Is there anything positive about legacy admissions?

[Anonymous]

One of the reasons people send their kids to private schools (though not the only reason) is to increase their chances of getting into an elite university. However, these students still have to compete with others who benefit from legacy admissions.

In a society that prides itself on meritocracy and free enterprise, is there anything positive for society about this type of admission practice—or does it simply entrench the privileges of a few? What do you think?

[Anonymous]

Personally, a a LMC to MC girl from a small town, first generation college attendee at a then need blind top university, I found having classmates n the dorm who were socioeconomic elites and whose families had gone there for generations to be culturally enriching. I saw how to dress, how to buy wine, what kinds of accessories worked. These were multigeneational alumni families but they got in on their merit, not lower standards. MIT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In a society that prides itself on meritocracy

Assuming facts not in evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Personally, a a LMC to MC girl from a small town, first generation college attendee at a then need blind top university, I found having classmates n the dorm who were socioeconomic elites and whose families had gone there for generations to be culturally enriching. I saw how to dress, how to buy wine, what kinds of accessories worked. These were multigeneational alumni families but they got in on their merit, not lower standards. MIT.

Wut? You could get experience from any socioeconomically diverse cohort that includes elites. They don’t have to be elites whose parents when to that particular school. And, statistically, no, they didn’t get in on their own merits - legacies get a huge admissions bump (at the schools that practice still allow legacy preferences).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, a a LMC to MC girl from a small town, first generation college attendee at a then need blind top university, I found having classmates n the dorm who were socioeconomic elites and whose families had gone there for generations to be culturally enriching. I saw how to dress, how to buy wine, what kinds of accessories worked. These were multigeneational alumni families but they got in on their merit, not lower standards. MIT.

Wut? You could get experience from any socioeconomically diverse cohort that includes elites. They don’t have to be elites whose parents when to that particular school. And, statistically, no, they didn’t get in on their own merits - legacies get a huge admissions bump (at the schools that practice still allow legacy preferences).

^^^ editing to add I see you added MIT which doesn’t have legacy preferences, so your experience isn’t relevant to the quesiton

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the reasons people send their kids to private schools (though not the only reason) is to increase their chances of getting into an elite university. However, these students still have to compete with others who benefit from legacy admissions.

In a society that prides itself on meritocracy and free enterprise, is there anything positive for society about this type of admission practice—or does it simply entrench the privileges of a few? What do you think?

But isn’t it the point? To keep the generational money within elite few? From the school s perspective it kind of makes sense, they want patyunt customers. But in the long run it isn’t good. The meritocracy is so hypocritical. it will bite back because this is not a sustainable way to select and cultivate the real talents. Also with less and less international enrollments, American higher ed will deteriorate over time.

[Anonymous]

For the legacy families there is a significant advantage in admissions, which is positive. To others without this advantage, it probably seems like nepotism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the reasons people send their kids to private schools (though not the only reason) is to increase their chances of getting into an elite university. However, these students still have to compete with others who benefit from legacy admissions.

In a society that prides itself on meritocracy and free enterprise, is there anything positive for society about this type of admission practice—or does it simply entrench the privileges of a few? What do you think?

But isn’t it the point? To keep the generational money within elite few? From the school s perspective it kind of makes sense, they want patyunt customers. But in the long run it isn’t good. The meritocracy is so hypocritical. it will bite back because this is not a sustainable way to select and cultivate the real talents. Also with less and less international enrollments, American higher ed will deteriorate over time.

Legacies subsidize poor kids.

[Anonymous]

Another benefit of legacies: they know what they’re getting. People have inflated ideas of what Harvard is as an institution or what Harvard can do for them. Legacies know it’s a school. It’s not even the best school available for every kid or future. Legacies are satisfied with the product and the price they’re paying for it.

[Anonymous]

It might eventually disappear :

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/legacy-college-admissions-preferences-backlash-772c88be?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqfclKtZWTRMwfA1qxSsNm_1Fq6fBBmExYI8FmuNEMEbNDvHOM6WrToN&gaa_ts=68fd8a7c&gaa_sig=dMhAzGZBjWqB-ztwD6qSBcXmyYnGZrxdo2TsPOEiHMSGPPTM6opr7GGQf1UJHtuzaaFAAgJy7Uu02iFqIQFLzg%3D%3D

Just because of the legacy admission, I will encourage my kids to apply to colleges WITHOUT legacy admissions. I think it’s more consistent with my view of true social inclusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It might eventually disappear :

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/legacy-college-admissions-preferences-backlash-772c88be?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqfclKtZWTRMwfA1qxSsNm_1Fq6fBBmExYI8FmuNEMEbNDvHOM6WrToN&gaa_ts=68fd8a7c&gaa_sig=dMhAzGZBjWqB-ztwD6qSBcXmyYnGZrxdo2TsPOEiHMSGPPTM6opr7GGQf1UJHtuzaaFAAgJy7Uu02iFqIQFLzg%3D%3D

Just because of the legacy admission, I will encourage my kids to apply to colleges WITHOUT legacy admissions. I think it’s more consistent with my view of true social inclusion.

It will be fantastic it will disappear!

[Anonymous]

The whole point of going to an elite school is to rub elbows with the “privileged few.” Otherwise we would just administer an IQ test and take the top X%.

[Anonymous]

I've seen college admissions play out the last 2 years at two different Big3 schools as I've had kids in both years.

Legacy admissions to top20 schools were entirely qualified kids. In many cases, the legacies were the most qualified kids who applied. In many others they were just as qualified as kids who did not get the spots. Many under qualified legacies applied (there were many who shot their shot) but they did not get in.

I get that it's easy to think that a bunch of mediocre rich legacies are getting in but at least in these small pools of local private school kids, I did not finf this to be the case at all. Maybe it's different in NYC privates where there are gazillion dollar donations involved. But I would guess that those kids are also qualified. Successful people tend to be smart and smart adults tend to have smart kids.

My own kids each got into Ivy league schools and my husband and I each went to schools ranked over 100.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the reasons people send their kids to private schools (though not the only reason) is to increase their chances of getting into an elite university. However, these students still have to compete with others who benefit from legacy admissions.

In a society that prides itself on meritocracy and free enterprise, is there anything positive for society about this type of admission practice—or does it simply entrench the privileges of a few? What do you think?

But isn’t it the point? To keep the generational money within elite few? From the school s perspective it kind of makes sense, they want patyunt customers. But in the long run it isn’t good. The meritocracy is so hypocritical. it will bite back because this is not a sustainable way to select and cultivate the real talents. Also with less and less international enrollments, American higher ed will deteriorate over time.

Legacies subsidize poor kids.

Do they? Only if they donate large amount? Why is it different from a full pay non legacy student?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The whole point of going to an elite school is to rub elbows with the “privileged few.” Otherwise we would just administer an IQ test and take the top X%.

That is exactly how Asian top universities select students, India, South Korea, China, Singapore, etc