Elite Colleges’ Quiet Fight to Favor Alumni Children

[Anonymous]

It's interesting how legacy admissions remain in the United States while more class-conscious countries like the UK have abolished them...
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/13/us/legacy-admissions-colleges-universities.html

Elite Colleges’ Quiet Fight to Favor Alumni Children
Colleges like Yale and Harvard give a boost to legacy applicants. But with affirmative action under attack, that tradition may become harder to defend.

Describing its incoming class of 2025, Yale boasted that its students hailed from 48 states, 68 countries and 1,221 high schools. What’s more, the university announced last year, 51 percent of the class identified as students of color.

Yet even as Yale promotes the diversity of its first-year students, the college has clung to an admissions tradition — legacy preferences — that mostly benefits students who are white, wealthy and well-connected. Of the incoming students, 14 percent were the offspring of a Yale graduate, receiving the kind of admissions boost also used at other elite institutions.

Not much has made a dent in the century-old tradition, despite efforts to end the preference that have been waged by progressive students, lawmakers and education reformers. Many colleges say legacy students cement family ties and multigenerational loyalty. And only a few elite colleges have abolished the preference.

The practice of legacy admissions, however, may soon face its greatest test yet — and in a twist, its future could be tied to the future of affirmative action.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments this fall about race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. If the court ends or rolls back the widely used practice of considering race in selecting students, as many experts expect, the ruling could prompt a reconsideration of legacy applicants. Explicitly favoring the children of alumni — some of whom would be competitive applicants regardless because of socioeconomic advantages — would become harder to defend if racial preferences are no longer allowed.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

But it's up to the private school to decide. Legacy admissions means the future alumni are more likely to donate and continue to support the university. Sure, it's not fair, but life is not fair. Many people get jobs based on who they know---is that fair? No, but networking is a way of life. Some people are automatically born into a better network, others have to work harder to build it. THat's happened for generations and isn't likely to end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But it's up to the private school to decide. Legacy admissions means the future alumni are more likely to donate and continue to support the university. Sure, it's not fair, but life is not fair. Many people get jobs based on who they know---is that fair? No, but networking is a way of life. Some people are automatically born into a better network, others have to work harder to build it. THat's happened for generations and isn't likely to end.

That’s what all people say when it benefits them. MIT and Amherst and JHU and the UC system for example have gotten rid of legacy preference and seem to be doing just fine financially. And federal funds are used by the schools. So not completely private.

[Anonymous]

Getting rid of legacy preference does absolutely nothing. The same pool of privileged applicants will just spread themselves across the range of selective schools instead of getting funneled into the ones their parents attended. It won't create additional opportunities for another else when viewed in the aggregate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But it's up to the private school to decide. Legacy admissions means the future alumni are more likely to donate and continue to support the university. Sure, it's not fair, but life is not fair. Many people get jobs based on who they know---is that fair? No, but networking is a way of life. Some people are automatically born into a better network, others have to work harder to build it. THat's happened for generations and isn't likely to end.

That’s what all people say when it benefits them. MIT and Amherst and JHU and the UC system for example have gotten rid of legacy preference and seem to be doing just fine financially. And federal funds are used by the schools. So not completely private.

Completely private. Government funding of that sort does not convert private universities into state actors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of legacy preference does absolutely nothing. The same pool of privileged applicants will just spread themselves across the range of selective schools instead of getting funneled into the ones their parents attended. It won't create additional opportunities for another else when viewed in the aggregate.

They will get into schools they’re qualified to attend. Maybe it will be selective, maybe it won’t. Imagine if there were no special side doors or loop holes or handshake deals- some of these kids would have to go to average schools. They’re not all smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But it's up to the private school to decide. Legacy admissions means the future alumni are more likely to donate and continue to support the university. Sure, it's not fair, but life is not fair. Many people get jobs based on who they know---is that fair? No, but networking is a way of life. Some people are automatically born into a better network, others have to work harder to build it. THat's happened for generations and isn't likely to end.

That’s what all people say when it benefits them. MIT and Amherst and JHU and the UC system for example have gotten rid of legacy preference and seem to be doing just fine financially. And federal funds are used by the schools. So not completely private.

Those schools can afford it. For SLACs that aren't Amherst or Williams and who aren't swimming in research grants, I doubt the transition would be so easy

[Anonymous]

Who cares? Stop whining people.

[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.

+1 I did not benefit from legacy nor will my kids. But if a private institution has two applicants who meet their requirements and one spot to fill I totally think they should be able to tip the scale a bit on one whose family has a history with the institution. Especially if they are also doing first gen/URM initiatives. I don't think public schools should factor in legacy though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of legacy preference does absolutely nothing. The same pool of privileged applicants will just spread themselves across the range of selective schools instead of getting funneled into the ones their parents attended. It won't create additional opportunities for another else when viewed in the aggregate.

They will get into schools they’re qualified to attend. Maybe it will be selective, maybe it won’t. Imagine if there were no special side doors or loop holes or handshake deals- some of these kids would have to go to average schools. They’re not all smart.

You are overestimating the impact of legacy at the most selective schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of legacy preference does absolutely nothing. The same pool of privileged applicants will just spread themselves across the range of selective schools instead of getting funneled into the ones their parents attended. It won't create additional opportunities for another else when viewed in the aggregate.

They will get into schools they’re qualified to attend. Maybe it will be selective, maybe it won’t. Imagine if there were no special side doors or loop holes or handshake deals- some of these kids would have to go to average schools. They’re not all smart.

You are overestimating the impact of legacy at the most selective schools.

+1 use a bit of common sense…..legacy applicants to selective schools were already born with a winning lottery ticket. A well educated parent that gives a damn about education and can guide their child to achieve their full potential because they’ve been down this path. Throw in a likely financial advantage and a great zip code and of course these kids will be quality applicants. Legacy preference is a tiny finger on the scale, nothing like the preferential treatment afforded athletes, first gen, URM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of legacy preference does absolutely nothing. The same pool of privileged applicants will just spread themselves across the range of selective schools instead of getting funneled into the ones their parents attended. It won't create additional opportunities for another else when viewed in the aggregate.

They will get into schools they’re qualified to attend. Maybe it will be selective, maybe it won’t. Imagine if there were no special side doors or loop holes or handshake deals- some of these kids would have to go to average schools. They’re not all smart.

You are overestimating the impact of legacy at the most selective schools.

+1 use a bit of common sense…..legacy applicants to selective schools were already born with a winning lottery ticket. A well educated parent that gives a damn about education and can guide their child to achieve their full potential because they’ve been down this path. Throw in a likely financial advantage and a great zip code and of course these kids will be quality applicants. Legacy preference is a tiny finger on the scale, nothing like the preferential treatment afforded athletes, first gen, URM

What does legacy get? At my college it means that the director, not counselors read the app. She reads it twice if you are not in the admit pile the first time. But to get to admit you have to be in the range of the class. You can't be an outlier. It gets you more time. To me that is not unfair.