Would You Support A Legacy Lottery?

[Anonymous]

Would you support a group of universities tackling the Legacy problem by each having a separate pool capped at x% (let's say 10%)? The Legacy would be required to have SAT at 50% SAT of previously admitted students, and have 4.0 UW GPA. This would take place before ED/ED1/REA, and they would get no financial aid. So, a completely separate pool. Within that pool, they would just pick names out of a hat and a certain percentage would be guaranteed admission. But they would also have to commit to attend and pay a large non-refundable deposit.

[Anonymous]

This is nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is nonsense.

+1

[Anonymous]

No.

If colleges want to give admission to families that donate buildings, improve infastructure, renovate dorms, fund full rides for poor kids, or donate things like specialized expensive science equipment, bravo to them.

It is a small sacrifice with far more benefits to the student body as a whole, to give a spot to the kids of major donors, than any possible tiny negative of the perception from those rejected from the university that their kid's potential spot was "taken" by the offspring of a rich donor.

Dollar to dollar, the lifetime benefits to the university and the tens to hundreds of thousands of other kids at the university, of giving maybe1 to 3 spots over a 4 to 10 year window (depending on family size) every generation to the kids of big donors, is incredibly lopsided, with almost all of the benefits going to students who are not the donor's kids.

Anyone who is pushing for the elimination of legacy/donor preference in admissions is, at best, a petty and shortsighted fool.

[Anonymous]

Major donors are one thing. Legacies that are not major donors are totally different and something like this could work.

[Anonymous]

It's interesting because at our school we had two athletes who were also legacies at two different schools. They were both offered multiple slots at different ivies. They were both in the 50% range for SAT and smart kids.

Ultimately, they both chose to go to their legacy school, despite one of them choosing to go to a non-HYP ivy as a legacy when they could have gone HYP.

There is something to the legacy system that benefits the schools. Both families were UMC but not super wealthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No.

If colleges want to give admission to families that donate buildings, improve infastructure, renovate dorms, fund full rides for poor kids, or donate things like specialized expensive science equipment, bravo to them.

It is a small sacrifice with far more benefits to the student body as a whole, to give a spot to the kids of major donors, than any possible tiny negative of the perception from those rejected from the university that their kid's potential spot was "taken" by the offspring of a rich donor.

Dollar to dollar, the lifetime benefits to the university and the tens to hundreds of thousands of other kids at the university, of giving maybe1 to 3 spots over a 4 to 10 year window (depending on family size) every generation to the kids of big donors, is incredibly lopsided, with almost all of the benefits going to students who are not the donor's kids.

Anyone who is pushing for the elimination of legacy/donor preference in admissions is, at best, a petty and shortsighted fool.

Legacy/=donor

[Anonymous]

No. No legacy preference period.

[Anonymous]

What problem would this solve from the university's point of view?

[Anonymous]

No. Colleges are a business. They can accept/reject who they chose to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would you support a group of universities tackling the Legacy problem by each having a separate pool capped at x% (let's say 10%)? The Legacy would be required to have SAT at 50% SAT of previously admitted students, and have 4.0 UW GPA. This would take place before ED/ED1/REA, and they would get no financial aid. So, a completely separate pool. Within that pool, they would just pick names out of a hat and a certain percentage would be guaranteed admission. But they would also have to commit to attend and pay a large non-refundable deposit.

Private schools should be able to admit whomever they please. They are Private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you support a group of universities tackling the Legacy problem by each having a separate pool capped at x% (let's say 10%)? The Legacy would be required to have SAT at 50% SAT of previously admitted students, and have 4.0 UW GPA. This would take place before ED/ED1/REA, and they would get no financial aid. So, a completely separate pool. Within that pool, they would just pick names out of a hat and a certain percentage would be guaranteed admission. But they would also have to commit to attend and pay a large non-refundable deposit.

Private schools should be able to admit whomever they please. They are Private.

There are legacies at state schools too. The policies tend to be politically popular because many local voters are alums.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. Colleges are a business. They can accept/reject who they chose to.

As long as race is not a motive

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. Colleges are a business. They can accept/reject who they chose to.

As long as race is not a motive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you support a group of universities tackling the Legacy problem by each having a separate pool capped at x% (let's say 10%)? The Legacy would be required to have SAT at 50% SAT of previously admitted students, and have 4.0 UW GPA. This would take place before ED/ED1/REA, and they would get no financial aid. So, a completely separate pool. Within that pool, they would just pick names out of a hat and a certain percentage would be guaranteed admission. But they would also have to commit to attend and pay a large non-refundable deposit.

Private schools should be able to admit whomever they please. They are Private.

As long as race is not a motive.