Is there anything positive about legacy admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacies keep the alumi donation pipeline full. With no legacies donations would plummet. It is that simple.

There's no evidence of this: an alternative hypothesis is that legacy boosts lead to admissions of kids who wouldn't have been admitted were it not for the legacy boost, thereby perpetuating the supremacy of otherwise less than stellar kids. And maybe one of the kids who would have been admitted, if selection were fully merit based would be the next billionaire who could keep college coffers full.

It's a pretty straight forward assumption. Most people would donate less if their child was rejected.

The even bigger issue for schools is that alumni are walking billboards. They have a much larger impact an application rates than you realize.

None of this is measurable by a study.

Yes, so you should stop stating your opinions as if they're fact. Stating "most people would donate less if their child was rejected" does not mean that legacy admissions are the best option for universities, and the most elite universities don't need their alumni to be walking billboards for them--they're already at sub-5% admittance rates. It could be that cchools could do better if they picked the best applicant, and that best applicant was more successful and could donate more than the legacy student.

The elite schools are at sub 5% admittance rates BECAUSE of their alumni. "Best" as you say, is subjective. Best to Americans means reputation, cache, prestige, and perceived smarts, if the elite schools just focus on a cut off line based off test scores and grades, they will soon no longer be elite, because the elite of the U.S. will not want to go to these schools.

How does mit, John Hopkins, caltech, manage? Doesn’t make much sense what you are saying.

How are all the Ivies managing with legacy admissions? Doesn’t make much sense what you are saying.

See how this works? You are so exhausting, please stop making these dumb threads and then arguing ad nauseam with everyone who disagrees with the conclusion you reached at your opening post. You are convincing no one with your sarcasm and repeated straw man posts, and you aren’t getting any closer to understanding other views since you are impervious to any new information.

The key question is if legacy admissions are really necessary. Can you have a successful university without legacy admissions? The answer is yes. That’s why your previous comment didn’t make any sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacies keep the alumi donation pipeline full. With no legacies donations would plummet. It is that simple.

There's no evidence of this: an alternative hypothesis is that legacy boosts lead to admissions of kids who wouldn't have been admitted were it not for the legacy boost, thereby perpetuating the supremacy of otherwise less than stellar kids. And maybe one of the kids who would have been admitted, if selection were fully merit based would be the next billionaire who could keep college coffers full.

It's a pretty straight forward assumption. Most people would donate less if their child was rejected.

The even bigger issue for schools is that alumni are walking billboards. They have a much larger impact an application rates than you realize.

None of this is measurable by a study.

Yes, so you should stop stating your opinions as if they're fact. Stating "most people would donate less if their child was rejected" does not mean that legacy admissions are the best option for universities, and the most elite universities don't need their alumni to be walking billboards for them--they're already at sub-5% admittance rates. It could be that cchools could do better if they picked the best applicant, and that best applicant was more successful and could donate more than the legacy student.

The elite schools are at sub 5% admittance rates BECAUSE of their alumni. "Best" as you say, is subjective. Best to Americans means reputation, cache, prestige, and perceived smarts, if the elite schools just focus on a cut off line based off test scores and grades, they will soon no longer be elite, because the elite of the U.S. will not want to go to these schools.

That’s your opinion, not a fact. As mentioned earlier in this thread, plenty of countries (ex: England, France, India, Korea, China) have elite universities with admissions that are entirely merit based that are perceived as elite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacies keep the alumi donation pipeline full. With no legacies donations would plummet. It is that simple.

There's no evidence of this: an alternative hypothesis is that legacy boosts lead to admissions of kids who wouldn't have been admitted were it not for the legacy boost, thereby perpetuating the supremacy of otherwise less than stellar kids. And maybe one of the kids who would have been admitted, if selection were fully merit based would be the next billionaire who could keep college coffers full.

It's a pretty straight forward assumption. Most people would donate less if their child was rejected.

The even bigger issue for schools is that alumni are walking billboards. They have a much larger impact an application rates than you realize.

None of this is measurable by a study.

Yes, so you should stop stating your opinions as if they're fact. Stating "most people would donate less if their child was rejected" does not mean that legacy admissions are the best option for universities, and the most elite universities don't need their alumni to be walking billboards for them--they're already at sub-5% admittance rates. It could be that cchools could do better if they picked the best applicant, and that best applicant was more successful and could donate more than the legacy student.

The elite schools are at sub 5% admittance rates BECAUSE of their alumni. "Best" as you say, is subjective. Best to Americans means reputation, cache, prestige, and perceived smarts, if the elite schools just focus on a cut off line based off test scores and grades, they will soon no longer be elite, because the elite of the U.S. will not want to go to these schools.

That’s your opinion, not a fact. As mentioned earlier in this thread, plenty of countries (ex: England, France, India, Korea, China) have elite universities with admissions that are entirely merit based that are perceived as elite.

That makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacies keep the alumi donation pipeline full. With no legacies donations would plummet. It is that simple.

There's no evidence of this: an alternative hypothesis is that legacy boosts lead to admissions of kids who wouldn't have been admitted were it not for the legacy boost, thereby perpetuating the supremacy of otherwise less than stellar kids. And maybe one of the kids who would have been admitted, if selection were fully merit based would be the next billionaire who could keep college coffers full.

It's a pretty straight forward assumption. Most people would donate less if their child was rejected.

The even bigger issue for schools is that alumni are walking billboards. They have a much larger impact an application rates than you realize.

None of this is measurable by a study.

Yes, so you should stop stating your opinions as if they're fact. Stating "most people would donate less if their child was rejected" does not mean that legacy admissions are the best option for universities, and the most elite universities don't need their alumni to be walking billboards for them--they're already at sub-5% admittance rates. It could be that cchools could do better if they picked the best applicant, and that best applicant was more successful and could donate more than the legacy student.

The elite schools are at sub 5% admittance rates BECAUSE of their alumni. "Best" as you say, is subjective. Best to Americans means reputation, cache, prestige, and perceived smarts, if the elite schools just focus on a cut off line based off test scores and grades, they will soon no longer be elite, because the elite of the U.S. will not want to go to these schools.

That’s your opinion, not a fact. As mentioned earlier in this thread, plenty of countries (ex: England, France, India, Korea, China) have elite universities with admissions that are entirely merit based that are perceived as elite.

I would love to see the stats on US citizen admissions to the elite universities in those countries. They also have very different funding mechanisms.

The educational environment for kids is incredibly miserable in Asia. I see this first-hand as I live in Singapore. It is exhausting to witness the intensity with which families are pursuing US university options. The kids have after school and Saturday tuition all designed to optimize test scores and grades. And yes, all of the selection tests are trainable with enough effort. They no longer measure anything other than test prep.

They’ve even managed to add in certifications to after school art, theater, and music programs. The credentialism is out of control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacies keep the alumi donation pipeline full. With no legacies donations would plummet. It is that simple.

There's no evidence of this: an alternative hypothesis is that legacy boosts lead to admissions of kids who wouldn't have been admitted were it not for the legacy boost, thereby perpetuating the supremacy of otherwise less than stellar kids. And maybe one of the kids who would have been admitted, if selection were fully merit based would be the next billionaire who could keep college coffers full.

It's a pretty straight forward assumption. Most people would donate less if their child was rejected.

The even bigger issue for schools is that alumni are walking billboards. They have a much larger impact an application rates than you realize.

None of this is measurable by a study.

Yes, so you should stop stating your opinions as if they're fact. Stating "most people would donate less if their child was rejected" does not mean that legacy admissions are the best option for universities, and the most elite universities don't need their alumni to be walking billboards for them--they're already at sub-5% admittance rates. It could be that cchools could do better if they picked the best applicant, and that best applicant was more successful and could donate more than the legacy student.

The elite schools are at sub 5% admittance rates BECAUSE of their alumni. "Best" as you say, is subjective. Best to Americans means reputation, cache, prestige, and perceived smarts, if the elite schools just focus on a cut off line based off test scores and grades, they will soon no longer be elite, because the elite of the U.S. will not want to go to these schools.

That’s your opinion, not a fact. As mentioned earlier in this thread, plenty of countries (ex: England, France, India, Korea, China) have elite universities with admissions that are entirely merit based that are perceived as elite.

I would love to see the stats on US citizen admissions to the elite universities in those countries. They also have very different funding mechanisms.

The educational environment for kids is incredibly miserable in Asia. I see this first-hand as I live in Singapore. It is exhausting to witness the intensity with which families are pursuing US university options. The kids have after school and Saturday tuition all designed to optimize test scores and grades. And yes, all of the selection tests are trainable with enough effort. They no longer measure anything other than test prep.

They’ve even managed to add in certifications to after school art, theater, and music programs. The credentialism is out of control.

Yes, And legacy admissions are a solution for that….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacies keep the alumi donation pipeline full. With no legacies donations would plummet. It is that simple.

There's no evidence of this: an alternative hypothesis is that legacy boosts lead to admissions of kids who wouldn't have been admitted were it not for the legacy boost, thereby perpetuating the supremacy of otherwise less than stellar kids. And maybe one of the kids who would have been admitted, if selection were fully merit based would be the next billionaire who could keep college coffers full.

It's a pretty straight forward assumption. Most people would donate less if their child was rejected.

The even bigger issue for schools is that alumni are walking billboards. They have a much larger impact an application rates than you realize.

None of this is measurable by a study.

Yes, so you should stop stating your opinions as if they're fact. Stating "most people would donate less if their child was rejected" does not mean that legacy admissions are the best option for universities, and the most elite universities don't need their alumni to be walking billboards for them--they're already at sub-5% admittance rates. It could be that cchools could do better if they picked the best applicant, and that best applicant was more successful and could donate more than the legacy student.

The elite schools are at sub 5% admittance rates BECAUSE of their alumni. "Best" as you say, is subjective. Best to Americans means reputation, cache, prestige, and perceived smarts, if the elite schools just focus on a cut off line based off test scores and grades, they will soon no longer be elite, because the elite of the U.S. will not want to go to these schools.

How does mit, John Hopkins, caltech, manage? Doesn’t make much sense what you are saying.

How are all the Ivies managing with legacy admissions? Doesn’t make much sense what you are saying.

See how this works? You are so exhausting, please stop making these dumb threads and then arguing ad nauseam with everyone who disagrees with the conclusion you reached at your opening post. You are convincing no one with your sarcasm and repeated straw man posts, and you aren’t getting any closer to understanding other views since you are impervious to any new information.

The key question is if legacy admissions are really necessary. Can you have a successful university without legacy admissions? The answer is yes. That’s why your previous comment didn’t make any sense.

Could Ivys operate without legacy admissions? Yes. Could other schools operate with legacy admissions? Also, yes. In the United States private institutions get to make these decisions and your repeated posts aren’t convincing anyone of anything. I understand what you are saying and I disagree with you, it sounds like the Asian model is better for you and your family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacies keep the alumi donation pipeline full. With no legacies donations would plummet. It is that simple.

There's no evidence of this: an alternative hypothesis is that legacy boosts lead to admissions of kids who wouldn't have been admitted were it not for the legacy boost, thereby perpetuating the supremacy of otherwise less than stellar kids. And maybe one of the kids who would have been admitted, if selection were fully merit based would be the next billionaire who could keep college coffers full.

It's a pretty straight forward assumption. Most people would donate less if their child was rejected.

The even bigger issue for schools is that alumni are walking billboards. They have a much larger impact an application rates than you realize.

None of this is measurable by a study.

Yes, so you should stop stating your opinions as if they're fact. Stating "most people would donate less if their child was rejected" does not mean that legacy admissions are the best option for universities, and the most elite universities don't need their alumni to be walking billboards for them--they're already at sub-5% admittance rates. It could be that cchools could do better if they picked the best applicant, and that best applicant was more successful and could donate more than the legacy student.

The elite schools are at sub 5% admittance rates BECAUSE of their alumni. "Best" as you say, is subjective. Best to Americans means reputation, cache, prestige, and perceived smarts, if the elite schools just focus on a cut off line based off test scores and grades, they will soon no longer be elite, because the elite of the U.S. will not want to go to these schools.

How does mit, John Hopkins, caltech, manage? Doesn’t make much sense what you are saying.

How are all the Ivies managing with legacy admissions? Doesn’t make much sense what you are saying.

See how this works? You are so exhausting, please stop making these dumb threads and then arguing ad nauseam with everyone who disagrees with the conclusion you reached at your opening post. You are convincing no one with your sarcasm and repeated straw man posts, and you aren’t getting any closer to understanding other views since you are impervious to any new information.

The key question is if legacy admissions are really necessary. Can you have a successful university without legacy admissions? The answer is yes. That’s why your previous comment didn’t make any sense.

Could Ivys operate without legacy admissions? Yes. Could other schools operate with legacy admissions? Also, yes. In the United States private institutions get to make these decisions and your repeated posts aren’t convincing anyone of anything. I understand what you are saying and I disagree with you, it sounds like the Asian model is better for you and your family.

I am glad that I convinced you that legacy admissions are not necessary.

[Anonymous]

If legacy admissions went away, do you get how little would change for how few people?

It is such a weird issue for people to get exercized about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If legacy admissions went away, do you get how little would change for how few people?

It is such a weird issue for people to get exercized about.

That reinforces my point, that it could be easily removed without much drama for most people. Elite families would still go to good colleges and as a whole the process would be more fair and competitive. As far as I know this is good for the society as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If legacy admissions went away, do you get how little would change for how few people?

It is such a weird issue for people to get exercized about.

That reinforces my point, that it could be easily removed without much drama for most people. Elite families would still go to good colleges and as a whole the process would be more fair and competitive. As far as I know this is good for the society as a whole.

Just keep on making the same point, over and over, for several more pages. Do you see why people don’t want to deal with you and your posts are annoying and pointless. You have convinced no one of anything other than I don’t want you in my elite legacy promoting institution no matter your SAT score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacies keep the alumi donation pipeline full. With no legacies donations would plummet. It is that simple.

There's no evidence of this: an alternative hypothesis is that legacy boosts lead to admissions of kids who wouldn't have been admitted were it not for the legacy boost, thereby perpetuating the supremacy of otherwise less than stellar kids. And maybe one of the kids who would have been admitted, if selection were fully merit based would be the next billionaire who could keep college coffers full.

It's a pretty straight forward assumption. Most people would donate less if their child was rejected.

The even bigger issue for schools is that alumni are walking billboards. They have a much larger impact an application rates than you realize.

None of this is measurable by a study.

Yes, so you should stop stating your opinions as if they're fact. Stating "most people would donate less if their child was rejected" does not mean that legacy admissions are the best option for universities, and the most elite universities don't need their alumni to be walking billboards for them--they're already at sub-5% admittance rates. It could be that cchools could do better if they picked the best applicant, and that best applicant was more successful and could donate more than the legacy student.

The elite schools are at sub 5% admittance rates BECAUSE of their alumni. "Best" as you say, is subjective. Best to Americans means reputation, cache, prestige, and perceived smarts, if the elite schools just focus on a cut off line based off test scores and grades, they will soon no longer be elite, because the elite of the U.S. will not want to go to these schools.

How does mit, John Hopkins, caltech, manage? Doesn’t make much sense what you are saying.

How are all the Ivies managing with legacy admissions? Doesn’t make much sense what you are saying.

See how this works? You are so exhausting, please stop making these dumb threads and then arguing ad nauseam with everyone who disagrees with the conclusion you reached at your opening post. You are convincing no one with your sarcasm and repeated straw man posts, and you aren’t getting any closer to understanding other views since you are impervious to any new information.

The key question is if legacy admissions are really necessary. Can you have a successful university without legacy admissions? The answer is yes. That’s why your previous comment didn’t make any sense.

Could Ivys operate without legacy admissions? Yes. Could other schools operate with legacy admissions? Also, yes. In the United States private institutions get to make these decisions and your repeated posts aren’t convincing anyone of anything. I understand what you are saying and I disagree with you, it sounds like the Asian model is better for you and your family.

I am glad that I convinced you that legacy admissions are not necessary.

And neither are non-legacy admissions, but I support the legacy preferences and you have only convinced me that you are crazy. Like your many other threads. Go start another controversy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacies keep the alumi donation pipeline full. With no legacies donations would plummet. It is that simple.

There's no evidence of this: an alternative hypothesis is that legacy boosts lead to admissions of kids who wouldn't have been admitted were it not for the legacy boost, thereby perpetuating the supremacy of otherwise less than stellar kids. And maybe one of the kids who would have been admitted, if selection were fully merit based would be the next billionaire who could keep college coffers full.

It's a pretty straight forward assumption. Most people would donate less if their child was rejected.

The even bigger issue for schools is that alumni are walking billboards. They have a much larger impact an application rates than you realize.

None of this is measurable by a study.

Yes, so you should stop stating your opinions as if they're fact. Stating "most people would donate less if their child was rejected" does not mean that legacy admissions are the best option for universities, and the most elite universities don't need their alumni to be walking billboards for them--they're already at sub-5% admittance rates. It could be that cchools could do better if they picked the best applicant, and that best applicant was more successful and could donate more than the legacy student.

The elite schools are at sub 5% admittance rates BECAUSE of their alumni. "Best" as you say, is subjective. Best to Americans means reputation, cache, prestige, and perceived smarts, if the elite schools just focus on a cut off line based off test scores and grades, they will soon no longer be elite, because the elite of the U.S. will not want to go to these schools.

How does mit, John Hopkins, caltech, manage? Doesn’t make much sense what you are saying.

How are all the Ivies managing with legacy admissions? Doesn’t make much sense what you are saying.

See how this works? You are so exhausting, please stop making these dumb threads and then arguing ad nauseam with everyone who disagrees with the conclusion you reached at your opening post. You are convincing no one with your sarcasm and repeated straw man posts, and you aren’t getting any closer to understanding other views since you are impervious to any new information.

The key question is if legacy admissions are really necessary. Can you have a successful university without legacy admissions? The answer is yes. That’s why your previous comment didn’t make any sense.

Could Ivys operate without legacy admissions? Yes. Could other schools operate with legacy admissions? Also, yes. In the United States private institutions get to make these decisions and your repeated posts aren’t convincing anyone of anything. I understand what you are saying and I disagree with you, it sounds like the Asian model is better for you and your family.

I am glad that I convinced you that legacy admissions are not necessary.

And neither are non-legacy admissions, but I support the legacy preferences and you have only convinced me that you are crazy. Like your many other threads. Go start another controversy.

Sure, and don’t send your kids for college to California, where legacy admissions are restricted. That would be too much for you to tolerate.

[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 keep the alumi donation pipeline full. With no legacies donations would plummet. It is that simple.

There's no evidence of this: an alternative hypothesis is that legacy boosts lead to admissions of kids who wouldn't have been admitted were it not for the legacy boost, thereby perpetuating the supremacy of otherwise less than stellar kids. And maybe one of the kids who would have been admitted, if selection were fully merit based would be the next billionaire who could keep college coffers full.

It's a pretty straight forward assumption. Most people would donate less if their child was rejected.

The even bigger issue for schools is that alumni are walking billboards. They have a much larger impact an application rates than you realize.

None of this is measurable by a study.

Yes, so you should stop stating your opinions as if they're fact. Stating "most people would donate less if their child was rejected" does not mean that legacy admissions are the best option for universities, and the most elite universities don't need their alumni to be walking billboards for them--they're already at sub-5% admittance rates. It could be that cchools could do better if they picked the best applicant, and that best applicant was more successful and could donate more than the legacy student.

The elite schools are at sub 5% admittance rates BECAUSE of their alumni. "Best" as you say, is subjective. Best to Americans means reputation, cache, prestige, and perceived smarts, if the elite schools just focus on a cut off line based off test scores and grades, they will soon no longer be elite, because the elite of the U.S. will not want to go to these schools.

How does mit, John Hopkins, caltech, manage? Doesn’t make much sense what you are saying.

How are all the Ivies managing with legacy admissions? Doesn’t make much sense what you are saying.

See how this works? You are so exhausting, please stop making these dumb threads and then arguing ad nauseam with everyone who disagrees with the conclusion you reached at your opening post. You are convincing no one with your sarcasm and repeated straw man posts, and you aren’t getting any closer to understanding other views since you are impervious to any new information.

The key question is if legacy admissions are really necessary. Can you have a successful university without legacy admissions? The answer is yes. That’s why your previous comment didn’t make any sense.

Could Ivys operate without legacy admissions? Yes. Could other schools operate with legacy admissions? Also, yes. In the United States private institutions get to make these decisions and your repeated posts aren’t convincing anyone of anything. I understand what you are saying and I disagree with you, it sounds like the Asian model is better for you and your family.

I am glad that I convinced you that legacy admissions are not necessary.

And neither are non-legacy admissions, but I support the legacy preferences and you have only convinced me that you are crazy. Like your many other threads. Go start another controversy.

Sure, and don’t send your kids for college to California, where legacy admissions are restricted. That would be too much for you to tolerate.

Excellent, you send your kids to California and I’ll keep mine here in the Ivies. We will both be where we belong.

[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 keep the alumi donation pipeline full. With no legacies donations would plummet. It is that simple.

There's no evidence of this: an alternative hypothesis is that legacy boosts lead to admissions of kids who wouldn't have been admitted were it not for the legacy boost, thereby perpetuating the supremacy of otherwise less than stellar kids. And maybe one of the kids who would have been admitted, if selection were fully merit based would be the next billionaire who could keep college coffers full.

It's a pretty straight forward assumption. Most people would donate less if their child was rejected.

The even bigger issue for schools is that alumni are walking billboards. They have a much larger impact an application rates than you realize.

None of this is measurable by a study.

Yes, so you should stop stating your opinions as if they're fact. Stating "most people would donate less if their child was rejected" does not mean that legacy admissions are the best option for universities, and the most elite universities don't need their alumni to be walking billboards for them--they're already at sub-5% admittance rates. It could be that cchools could do better if they picked the best applicant, and that best applicant was more successful and could donate more than the legacy student.

The elite schools are at sub 5% admittance rates BECAUSE of their alumni. "Best" as you say, is subjective. Best to Americans means reputation, cache, prestige, and perceived smarts, if the elite schools just focus on a cut off line based off test scores and grades, they will soon no longer be elite, because the elite of the U.S. will not want to go to these schools.

How does mit, John Hopkins, caltech, manage? Doesn’t make much sense what you are saying.

How are all the Ivies managing with legacy admissions? Doesn’t make much sense what you are saying.

See how this works? You are so exhausting, please stop making these dumb threads and then arguing ad nauseam with everyone who disagrees with the conclusion you reached at your opening post. You are convincing no one with your sarcasm and repeated straw man posts, and you aren’t getting any closer to understanding other views since you are impervious to any new information.

The key question is if legacy admissions are really necessary. Can you have a successful university without legacy admissions? The answer is yes. That’s why your previous comment didn’t make any sense.

Could Ivys operate without legacy admissions? Yes. Could other schools operate with legacy admissions? Also, yes. In the United States private institutions get to make these decisions and your repeated posts aren’t convincing anyone of anything. I understand what you are saying and I disagree with you, it sounds like the Asian model is better for you and your family.

I am glad that I convinced you that legacy admissions are not necessary.

And neither are non-legacy admissions, but I support the legacy preferences and you have only convinced me that you are crazy. Like your many other threads. Go start another controversy.

Sure, and don’t send your kids for college to California, where legacy admissions are restricted. That would be too much for you to tolerate.

Excellent, you send your kids to California and I’ll keep mine here in the Ivies. We will both be where we belong.

Sure. Luckily there are non-legacy admissions all around the country to choose from. And judging by your post not sure you belong to any college (with or without legacy admissions).

[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 keep the alumi donation pipeline full. With no legacies donations would plummet. It is that simple.

There's no evidence of this: an alternative hypothesis is that legacy boosts lead to admissions of kids who wouldn't have been admitted were it not for the legacy boost, thereby perpetuating the supremacy of otherwise less than stellar kids. And maybe one of the kids who would have been admitted, if selection were fully merit based would be the next billionaire who could keep college coffers full.

It's a pretty straight forward assumption. Most people would donate less if their child was rejected.

The even bigger issue for schools is that alumni are walking billboards. They have a much larger impact an application rates than you realize.

None of this is measurable by a study.

Yes, so you should stop stating your opinions as if they're fact. Stating "most people would donate less if their child was rejected" does not mean that legacy admissions are the best option for universities, and the most elite universities don't need their alumni to be walking billboards for them--they're already at sub-5% admittance rates. It could be that cchools could do better if they picked the best applicant, and that best applicant was more successful and could donate more than the legacy student.

The elite schools are at sub 5% admittance rates BECAUSE of their alumni. "Best" as you say, is subjective. Best to Americans means reputation, cache, prestige, and perceived smarts, if the elite schools just focus on a cut off line based off test scores and grades, they will soon no longer be elite, because the elite of the U.S. will not want to go to these schools.

How does mit, John Hopkins, caltech, manage? Doesn’t make much sense what you are saying.

How are all the Ivies managing with legacy admissions? Doesn’t make much sense what you are saying.

See how this works? You are so exhausting, please stop making these dumb threads and then arguing ad nauseam with everyone who disagrees with the conclusion you reached at your opening post. You are convincing no one with your sarcasm and repeated straw man posts, and you aren’t getting any closer to understanding other views since you are impervious to any new information.

The key question is if legacy admissions are really necessary. Can you have a successful university without legacy admissions? The answer is yes. That’s why your previous comment didn’t make any sense.

Could Ivys operate without legacy admissions? Yes. Could other schools operate with legacy admissions? Also, yes. In the United States private institutions get to make these decisions and your repeated posts aren’t convincing anyone of anything. I understand what you are saying and I disagree with you, it sounds like the Asian model is better for you and your family.

I am glad that I convinced you that legacy admissions are not necessary.

And neither are non-legacy admissions, but I support the legacy preferences and you have only convinced me that you are crazy. Like your many other threads. Go start another controversy.

Sure, and don’t send your kids for college to California, where legacy admissions are restricted. That would be too much for you to tolerate.

Excellent, you send your kids to California and I’ll keep mine here in the Ivies. We will both be where we belong.

Sure. Luckily there are non-legacy admissions all around the country to choose from. And judging by your post not sure you belong to any college (with or without legacy admissions).

I have 2 Ivy degrees, my kids are on track to do the same. Enjoy UCLA and creating lots of troll posts, can’t wait for your next enticing question!