Elite Colleges’ Quiet Fight to Favor Alumni Children

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did a degree at an Oxbridge school, and my classmates there thought my stories about my legacy undergrad roommate at my Ivy were funny. She went to an elite boarding school, and had a very rich family but had about a 2.7 GPA which is very difficult to do at an Ivy where most people get a 3.0 without trying just because of the ways grading curves are structured. My roommate was not the sharpest tool in the shed, but she was a legacy and she got in. These Oxbridge students who wore gowns and coattails regularly and bowed to the Queen and were part of a 1000 year old college thought it was ridiculously backwards that an American student might get into college with a big boost because their parents had attended the same college before them.

Sure, remember last year when teachers could just assess A levels and boarding school students where all qualified to attend schools they weren't remotely qualified to attend?

sh** happened during CoViD. It wasn’t perfect but it was a once in a century pandemic. What’s America’s excuse for giving people a leg up based on where their parents went to school. My spouse and I have 4 Ivy degrees between us (although I guess the graduate ones don’t count for legacy status for our kids) so we have a lot to lose if legacy preferences go away but I can’t defend my kids having a probability of getting admitted at 5x the rate of a comparable student in the applicant pool. It’s really unmeritocratic

But why does a kid who happened to have been born with a better capacity for doing well in high school than my learning disabled kid have a much better chance of getting in? He isn't a better person. He didn't work harder. He probably won't contribute more to making this world a better place. He was just lucky enough not to be born with a learning disability. Why does he have a better shot at a top school than my kid? Why is that fair?

For the same reason your son attends a private school has a much better chances of attending any college than a kid who was born in poverty in US. Life is not fair. Luck matters. It's not a referendum on who is a better person, your son's family has money and the other kid's family doesn't. But not everything has to go to your kid, let some others have a slice of the pie too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. PP is clueless as well. There is nothing wrong with a school promoting multi-generational connections.

Except that is has nothing to do with academic achievement. But ime...if these schools want to have affrmative action to ensure that disadvantaged students can get access to these institutions...then that spills over to legacy and athletics and other criteria that I may not agree with, but these institutions feel is important.

You don't know if the student mentioned was academically qualified or not.

Not the point. If they have holistic admissions, they consider factors beyond academic achievements. For all students, not just this one with grandma brown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did a degree at an Oxbridge school, and my classmates there thought my stories about my legacy undergrad roommate at my Ivy were funny. She went to an elite boarding school, and had a very rich family but had about a 2.7 GPA which is very difficult to do at an Ivy where most people get a 3.0 without trying just because of the ways grading curves are structured. My roommate was not the sharpest tool in the shed, but she was a legacy and she got in. These Oxbridge students who wore gowns and coattails regularly and bowed to the Queen and were part of a 1000 year old college thought it was ridiculously backwards that an American student might get into college with a big boost because their parents had attended the same college before them.

Sure, remember last year when teachers could just assess A levels and boarding school students where all qualified to attend schools they weren't remotely qualified to attend?

sh** happened during CoViD. It wasn’t perfect but it was a once in a century pandemic. What’s America’s excuse for giving people a leg up based on where their parents went to school. My spouse and I have 4 Ivy degrees between us (although I guess the graduate ones don’t count for legacy status for our kids) so we have a lot to lose if legacy preferences go away but I can’t defend my kids having a probability of getting admitted at 5x the rate of a comparable student in the applicant pool. It’s really unmeritocratic

But why does a kid who happened to have been born with a better capacity for doing well in high school than my learning disabled kid have a much better chance of getting in? He isn't a better person. He didn't work harder. He probably won't contribute more to making this world a better place. He was just lucky enough not to be born with a learning disability. Why does he have a better shot at a top school than my kid? Why is that fair?

colleges have no way of observing how hard a kid works to get a grade-they only see the grade. I also don’t know how you think colleges can assess how applicants will or won’t contribute more to making the world a better place. Maybe your kid is great but how would you assess that in an unbiased way beyond the essays, extracurricular and teacher references which they ask for already.

You can't. Which puts him a great disadvantage. Why is that fair? Why does a kid who can easily show it have more of a chance to get into a top school? According to this site, colleges have some sort of moral obligation to build their communities according to the highest GPAs, starting from the top and going down. Fortunately, the people who run those colleges aren't as stupid and narrow minded as the people who think this. They know they need diverse communities and a a strong foundation to stay relevant and solvent. People say "it's not fair" that legacies get an advantage. I say that it's not fair that neurotypical kids get an advantage. You see, fairness doesn't come into play and the stupid people on here complaining about it will never get it. They just think their neurotypical, above average, one-dimensional GPA chases is entitled to something more than others.

The debate about legacy is about a kid getting a substantial edge on admissions to an elite college over a kid with equivalent stats and extracurriculars simply because of who where their parents went to college. I don’t know why you’re complaining that college admissions officers can’t magically see that your special needs kid is better than a neurotypical applicant. Start your own thread if you want to complain about that.

Missing the point. There are many unfair aspects of college admissions. Ones that put some kids at advantages over others. Why does legacy get everybody so stirred up and not other things? The neurotypical kid has an edge on admissions over a kid born without that particular advantage simply because of who he was born to, just like the legacy kid. Why is that any more fair? And not, I really don't feel like starting my own thread. This is actually about the whiny babies who weren't smart enough to get into good colleges and are now mad that they can't get their kids into one either.

Pot meet kettle. We've heard enough whining about your special snowflake here that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. PP is clueless as well. There is nothing wrong with a school promoting multi-generational connections.

Except that is has nothing to do with academic achievement. But ime...if these schools want to have affrmative action to ensure that disadvantaged students can get access to these institutions...then that spills over to legacy and athletics and other criteria that I may not agree with, but these institutions feel is important.

You don't know if the student mentioned was academically qualified or not.

Not the point. If they have holistic admissions, they consider factors beyond academic achievements. For all students, not just this one with grandma brown.

It is the point. If they consider legacy in the holistic admissions process and two students are equally qualified than it serves as a boost. Brown isn't accepting mouth breathers because grandma brown donated. If you don't like it no one really cares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you that are okay with legacy preference, are you okay with affirmative action? Same thing but in reverse.

I am ok with both.

+2. DC1 is the 3rd generation at Brown, where DH's grandmother established a scholarship. I can see why the school would want us versus someone who sent 25 copy/paste applications to whatever US News ranked at the top that year.

I'm neutral on legacy admissions, but you are clueless. The whole reason why someone HAS to send 25 copy/paste applications is because they don't have your advantage.

I know it’s such a dumb post. What do you want us to say? Congrats to your DC1 on being wealthy and privileged and buying her slot. Let me see if they make a Hallmark for that.

Right, that was definitely one of the stupidest posts on this thread and in of itself is an argument against legacy admissions, because surely someone that clueless is not contributing academically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you that are okay with legacy preference, are you okay with affirmative action? Same thing but in reverse.

I am ok with both.

+2. DC1 is the 3rd generation at Brown, where DH's grandmother established a scholarship. I can see why the school would want us versus someone who sent 25 copy/paste applications to whatever US News ranked at the top that year.

How special for your DC1. I guess she didn’t need to send 25 applications like the rest of the unwashed masses because she knew she had an advantage as a legacy.

Do you think only rich heiress legacies are capable of tailoring an essay to explain why Brown? Brown has more than its fair share of mediocre wealthy kids and was the last Ivy to become need blind.

You're not explaining why your child wants Brown or other elite college. She seems desperate to join this "mediocre wealthy kids" club, despite the fact that these schools are terrible and admit lowlife idiots like us who can't stand strivers and desperate social climbers. She would be better off at a college without legacy consideration, where her 10 point SAT increase will lead to a life of greatness.

Who do you think you’re talking to? I have two Ivy League degrees (two colleges ranked far higher than Brown and accepted without any legacy privileges unlike your daughter) and kids who are far too young to think about college admissions. But if you want to demean everyone who doesn’t have your daughter’s legacy privileges and enough wealth to endow a scholarship at Brown as low life strivers, you’re just making the case for why some legacy applicants don’t deserve to be there. *** By the way, Brown is less transparent than Harvard and Yale about the admissions stats of legacy students but if it’s comparable to those two Ivies, the legacy bonus provided to your daughter was far more than 10 points on the SATs.

Apparently with someone without a degree and with elementary school kids, who is having a mental crisis at 1 AM about college admissions. Get a Xanax, go to bed, and in 10 years make them apply to whatever top 25 will be at that time. Going back to my opinion about why rankings are so important for strivers.

They live in CA, stupid. It's not past midnight there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you that are okay with legacy preference, are you okay with affirmative action? Same thing but in reverse.

I am ok with both.

+2. DC1 is the 3rd generation at Brown, where DH's grandmother established a scholarship. I can see why the school would want us versus someone who sent 25 copy/paste applications to whatever US News ranked at the top that year.

How special for your DC1. I guess she didn’t need to send 25 applications like the rest of the unwashed masses because she knew she had an advantage as a legacy.

Do you think only rich heiress legacies are capable of tailoring an essay to explain why Brown? Brown has more than its fair share of mediocre wealthy kids and was the last Ivy to become need blind.

You're not explaining why your child wants Brown or other elite college. She seems desperate to join this "mediocre wealthy kids" club, despite the fact that these schools are terrible and admit lowlife idiots like us who can't stand strivers and desperate social climbers. She would be better off at a college without legacy consideration, where her 10 point SAT increase will lead to a life of greatness.

Who do you think you’re talking to? I have two Ivy League degrees (two colleges ranked far higher than Brown and accepted without any legacy privileges unlike your daughter) and kids who are far too young to think about college admissions. But if you want to demean everyone who doesn’t have your daughter’s legacy privileges and enough wealth to endow a scholarship at Brown as low life strivers, you’re just making the case for why some legacy applicants don’t deserve to be there. *** By the way, Brown is less transparent than Harvard and Yale about the admissions stats of legacy students but if it’s comparable to those two Ivies, the legacy bonus provided to your daughter was far more than 10 points on the SATs.

Apparently with someone without a degree and with elementary school kids, who is having a mental crisis at 1 AM about college admissions. Get a Xanax, go to bed, and in 10 years make them apply to whatever top 25 will be at that time. Going back to my opinion about why rankings are so important for strivers.

They live in CA, stupid. It's not past midnight there.

And this is why Brayden, Jayden, and Logan will end up at Chico, where they belong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you that are okay with legacy preference, are you okay with affirmative action? Same thing but in reverse.

I am ok with both.

+2. DC1 is the 3rd generation at Brown, where DH's grandmother established a scholarship. I can see why the school would want us versus someone who sent 25 copy/paste applications to whatever US News ranked at the top that year.

How special for your DC1. I guess she didn’t need to send 25 applications like the rest of the unwashed masses because she knew she had an advantage as a legacy.

Do you think only rich heiress legacies are capable of tailoring an essay to explain why Brown? Brown has more than its fair share of mediocre wealthy kids and was the last Ivy to become need blind.

You're not explaining why your child wants Brown or other elite college. She seems desperate to join this "mediocre wealthy kids" club, despite the fact that these schools are terrible and admit lowlife idiots like us who can't stand strivers and desperate social climbers. She would be better off at a college without legacy consideration, where her 10 point SAT increase will lead to a life of greatness.

Who do you think you’re talking to? I have two Ivy League degrees (two colleges ranked far higher than Brown and accepted without any legacy privileges unlike your daughter) and kids who are far too young to think about college admissions. But if you want to demean everyone who doesn’t have your daughter’s legacy privileges and enough wealth to endow a scholarship at Brown as low life strivers, you’re just making the case for why some legacy applicants don’t deserve to be there. *** By the way, Brown is less transparent than Harvard and Yale about the admissions stats of legacy students but if it’s comparable to those two Ivies, the legacy bonus provided to your daughter was far more than 10 points on the SATs.

Apparently with someone without a degree and with elementary school kids, who is having a mental crisis at 1 AM about college admissions. Get a Xanax, go to bed, and in 10 years make them apply to whatever top 25 will be at that time. Going back to my opinion about why rankings are so important for strivers.

They live in CA, stupid. It's not past midnight there.

And this is why Brayden, Jayden, and Logan will end up at Chico, where they belong.

But mommy has two Ivy degrees. Maybe one will just go into writing Hallmark cards highlighting their personal angst of an unfair world.

[Anonymous]

Man, the proponents of legacy admissions on this thread are really not looking good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Man, the proponents of legacy admissions on this thread are really not looking good.

Yup. They can’t make an argument or use data, so they go onto being racist and complaining about URMs. And their kids probably inherited some of these traits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Man, the proponents of legacy admissions on this thread are really not looking good.

Apparently the dangers of inbreeding are real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Man, the proponents of legacy admissions on this thread are really not looking good.

lol, this thread is a good example of the saying equality feels like oppression when you're accustomed to privilege...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man, the proponents of legacy admissions on this thread are really not looking good.

Yup. They can’t make an argument or use data, so they go onto being racist and complaining about URMs. And their kids probably inherited some of these traits.

Someone who drones about kids "inheriting traits" shouldn't be throwing stones about others being racist, bro.

[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.

I'd prefer to craft a class with students that earned a place at the school and want to attend rather than students who slipped in through mommy or daddy's name and attend that school only because their mommy or daddy wants them to attend that school.

Legacy is never exclusively considered. Look on the common data set. It's often "somewhat considered" after GPA, course rigor, extracurriculars, recommendations, demonstrated interest etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man, the proponents of legacy admissions on this thread are really not looking good.

Yup. They can’t make an argument or use data, so they go onto being racist and complaining about URMs. And their kids probably inherited some of these traits.

NP- Both sides in this discussion aren't really looking good. They are equally jabbing the other and not providing much useful information so maybe both sides need to have a seat, look in the mirror and quit the virtue signaling.