Complaint ag Harvard Re Legacy Admissions

[Anonymous]

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/7/4/legacy-admissions-complaint/

Interesting that athletic recruiting wasn’t mentioned, even though that favors Caucasian applicants, too:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/harvard-university-and-scandal-sports-recruitment/599248/

[Anonymous]

Since legacy - aka white affirmative action - would adversely impact most on DCUM, there won't be much noise here supporting this case.

[Anonymous]

I’m all for it! (And was pleased with the sc decision.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since legacy - aka white affirmative action - would adversely impact most on DCUM, there won't be much noise here supporting this case.

You can't forget the other categories like Children of Faculty/Staff where in 2019 alone there were 21 whites, 17 Asians, 1 black and 1 Hispanic;
Dean/Director's List in 2019: 121 whites, 35 Asians, 6 blacks, 19 Hispanics.

All these categories should be on the table along with athletes if we want to discuss the merit of "merit" in college admissions....

[Anonymous]

Isn’t Dean’s List tied to GPA?

[Anonymous]

Of course these other policies differ from affirmative action in that they are race neutral categories.
30 percent non white benefitting from legacies is not an insignificant amount. Minorities make up a sizable portion of athletic recruits.

The irony of ending legacies now is that we are just reaching the point where the increasingly diverse classes from the 1980s and later have kids of college age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t Dean’s List tied to GPA?

Lol, this is different Dean’s list

Basically Dean can admit anyone they want- usually famous, rich, powerful people.

I think this is the worst of ALDC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t Dean’s List tied to GPA?

I think this Dean's List is for applicants whose profile (family connections, donor, celeb kid, etc) has been highlighted to be prioritized for admission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m all for it! (And was pleased with the sc decision.)

Who would be against this other than ALDC folks??

[Anonymous]

Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, and non-ALDC Whites should be united against ALDC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course these other policies differ from affirmative action in that they are race neutral categories.
30 percent non white benefitting from legacies is not an insignificant amount. Minorities make up a sizable portion of athletic recruits.

The irony of ending legacies now is that we are just reaching the point where the increasingly diverse classes from the 1980s and later have kids of college age.

According to the docs, Athletes from 2014-2019, there were 817 whites, 101 Asians, 124 blacks, 57 Hispanics. Whites made off 69% of all athletes. Not too many minorities sail, swim, row or play lacrosse, soccer, field hockey, etc.

Most people would assume that the numbers of black athletes would be more because of the outsized influence of football and basketball, but the number of kids on those rosters pale in comparison to the total with all the other sports you barely would find a black face.

[Anonymous]

I get that both policies favor whites but there is no comparison between athletic and legacy advantage. Legacy kids did nothing to deserve the bump!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course these other policies differ from affirmative action in that they are race neutral categories.
30 percent non white benefitting from legacies is not an insignificant amount. Minorities make up a sizable portion of athletic recruits.

The irony of ending legacies now is that we are just reaching the point where the increasingly diverse classes from the 1980s and later have kids of college age.

According to the docs, Athletes from 2014-2019, there were 817 whites, 101 Asians, 124 blacks, 57 Hispanics. Whites made off 69% of all athletes. Not too many minorities sail, swim, row or play lacrosse, soccer, field hockey, etc.

Most people would assume that the numbers of black athletes would be more because of the outsized influence of football and basketball, but the number of kids on those rosters pale in comparison to the total with all the other sports you barely would find a black face.

Soccer doesn't have URM? Many Hispanics play soccer so that surprises me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course these other policies differ from affirmative action in that they are race neutral categories.
30 percent non white benefitting from legacies is not an insignificant amount. Minorities make up a sizable portion of athletic recruits.

The irony of ending legacies now is that we are just reaching the point where the increasingly diverse classes from the 1980s and later have kids of college age.

According to the docs, Athletes from 2014-2019, there were 817 whites, 101 Asians, 124 blacks, 57 Hispanics. Whites made off 69% of all athletes. Not too many minorities sail, swim, row or play lacrosse, soccer, field hockey, etc.

Most people would assume that the numbers of black athletes would be more because of the outsized influence of football and basketball, but the number of kids on those rosters pale in comparison to the total with all the other sports you barely would find a black face.

Soccer doesn't have URM? Many Hispanics play soccer so that surprises me.

Ton of middle class to UMC Whites play soccer. Travel soccer cost a lot of money, and they hire private coaches.

[Anonymous]

With sports, at least the kid did something.
With legacy, the kid just was born into a certain family. Zero effort.