Stanford bringing back legacy preference and test required

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just keep in mind legacy status with no history of donation isn't meaningful. It is a reward for continuing engagement and support of the university.

Great news for the 40 year old tech bros.

Luckily they aren't known to be particularly philanthropic. Old money definitely knows the drill . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the perspective of an active alumnus, this is a huge relief. College admissions have become so competitive, it has become almost random. The legacies are every bit as qualified on paper as the other admitted students but they aren't subject to the same RNG in the admissions process.

Cite?

I can't find anything for stanford but here is something for harvard:

'Legacy students also had a higher average SAT score than non-legacy students, at 1523 for legacy students and 1491 for non-legacy students. "
https://features.thecrimson.com/2021/freshman-survey/academics-narrative/

Right. Because the non-legacy bucket includes athletes and a boatload of other hooks. What a dumb stat--and dumber for not even being able to recognize that.

Not enough to create that difference. There is no school where legacy gets an unqualified person in. Donations will do that. Legacy gets qualified people picked. There are likely four times the number of qualified people vs slots at Stanford. Legacy get one of those people in.

Cite?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the perspective of an active alumnus, this is a huge relief. College admissions have become so competitive, it has become almost random. The legacies are every bit as qualified on paper as the other admitted students but they aren't subject to the same RNG in the admissions process.

Cite?

I can't find anything for stanford but here is something for harvard:

'Legacy students also had a higher average SAT score than non-legacy students, at 1523 for legacy students and 1491 for non-legacy students. "
https://features.thecrimson.com/2021/freshman-survey/academics-narrative/

Right. Because the non-legacy bucket includes athletes and a boatload of other hooks. What a dumb stat--and dumber for not even being able to recognize that.

Not enough to create that difference. There is no school where legacy gets an unqualified person in. Donations will do that. Legacy gets qualified people picked. There are likely four times the number of qualified people vs slots at Stanford. Legacy get one of those people in.

Cite?

Why don't you offer something more valuable than this. You have littered the thread with it. Do you not the difference between fact, opinion, and thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the perspective of an active alumnus, this is a huge relief. College admissions have become so competitive, it has become almost random. The legacies are every bit as qualified on paper as the other admitted students but they aren't subject to the same RNG in the admissions process.

If they are every bit as qualified then maybe they should just be fine applying without the legacy advantage. The process is should be random for everyone. They have the privilege of having educated parents who give then access to all resources and then they also get an unfair advantage in admissions. Does not seem right at all.

But we don't want to have the same chance of getting in as the non-legacy applicant.
If our kid is just as good as every other kid that gets accepted why shouldn't he have a preference based on the fact that he is much likelier to donate as an adult than a non-legacy admit.
It's not like he is getting a 200 point SAT advantage or a 5 point ACT advantage. He is high stat but because of the incredibly large applicant pool, admissions has become somewhat random and his chances are probably 25% or less but with a legacy preferences it might be 50% or more.

Your privilege is showing. Why do you feel so entitled?

So tired of the privilege card. Privilege is earned. Someone in the family earned it and passed it down. Maybe instead of whining about privilege people should go out and earn it, so they can pass it down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacies are only white guys named Chad?

Legacies are dominated by rich white people.

Uh, do you even know what the demographics of Stanford undergraduates have been for the last few decades?

Most of the legacies that I know who have gotten into Stanford in recent years are Asian.

Anecdotal

You would have us think that there aren’t many non-white Stanford alums with kids?

Post a peer-reviewed study if you want to be taken seriously.

Like all the peer-reviewed studies showing that current Stanford legacies are dominated by rich white people?

A peer-reviewed text was posted earlier in the thread. Try to keep up.

Yeah, that didn't say anything about the demographics of current legacies. Nice try though.

Read the book, idiot.

So basically you’re full of crap. Show us where it says anything about Stanford legacies or STFU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the perspective of an active alumnus, this is a huge relief. College admissions have become so competitive, it has become almost random. The legacies are every bit as qualified on paper as the other admitted students but they aren't subject to the same RNG in the admissions process.

If they are every bit as qualified then maybe they should just be fine applying without the legacy advantage. The process is should be random for everyone. They have the privilege of having educated parents who give then access to all resources and then they also get an unfair advantage in admissions. Does not seem right at all.

But we don't want to have the same chance of getting in as the non-legacy applicant.
If our kid is just as good as every other kid that gets accepted why shouldn't he have a preference based on the fact that he is much likelier to donate as an adult than a non-legacy admit.
It's not like he is getting a 200 point SAT advantage or a 5 point ACT advantage. He is high stat but because of the incredibly large applicant pool, admissions has become somewhat random and his chances are probably 25% or less but with a legacy preferences it might be 50% or more.

Your privilege is showing. Why do you feel so entitled?

So tired of the privilege card. Privilege is earned. Someone in the family earned it and passed it down. Maybe instead of whining about privilege people should go out and earn it, so they can pass it down.

What a dumb argument. “Someone in the lineage did something good once so now everyone gets that benefit going forward.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacies are only white guys named Chad?

Legacies are dominated by rich white people.

Uh, do you even know what the demographics of Stanford undergraduates have been for the last few decades?

Most of the legacies that I know who have gotten into Stanford in recent years are Asian.

Anecdotal

You would have us think that there aren’t many non-white Stanford alums with kids?

Post a peer-reviewed study if you want to be taken seriously.

Like all the peer-reviewed studies showing that current Stanford legacies are dominated by rich white people?

A peer-reviewed text was posted earlier in the thread. Try to keep up.

Yeah, that didn't say anything about the demographics of current legacies. Nice try though.

Read the book, idiot.

So basically you’re full of crap. Show us where it says anything about Stanford legacies or STFU.

You’re too lazy to read a book? STFU and GFY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the perspective of an active alumnus, this is a huge relief. College admissions have become so competitive, it has become almost random. The legacies are every bit as qualified on paper as the other admitted students but they aren't subject to the same RNG in the admissions process.

Cite?

I can't find anything for stanford but here is something for harvard:

'Legacy students also had a higher average SAT score than non-legacy students, at 1523 for legacy students and 1491 for non-legacy students. "
https://features.thecrimson.com/2021/freshman-survey/academics-narrative/

Right. Because the non-legacy bucket includes athletes and a boatload of other hooks. What a dumb stat--and dumber for not even being able to recognize that.

Not enough to create that difference. There is no school where legacy gets an unqualified person in. Donations will do that. Legacy gets qualified people picked. There are likely four times the number of qualified people vs slots at Stanford. Legacy get one of those people in.

Cite?

Why don't you offer something more valuable than this. You have littered the thread with it. Do you not the difference between fact, opinion, and thoughts?

Pointing out that you are full of shit is certainly valuable, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:they are free to do what they want, and make policies that reflect their priorities/values.

we are free to judge them in response.

Exactly this. Colleges may do what they want. It is not the federal government’s, a state’s or the public’s purview to determine policies for an institution. I am so sick of interference by the Trump administration AND by states like Florida trying to insert control.

And if enough people don’t like it, they can take their money elsewhere.

[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:Legacies are only white guys named Chad?

Legacies are dominated by rich white people.

Uh, do you even know what the demographics of Stanford undergraduates have been for the last few decades?

Most of the legacies that I know who have gotten into Stanford in recent years are Asian.

Anecdotal

You would have us think that there aren’t many non-white Stanford alums with kids?

Post a peer-reviewed study if you want to be taken seriously.

Like all the peer-reviewed studies showing that current Stanford legacies are dominated by rich white people?

A peer-reviewed text was posted earlier in the thread. Try to keep up.

Yeah, that didn't say anything about the demographics of current legacies. Nice try though.

Read the book, idiot.

So basically you’re full of crap. Show us where it says anything about Stanford legacies or STFU.

You’re too lazy to read a book? STFU and GFY

Source: trust me bro

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the perspective of an active alumnus, this is a huge relief. College admissions have become so competitive, it has become almost random. The legacies are every bit as qualified on paper as the other admitted students but they aren't subject to the same RNG in the admissions process.

Cite?

I can't find anything for stanford but here is something for harvard:

'Legacy students also had a higher average SAT score than non-legacy students, at 1523 for legacy students and 1491 for non-legacy students. "
https://features.thecrimson.com/2021/freshman-survey/academics-narrative/

Right. Because the non-legacy bucket includes athletes and a boatload of other hooks. What a dumb stat--and dumber for not even being able to recognize that.

Not enough to create that difference. There is no school where legacy gets an unqualified person in. Donations will do that. Legacy gets qualified people picked. There are likely four times the number of qualified people vs slots at Stanford. Legacy get one of those people in.

Cite?

Why don't you offer something more valuable than this. You have littered the thread with it. Do you not the difference between fact, opinion, and thoughts?

NP. If you can figure this out, you get the Nobel Prize!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:they are free to do what they want, and make policies that reflect their priorities/values.

we are free to judge them in response.

Exactly. We can take our money and our esteem elsewhere. And Stanford, by maintaining its elitist and unfair legacy policies in spite of clear public will which is against legacy, can lose its reputation among the next generation.

[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:Legacies are only white guys named Chad?

Legacies are dominated by rich white people.

Uh, do you even know what the demographics of Stanford undergraduates have been for the last few decades?

Most of the legacies that I know who have gotten into Stanford in recent years are Asian.

Anecdotal

You would have us think that there aren’t many non-white Stanford alums with kids?

Post a peer-reviewed study if you want to be taken seriously.

Like all the peer-reviewed studies showing that current Stanford legacies are dominated by rich white people?

A peer-reviewed text was posted earlier in the thread. Try to keep up.

Yeah, that didn't say anything about the demographics of current legacies. Nice try though.

Read the book, idiot.

So basically you’re full of crap. Show us where it says anything about Stanford legacies or STFU.

You’re too lazy to read a book? STFU and GFY

Source: trust me bro

Source: a peer-reviewed text you’re too lazy to read. You probably can’t handle the truth bro

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they are free to do what they want, and make policies that reflect their priorities/values.

we are free to judge them in response.

Exactly this. Colleges may do what they want. It is not the federal government’s, a state’s or the public’s purview to determine policies for an institution. I am so sick of interference by the Trump administration AND by states like Florida trying to insert control.

And if enough people don’t like it, they can take their money elsewhere.

Colleges are subject to all sorts of federal and state laws and regulations, including legacy admissions in some states. Stanford may not be prohibited from doing this (yet) but don’t assume that colleges can just do whatever they want.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Legacies are only white guys named Chad?

Legacies are dominated by rich white people.

Uh, do you even know what the demographics of Stanford undergraduates have been for the last few decades?

Most of the legacies that I know who have gotten into Stanford in recent years are Asian.

Anecdotal

You would have us think that there aren’t many non-white Stanford alums with kids?

Post a peer-reviewed study if you want to be taken seriously.

Like all the peer-reviewed studies showing that current Stanford legacies are dominated by rich white people?

A peer-reviewed text was posted earlier in the thread. Try to keep up.

Yeah, that didn't say anything about the demographics of current legacies. Nice try though.

Read the book, idiot.

So basically you’re full of crap. Show us where it says anything about Stanford legacies or STFU.

You’re too lazy to read a book? STFU and GFY

Source: trust me bro

Source: a peer-reviewed text you’re too lazy to read. You probably can’t handle the truth bro

If it were the truth, you would have shown it already instead of accusing others of laziness.