to whom you’re responding (I’m the Stanford poster), but that poster seems to think you and I are the same person so I wanted to say “hi” and make it clear we’re not. Not that I disagree with what you’re saying - I just don’t know enough about the Harvard case or related research to comment on any of it (which is why I haven’t, contrary to that poster’s belief).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?

I never said that but you cited the work of a paper that didn't work out so well because Arcidicano's work only gave the "right" answer if the model left out the personal factor which it did saying they it was a biased factor. Legacy benefits whites more because they are the largest proportion of the legacy pool, not because they are white. The proportion is dropping but the benefits will still favor whites by numbers until the proportion of whites at a school drops below 50% and then this change persists for a long enough period of time that there is a group of legacies which aren't majority white whose children are applying to a school. The benefits of a legacy tag are pretty equal for anyone who is a legacy regardless of race and actually on an individual level may disproportionaltely benefit Asian legacy applicants because they are the group that had the largest increase in admittance benefit for any single factor which was the personal rating.

I’ve posted some of this before, but perhaps not all: currently at Stanford, ~40% of legacy applicants and ~50% of legacy admits are of color. Legacy applicants as a group have higher stats than non-legacy applicants. Legacy kids make up ~10% of the class. Even if Stanford formally eliminates legacy preference next admissions cycle as the state of CA has mandated (and which I 100% support), there may not be any meaningful change to this percentage.

No idea about Ivies, but Stanford has been mentioned on this thread and the numbers above are not speculation but facts, provided directly by the university in November 2024.

What's your source for this? I've never seen data for Stanford, but a law professor at Stanford noted in an interview that legacy admits are more likely to be white and affluent.

“Insider’s View” webinar with Howard Wolf, Stanford Vice President for Alumni Affairs

So no rigorous study, just a university employee who maybe said something on a webinar that you don't even link to, but we're to accept this as fact while you tell us to disregard NBER reviewed research studies that don't support your worldview.

The webinar was for alumni only and legacy admissions was a formal agenda point. If you’re seriously trying to claim that the VP of Alumni Affairs made these numbers up - which are actually rather disappointing to many alumni who wish Stanford would place a greater emphasis on legacy - I can’t help you. Again, I personally support the end of legacy preferences altogether, and don’t know why you keep confusing me with other posters. Sincere best wishes to you and your DC.

If Stanford didn't make public that data you're saying the VP of Alumni Affairs stated in a closed door webinar, either via published research that has been peer reviewed or at the very list some sort of a university statement or report, there's no way to validate the data you're claiming as fact.

We also don't know from your post whether that privately divulged data was for a single year (for example when they were facing pressure to end legacy admissions) or a general trend. Personally, I would be very surprised if it were true.

Personally, I would be very surprised if you know more about Stanford and CA than I do. I very much wish Stanford would feel more pressure to end legacy preferences, but the state mandate has no teeth, i.e. there are no financial consequences for non-compliance. Why are you so adamantly opposed to the truth (in regards to Stanford, that is - again, I have no idea about other schools)? The university has no incentive to provide false information that is disappointing to so many alumni, especially, as you point out, in a closed door webinar specifically for alumni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?

I never said that but you cited the work of a paper that didn't work out so well because Arcidicano's work only gave the "right" answer if the model left out the personal factor which it did saying they it was a biased factor. Legacy benefits whites more because they are the largest proportion of the legacy pool, not because they are white. The proportion is dropping but the benefits will still favor whites by numbers until the proportion of whites at a school drops below 50% and then this change persists for a long enough period of time that there is a group of legacies which aren't majority white whose children are applying to a school. The benefits of a legacy tag are pretty equal for anyone who is a legacy regardless of race and actually on an individual level may disproportionaltely benefit Asian legacy applicants because they are the group that had the largest increase in admittance benefit for any single factor which was the personal rating.

So non-white applicants today should be "understanding" of an unfair admissions advantage for whites simply because of historical reasons? Many white people were not particularly sympathetic to affirmative action that was designed to address historical inequities and injustices, yet many white people are happy to defend their own privilege and tell non-whites to wait a few decades so they too can have an unfair advantage over an equivalent applicant.

I did not say or imply anything of the sort. I just pointed out that legacy benefits were actually race neutral on their benefits within the legacy pool and pointed out that within that pool they might actually give Asian applicants a slightly higher boot than that received by others within that pool. Personally I think that the ultimate result of SFFA v Harvard was unfortunate; I am not in favor of eliminating affirmative action but rather reforming it to eliminate its benefit for High SES candidates of any race.

I get tired of people dragging out and citing the Arcidicano paper because it is crap. It was designed to achieve specific result and the only way that they could achieve that result was by dropping a real factor in Harvards admissions rubric (personal). David Card's rebuttal did a very thorough job of dismantling Arcidicano's work.

I’m not the poster to whom you’re responding (I’m the Stanford poster), but that poster seems to think you and I are the same person so I wanted to say “hi” and make it clear we’re not. Not that I disagree with what you’re saying - I just don’t know enough about the Harvard case or related research to comment on any of it (which is why I haven’t, contrary to that poster’s belief).

Thanks for the note and your contributions. The Harvard paper is very frequently used(actually misused) as proof of something that it was actually unsuccessful in proving because of the obvious contortions that were required to get the result necessary for the lawsuit. It is a long read and not surprisingly most people who cite it haven't actually read the paper or the rebuttal (also a long read) which carried the day in trial portion of that lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?

I never said that but you cited the work of a paper that didn't work out so well because Arcidicano's work only gave the "right" answer if the model left out the personal factor which it did saying they it was a biased factor. Legacy benefits whites more because they are the largest proportion of the legacy pool, not because they are white. The proportion is dropping but the benefits will still favor whites by numbers until the proportion of whites at a school drops below 50% and then this change persists for a long enough period of time that there is a group of legacies which aren't majority white whose children are applying to a school. The benefits of a legacy tag are pretty equal for anyone who is a legacy regardless of race and actually on an individual level may disproportionaltely benefit Asian legacy applicants because they are the group that had the largest increase in admittance benefit for any single factor which was the personal rating.

I’ve posted some of this before, but perhaps not all: currently at Stanford, ~40% of legacy applicants and ~50% of legacy admits are of color. Legacy applicants as a group have higher stats than non-legacy applicants. Legacy kids make up ~10% of the class. Even if Stanford formally eliminates legacy preference next admissions cycle as the state of CA has mandated (and which I 100% support), there may not be any meaningful change to this percentage.

No idea about Ivies, but Stanford has been mentioned on this thread and the numbers above are not speculation but facts, provided directly by the university in November 2024.

What's your source for this? I've never seen data for Stanford, but a law professor at Stanford noted in an interview that legacy admits are more likely to be white and affluent.

“Insider’s View” webinar with Howard Wolf, Stanford Vice President for Alumni Affairs

So no rigorous study, just a university employee who maybe said something on a webinar that you don't even link to, but we're to accept this as fact while you tell us to disregard NBER reviewed research studies that don't support your worldview.

Arcidicano's paper is not "reviewed". It is classified as a working paper precisely to avoid review.

Arcidiacono is an economics professor at Duke. Working papers are not working papers to avoid review--they're typically made public to engender discussion and feedback prior to formal publication.

But if you want to dismiss a published paper by an economics professor which found that whites were the primary beneficiary of legacy admissions, and that legacy admissions offered a considerable advantage relative to similarly qualified applicants (which is not the only published paper to draw that conclusion) as invalid, while telling us to accept the "data" you say a Stanford development officer stated in a non-public forum for alumni as "fact," there's not much point arguing with these #alternative facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?

I never said that but you cited the work of a paper that didn't work out so well because Arcidicano's work only gave the "right" answer if the model left out the personal factor which it did saying they it was a biased factor. Legacy benefits whites more because they are the largest proportion of the legacy pool, not because they are white. The proportion is dropping but the benefits will still favor whites by numbers until the proportion of whites at a school drops below 50% and then this change persists for a long enough period of time that there is a group of legacies which aren't majority white whose children are applying to a school. The benefits of a legacy tag are pretty equal for anyone who is a legacy regardless of race and actually on an individual level may disproportionaltely benefit Asian legacy applicants because they are the group that had the largest increase in admittance benefit for any single factor which was the personal rating.

I’ve posted some of this before, but perhaps not all: currently at Stanford, ~40% of legacy applicants and ~50% of legacy admits are of color. Legacy applicants as a group have higher stats than non-legacy applicants. Legacy kids make up ~10% of the class. Even if Stanford formally eliminates legacy preference next admissions cycle as the state of CA has mandated (and which I 100% support), there may not be any meaningful change to this percentage.

No idea about Ivies, but Stanford has been mentioned on this thread and the numbers above are not speculation but facts, provided directly by the university in November 2024.

What's your source for this? I've never seen data for Stanford, but a law professor at Stanford noted in an interview that legacy admits are more likely to be white and affluent.

“Insider’s View” webinar with Howard Wolf, Stanford Vice President for Alumni Affairs

So no rigorous study, just a university employee who maybe said something on a webinar that you don't even link to, but we're to accept this as fact while you tell us to disregard NBER reviewed research studies that don't support your worldview.

The webinar was for alumni only and legacy admissions was a formal agenda point. If you’re seriously trying to claim that the VP of Alumni Affairs made these numbers up - which are actually rather disappointing to many alumni who wish Stanford would place a greater emphasis on legacy - I can’t help you. Again, I personally support the end of legacy preferences altogether, and don’t know why you keep confusing me with other posters. Sincere best wishes to you and your DC.

If Stanford didn't make public that data you're saying the VP of Alumni Affairs stated in a closed door webinar, either via published research that has been peer reviewed or at the very list some sort of a university statement or report, there's no way to validate the data you're claiming as fact.

We also don't know from your post whether that privately divulged data was for a single year (for example when they were facing pressure to end legacy admissions) or a general trend. Personally, I would be very surprised if it were true.

Personally, I would be very surprised if you know more about Stanford and CA than I do. I very much wish Stanford would feel more pressure to end legacy preferences, but the state mandate has no teeth, i.e. there are no financial consequences for non-compliance. Why are you so adamantly opposed to the truth (in regards to Stanford, that is - again, I have no idea about other schools)? The university has no incentive to provide false information that is disappointing to so many alumni, especially, as you point out, in a closed door webinar specifically for alumni.

If you feel you know everything about an anonymous Internet poster, then personally, I'm not surprised that you're determined to cite facts for which there is no public evidence as the gospel. Perhaps Stanford is an outlier compared to HYP universities. But since you have zero data or statements to back it up, then you'll be preaching to those who want to take the word of an Internet rando.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?

I never said that but you cited the work of a paper that didn't work out so well because Arcidicano's work only gave the "right" answer if the model left out the personal factor which it did saying they it was a biased factor. Legacy benefits whites more because they are the largest proportion of the legacy pool, not because they are white. The proportion is dropping but the benefits will still favor whites by numbers until the proportion of whites at a school drops below 50% and then this change persists for a long enough period of time that there is a group of legacies which aren't majority white whose children are applying to a school. The benefits of a legacy tag are pretty equal for anyone who is a legacy regardless of race and actually on an individual level may disproportionaltely benefit Asian legacy applicants because they are the group that had the largest increase in admittance benefit for any single factor which was the personal rating.

I’ve posted some of this before, but perhaps not all: currently at Stanford, ~40% of legacy applicants and ~50% of legacy admits are of color. Legacy applicants as a group have higher stats than non-legacy applicants. Legacy kids make up ~10% of the class. Even if Stanford formally eliminates legacy preference next admissions cycle as the state of CA has mandated (and which I 100% support), there may not be any meaningful change to this percentage.

No idea about Ivies, but Stanford has been mentioned on this thread and the numbers above are not speculation but facts, provided directly by the university in November 2024.

What's your source for this? I've never seen data for Stanford, but a law professor at Stanford noted in an interview that legacy admits are more likely to be white and affluent.

“Insider’s View” webinar with Howard Wolf, Stanford Vice President for Alumni Affairs

So no rigorous study, just a university employee who maybe said something on a webinar that you don't even link to, but we're to accept this as fact while you tell us to disregard NBER reviewed research studies that don't support your worldview.

Arcidicano's paper is not "reviewed". It is classified as a working paper precisely to avoid review.

Arcidiacono is an economics professor at Duke. Working papers are not working papers to avoid review--they're typically made public to engender discussion and feedback prior to formal publication.

But if you want to dismiss a published paper by an economics professor which found that whites were the primary beneficiary of legacy admissions, and that legacy admissions offered a considerable advantage relative to similarly qualified applicants (which is not the only published paper to draw that conclusion) as invalid, while telling us to accept the "data" you say a Stanford development officer stated in a non-public forum for alumni as "fact," there's not much point arguing with these #alternative facts.

You still think we’re the same person. Oh well, I tried.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?

I never said that but you cited the work of a paper that didn't work out so well because Arcidicano's work only gave the "right" answer if the model left out the personal factor which it did saying they it was a biased factor. Legacy benefits whites more because they are the largest proportion of the legacy pool, not because they are white. The proportion is dropping but the benefits will still favor whites by numbers until the proportion of whites at a school drops below 50% and then this change persists for a long enough period of time that there is a group of legacies which aren't majority white whose children are applying to a school. The benefits of a legacy tag are pretty equal for anyone who is a legacy regardless of race and actually on an individual level may disproportionaltely benefit Asian legacy applicants because they are the group that had the largest increase in admittance benefit for any single factor which was the personal rating.

I am asian and I would rather see legacy go away than see my kid at my top 10 alma mater. I don't like that he is steered towards following my footsteps like we are medieval blacksmiths or something. I don't like that he felt pressure to apply ED to my alma mater even though his dream school doesn't even have a legacy preference. Let kids follow their dreams according to their ability, not their parentage, not their skin color, not their connections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?

I never said that but you cited the work of a paper that didn't work out so well because Arcidicano's work only gave the "right" answer if the model left out the personal factor which it did saying they it was a biased factor. Legacy benefits whites more because they are the largest proportion of the legacy pool, not because they are white. The proportion is dropping but the benefits will still favor whites by numbers until the proportion of whites at a school drops below 50% and then this change persists for a long enough period of time that there is a group of legacies which aren't majority white whose children are applying to a school. The benefits of a legacy tag are pretty equal for anyone who is a legacy regardless of race and actually on an individual level may disproportionaltely benefit Asian legacy applicants because they are the group that had the largest increase in admittance benefit for any single factor which was the personal rating.

I’ve posted some of this before, but perhaps not all: currently at Stanford, ~40% of legacy applicants and ~50% of legacy admits are of color. Legacy applicants as a group have higher stats than non-legacy applicants. Legacy kids make up ~10% of the class. Even if Stanford formally eliminates legacy preference next admissions cycle as the state of CA has mandated (and which I 100% support), there may not be any meaningful change to this percentage.

No idea about Ivies, but Stanford has been mentioned on this thread and the numbers above are not speculation but facts, provided directly by the university in November 2024.

What's your source for this? I've never seen data for Stanford, but a law professor at Stanford noted in an interview that legacy admits are more likely to be white and affluent.

“Insider’s View” webinar with Howard Wolf, Stanford Vice President for Alumni Affairs

So no rigorous study, just a university employee who maybe said something on a webinar that you don't even link to, but we're to accept this as fact while you tell us to disregard NBER reviewed research studies that don't support your worldview.

Arcidicano's paper is not "reviewed". It is classified as a working paper precisely to avoid review.

Arcidiacono is an economics professor at Duke. Working papers are not working papers to avoid review--they're typically made public to engender discussion and feedback prior to formal publication.

But if you want to dismiss a published paper by an economics professor which found that whites were the primary beneficiary of legacy admissions, and that legacy admissions offered a considerable advantage relative to similarly qualified applicants (which is not the only published paper to draw that conclusion) as invalid, while telling us to accept the "data" you say a Stanford development officer stated in a non-public forum for alumni as "fact," there's not much point arguing with these #alternative facts.

You still think we’re the same person. Oh well, I tried.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?

I never said that but you cited the work of a paper that didn't work out so well because Arcidicano's work only gave the "right" answer if the model left out the personal factor which it did saying they it was a biased factor. Legacy benefits whites more because they are the largest proportion of the legacy pool, not because they are white. The proportion is dropping but the benefits will still favor whites by numbers until the proportion of whites at a school drops below 50% and then this change persists for a long enough period of time that there is a group of legacies which aren't majority white whose children are applying to a school. The benefits of a legacy tag are pretty equal for anyone who is a legacy regardless of race and actually on an individual level may disproportionaltely benefit Asian legacy applicants because they are the group that had the largest increase in admittance benefit for any single factor which was the personal rating.

I am asian and I would rather see legacy go away than see my kid at my top 10 alma mater. I don't like that he is steered towards following my footsteps like we are medieval blacksmiths or something. I don't like that he felt pressure to apply ED to my alma mater even though his dream school doesn't even have a legacy preference. Let kids follow their dreams according to their ability, not their parentage, not their skin color, not their connections.

I’m Asian American and also oppose legacy preferences, but why did/does your legacy kid feel pressured to apply to your alma mater? Mine didn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?

I never said that but you cited the work of a paper that didn't work out so well because Arcidicano's work only gave the "right" answer if the model left out the personal factor which it did saying they it was a biased factor. Legacy benefits whites more because they are the largest proportion of the legacy pool, not because they are white. The proportion is dropping but the benefits will still favor whites by numbers until the proportion of whites at a school drops below 50% and then this change persists for a long enough period of time that there is a group of legacies which aren't majority white whose children are applying to a school. The benefits of a legacy tag are pretty equal for anyone who is a legacy regardless of race and actually on an individual level may disproportionaltely benefit Asian legacy applicants because they are the group that had the largest increase in admittance benefit for any single factor which was the personal rating.

So non-white applicants today should be "understanding" of an unfair admissions advantage for whites simply because of historical reasons? Many white people were not particularly sympathetic to affirmative action that was designed to address historical inequities and injustices, yet many white people are happy to defend their own privilege and tell non-whites to wait a few decades so they too can have an unfair advantage over an equivalent applicant.

I did not say or imply anything of the sort. I just pointed out that legacy benefits were actually race neutral on their benefits within the legacy pool and pointed out that within that pool they might actually give Asian applicants a slightly higher boot than that received by others within that pool. Personally I think that the ultimate result of SFFA v Harvard was unfortunate; I am not in favor of eliminating affirmative action but rather reforming it to eliminate its benefit for High SES candidates of any race.

I get tired of people dragging out and citing the Arcidicano paper because it is crap. It was designed to achieve specific result and the only way that they could achieve that result was by dropping a real factor in Harvards admissions rubric (personal). David Card's rebuttal did a very thorough job of dismantling Arcidicano's work.

The Arcicadiano paper did several regression analyses to isolate the effects of different factors and their relation to race.
The personal score (the most subjective factor) was being used by harvard admissions to counter the large gaps in objective criteria between racial groups

The alumni interviewers did not produce significant variance in personal scores by race.
The admissions committee gave high personal scores twice as frequently to URM over asians.
The personal score is how they exercise the discrimination.

Card's rebuttal was not much of a rebuttal. He also predicted a huge drop in URM admissions without explicit consideration of race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?

I don't want to speak for another poster, but I don't think they are saying it benefits non-whites more than whites. I think they are saying that it does not only benefit whites - non-whites are increasingly receiving more and more benefit from it because for the last 40 years, there was a general trend of increasing numbers of minorities at top schools and now their kids are applying. If they don't want to take advantage of it, their loss.

+1. The majority of my Princeton classmates whose kids have been admitted in recent years (sample size of 7-8) are non-white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here - We have 2 Ivy early choices and one is ED and one SCEA (not Princeton or Harvard unfortunately as I did hear those have the biggest boost).

Child is good enough to be recruited at schools that aren't an academic match. The Ivy's have upped their sports level so just isn't quite there. Top academic d 3 indicated child could walk on if they get in but no coach support for app process - child is debating going for Ivy and doing the sport club in college or walk on at D3...not sure if high academic d3 will be a harder admit or legacy at Ivy is a harder admit but we want to choose correctly for early.

My kid was similar. Applied ED as legacy to an Ivy, was admitted, and went on to be captain of nationally competitive club team there. Absolutely loved the club experience.

My kid chose Ivy and Club as well- RD though

Club is not easy to make. Only 2 Freshman out of 100+ though. You get many kids that were recruits or could have played doing club because of time

PP here with kid who applied ED to an Ivy. Absolutely correct. The club team took only 2 of 45 at freshman tryouts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here - We have 2 Ivy early choices and one is ED and one SCEA (not Princeton or Harvard unfortunately as I did hear those have the biggest boost).

Child is good enough to be recruited at schools that aren't an academic match. The Ivy's have upped their sports level so just isn't quite there. Top academic d 3 indicated child could walk on if they get in but no coach support for app process - child is debating going for Ivy and doing the sport club in college or walk on at D3...not sure if high academic d3 will be a harder admit or legacy at Ivy is a harder admit but we want to choose correctly for early.

My kid was similar. Applied ED as legacy to an Ivy, was admitted, and went on to be captain of nationally competitive club team there. Absolutely loved the club experience.

My kid chose Ivy and Club as well- RD though

Club is not easy to make. Only 2 Freshman out of 100+ though. You get many kids that were recruits or could have played doing club because of time

PP here with kid who applied ED to an Ivy. Absolutely correct. The club team took only 2 of 45 at freshman tryouts.

Understand the desire to remain anonymous but curious what club sports you are referring to?

[Anonymous]

Op here very interesting regarding the club tryouts! I think my kid would make the club team but who knows!