Question for those opposed to legacy status

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I am white, from a privileged background, and have parents and grandparents who went to Ivy league schools, Stanford, and other top universities. I don't think legacy status should be considered at all. I mean come on; the truth is the practice does give a leg up to those who are already privileged - aka resource hoarding. It says little to nothing about the applicant themselves. There is just no way to defeat that argument. It is a bs reason to let a kid into a school over another equally qualified applicant (as that is really how its most frequently used). It should not be considered a hook in any way.

I have one question though that I have never been able to find a solution to - how do you encourage alum to donate if it won't help their kid get in? It is the number one reason people donate long term. How do you replace the private scholarships funded for basically the same reason? How do you replace all that money that the school depends on? When most don't have enough to give to have a building named for them, and there is no longer any legacy status bestowed on their kids, how do you get donations from the ordinary graduates?


Schools that got rid of legacy have not had a measurable effect on donations. They are still getting plenty of donations.
Most people give money because they ultimately believe in the school’s mission and values - that is what the big donations are generally about

+1 Not only that, but they could lower the cost and so they don't need to provide that much aide.

Oxbridge is half the cost of Harvard, but it's still an elite college. And they don't look at legacies.

We have a friend in the UK whose kid went to Oxbridge. We were talking to them about how college works here, the cost, the legacy hooks, etc.. and they were just floored.



The US college system of today is beyond absurd. We are encouraging our kids to study abroad.


+1

Too many people, too many students, and not enough spaces. The US is becoming overcrowded - FAST.


There are tons of spaces. Most colleges out there are dying for students. The problem is that everyone want sot go to the same few places.

+1000

Step outside the T20-25 and it is much easier to get accepted. These are still excellent universities---majority of people attend schools ranked below T20 and many do well in life. Change your attitude and you can succeed at a great school



I hope SCOTUS includes this when abolishing racial discrimination: "Folks, there are tons of spaces. Most colleges out there are dying for students. The problem is that everyone want sot go to the same few places."
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I see what seems like a lot of posts from people strongly opposed to “legacy admissions” and I’m curious about this position. I agree that unqualified applicants should not be admitted to any schools. Do you assume that no legacy applicants are qualified for admission to the school their parent attended? That seems odd to me given how important parental expectations are for success in school and life.

Do you mean that no kids should be permitted to apply to the schools their parents attended? How would it even work, when the common app asks for parental information (and that appears to be the basis for first generation applicants)? And how is it different from school that look at demonstrated interest? Why should legacy kids’ interest in attending the school they are familiar with, have a personal/family connection to, and likely grew up knowing about, visiting, rooting for its sports teams, etc not be allowed to follow that interest?

Genuinely curious, I promise.



Not rocket science. Simply ignore legacy status, focus on merit 100%.

Candidate deserves it? Gets in.

Doesn't deserve it? Doesn't get in.

Who your parents are should be irrelevant.



Except ... you're using terms like "deserve it." How do you determine who "deserves it?"

What do you do when you have 500 spots and there are 10,000 qualified applicants?

That's when these other criteria become valid, including legacy, affirmative action, etc. Schools build cohorts and communities. They aren't some reward for high achievement.



How do you think any, say, sports team would do it?

From those 10,000 qualified applicants you'd find the 500 most qualified.


What do you mean by "most qualified?" Is the person with and 800 Math and 600 Verbal of the SAT more qualified than the person with 700 in each section? Does the person who took AP Latin get a boost over the person who took AP Spanish? If someone took AP Spanish but it turns out they are native speakers at home and just took it for the easy A, they are less qualified now than the kid who sat next to them in class and only got a B plus? Is a kid who got extra credit in his science class and boosted his grade, but his who's mom is a Engineering professor at the local college and basically did his project for him more "qualified" than the kid who didn't enter the science fair because he didn't have time because he was babysitting his siblings after school because his mom was sick? What's more qualified, an A in BC calc in 12tt grade or a B+ in BC calc in 11th grade but that an A in multivariable in 12th grade? Is a kid who plays piano but not in school more qualified than the kid who plays violin in the school orchestra? Is the kid who started high school not speaking any English but managed to get Bs in all his English classes less qualified than the native speaker who got B pluses in the same class? Do you say "oh this year our most qualified applicants were all female psychology majors so sorry math and lit and language professors, no students for you."


+1000

That's the major issue---college admissions in NOT a formula (nor should it be). Someone with a 4.0/1600 is not smarter than someone with a 1450/3.8. They are both smart people and bring different things to the table. Colleges, smartly, want a diverse student body (and define diversity in many ways): they want kids from all 50 states, from many countries, in a variety of majors (cannot have all mechanical engineering majors, but no English majors), with a variety of ECs that the student body enjoys. Whole point of college is to learn academically and to grow socially with a unique group of peers. If everyone is cookie cutter the same, I know I and my kids would not want that. I suspect most universities do not want that either.

Just like the people you work with are not all from the same university, most are probably not all 4.0 students in HS and/or in college. Nobody cares what your grades were or SAT score or really even where you attended college. I just want my colleagues/team to work together, complete their part of the projects, ask for help if they need it well before the deadline and grow/improve their skills constantly.


It's not a formula but there are factors taken into consideration and there's no good reason legacy status should be one of those factors. Legacies will still be admitted, they just won't get any special treatment (beyond the fact they probably were given much more over 18 years than some of their competitors....but no more than competitors whose parents are well educated)


I agree---those kids already have a certain level of privilege for the first 18 years of their life.

But for a private universities, why should you (or I) get to decide that it shouldn't be a factor? The fact is college admissions are not a concrete formula.
Anonymous
I am opposed. There are two possibilities:
1) Legacy status makes very little difference, and is just a nudge in the few cases when applicants are virtually identical. In that case, dropping the preference would make people like me happy, end the debate, and have little effect on the number of legacy admits. Why not?
2) Legacy status has a big effect. In that case, it's clearly unfair and should be dropped.

I say this as an alumnus of an elite (USNWR top 3) liberal arts college who has children in high school. I certainly wouldn't get into my alma mater today, and my kids won't get in without legacy preference, but they are qualified enough to maybe get in with preference. But I don't think they should, as it would be taking away a spot from a more qualified student, and they have the ability to get into other very good schools and thrive there.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:If you want to leave parents out of the equation, don’t ask if parents went to college and higher degree achieved.


A kid who has parents who’ve achieved graduate degrees is more privileged than a first Gen kid. That matters.


It shouldn’t. You can’t pick your parents anymore than you can pick the color of your skin or sex. It’s just as wrong to hold it against a kid that their parent is uneducated as that their parent is educated.


Most colleges don't hold the fact a parent is not college educated against a student....that would be first gen student and colleges give preference to them (I agree with this---it benefits everyone to help everyone who wants it to get a college education). Every college we looked at touts what percent of first gen students they have and tout all the programs to assist these students (and that's a good thing---I was first gen and it's a different world when your parents don't really understand the process because it's foreign to them).
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:For the anti-legacy posters do you also oppose any and all legacy preference for kids of current and former faculty, staff and employees of the University (including those who are alumni themselves)?

What about legacy preference for kids of alumni who donate hundreds (or thousands) of hours of their time over the years answering the university's call to interview undergraduate applicants for admission in their town?

What about the alumni who spend hundreds of hours volunteering to organize the 5 year class reunions?

Should the relationship for those employees and alumni be a one way street with all the benefits going to the university?

My long experience with a school that offers a legacy boost (for ED applicants only) is that a large percentage of "legacy" applicants fall into one of the above categories. That makes sense as those are the parents/kids who know the university better than your ordinary alumni whose connection to the University may not go much beyond some donations to the annual fund.

Curious whether folks on here think banning all legacy -- with zero exceptions -- really is the right approach.



Absolutely. None of what you describe comes close to compensating for denying seats to more academically qualified applicants, and shutting out a swathe of diverse candidates who cannot be legacy because of this country's previously racist university admissions.

You don't seem to grasp that you're talking about minor, insignificant acts of service here, PP. Go read the files of worthy applicants and you'll see what the really valuable candidates have managed to do in their short life. It's incredibly unfair to deny them a spot just because someone's parent did a little something for their alma mater. And it's entirely wrong-headed of you to think that what the parent does somehow makes their child worthier. Do you even realize what you're saying?!?! You're passing judgment on a kid because of who their parent is and what their parent has done? Are you crazy?


So bizarre.




No I'm not crazy since these are not my policies. What you are saying, however, is that most of the top private universities in the US are "bizarre" and "crazy"

DP.. well, they certainly had racist practices which caused mostly these white parents to have the privilege of volunteering at their almamater to give their already privileged kids an advantage that non white kids don't have, both currently and historically.


But in the last 20-25 years these schools have become majority POC and now you want to remove legacy preference just when it starts benefitting alumni POC?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I am opposed. There are two possibilities:
1) Legacy status makes very little difference, and is just a nudge in the few cases when applicants are virtually identical. In that case, dropping the preference would make people like me happy, end the debate, and have little effect on the number of legacy admits. Why not?
2) Legacy status has a big effect. In that case, it's clearly unfair and should be dropped.

I say this as an alumnus of an elite (USNWR top 3) liberal arts college who has children in high school. I certainly wouldn't get into my alma mater today, and my kids won't get in without legacy preference, but they are qualified enough to maybe get in with preference. But I don't think they should, as it would be taking away a spot from a more qualified student, and they have the ability to get into other very good schools and thrive there.


Not true. It is the equivalent of 100-200 additional points on the SAT.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I am opposed. There are two possibilities:
1) Legacy status makes very little difference, and is just a nudge in the few cases when applicants are virtually identical. In that case, dropping the preference would make people like me happy, end the debate, and have little effect on the number of legacy admits. Why not?
2) Legacy status has a big effect. In that case, it's clearly unfair and should be dropped.

I say this as an alumnus of an elite (USNWR top 3) liberal arts college who has children in high school. I certainly wouldn't get into my alma mater today, and my kids won't get in without legacy preference, but they are qualified enough to maybe get in with preference. But I don't think they should, as it would be taking away a spot from a more qualified student, and they have the ability to get into other very good schools and thrive there.


Not true. It is the equivalent of 100-200 additional points on the SAT.


Or more now with TO, depends on the school. Some schools give just a small bump but students need to be in ballpark of most competitive applicants. Other schools give a massive bump. I know two legacies who got into Duke this year. Both mediocre students who applied test optional.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:For the anti-legacy posters do you also oppose any and all legacy preference for kids of current and former faculty, staff and employees of the University (including those who are alumni themselves)?

What about legacy preference for kids of alumni who donate hundreds (or thousands) of hours of their time over the years answering the university's call to interview undergraduate applicants for admission in their town?

What about the alumni who spend hundreds of hours volunteering to organize the 5 year class reunions?

Should the relationship for those employees and alumni be a one way street with all the benefits going to the university?

My long experience with a school that offers a legacy boost (for ED applicants only) is that a large percentage of "legacy" applicants fall into one of the above categories. That makes sense as those are the parents/kids who know the university better than your ordinary alumni whose connection to the University may not go much beyond some donations to the annual fund.

Curious whether folks on here think banning all legacy -- with zero exceptions -- really is the right approach.



Absolutely. None of what you describe comes close to compensating for denying seats to more academically qualified applicants, and shutting out a swathe of diverse candidates who cannot be legacy because of this country's previously racist university admissions.

You don't seem to grasp that you're talking about minor, insignificant acts of service here, PP. Go read the files of worthy applicants and you'll see what the really valuable candidates have managed to do in their short life. It's incredibly unfair to deny them a spot just because someone's parent did a little something for their alma mater. And it's entirely wrong-headed of you to think that what the parent does somehow makes their child worthier. Do you even realize what you're saying?!?! You're passing judgment on a kid because of who their parent is and what their parent has done? Are you crazy?


So bizarre.




No I'm not crazy since these are not my policies. What you are saying, however, is that most of the top private universities in the US are "bizarre" and "crazy"

DP.. well, they certainly had racist practices which caused mostly these white parents to have the privilege of volunteering at their almamater to give their already privileged kids an advantage that non white kids don't have, both currently and historically.


But in the last 20-25 years these schools have become majority POC and now you want to remove legacy preference just when it starts benefitting alumni POC?



This is quite funny. Now wealthy blacks want double AA: as legacy and as black.

Anonymous
If legacy status is no longer considered, neither should First Gen. Apples to apples means removing all info related to an applicant’s family and parents.


Legacy students are privileged and first Gen students are not.


This just isn’t true. What about the legacy kid who grows up on a farm in RI and gas yo do farm chores after school and qualifies for a full ride? Or the first gen kid whose parents bought them a car when they turned 16, takes vacations every summer (including flying) and parents have saved to send them to college? These are two real-life examples I know. There are many others.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:For the anti-legacy posters do you also oppose any and all legacy preference for kids of current and former faculty, staff and employees of the University (including those who are alumni themselves)?

What about legacy preference for kids of alumni who donate hundreds (or thousands) of hours of their time over the years answering the university's call to interview undergraduate applicants for admission in their town?

What about the alumni who spend hundreds of hours volunteering to organize the 5 year class reunions?

Should the relationship for those employees and alumni be a one way street with all the benefits going to the university?

My long experience with a school that offers a legacy boost (for ED applicants only) is that a large percentage of "legacy" applicants fall into one of the above categories. That makes sense as those are the parents/kids who know the university better than your ordinary alumni whose connection to the University may not go much beyond some donations to the annual fund.

Curious whether folks on here think banning all legacy -- with zero exceptions -- really is the right approach.



Absolutely. None of what you describe comes close to compensating for denying seats to more academically qualified applicants, and shutting out a swathe of diverse candidates who cannot be legacy because of this country's previously racist university admissions.

You don't seem to grasp that you're talking about minor, insignificant acts of service here, PP. Go read the files of worthy applicants and you'll see what the really valuable candidates have managed to do in their short life. It's incredibly unfair to deny them a spot just because someone's parent did a little something for their alma mater. And it's entirely wrong-headed of you to think that what the parent does somehow makes their child worthier. Do you even realize what you're saying?!?! You're passing judgment on a kid because of who their parent is and what their parent has done? Are you crazy?


So bizarre.




No I'm not crazy since these are not my policies. What you are saying, however, is that most of the top private universities in the US are "bizarre" and "crazy"


These bastions of academic research are led almost uniformly by liberal/progressive presidents and department chairs. Yet they continue these "crazy" legacy preferences. Maybe they realize legacy preference has begun to benefit POC (that made up a majority of new alumni for the last decade or two).
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:For the anti-legacy posters do you also oppose any and all legacy preference for kids of current and former faculty, staff and employees of the University (including those who are alumni themselves)?

What about legacy preference for kids of alumni who donate hundreds (or thousands) of hours of their time over the years answering the university's call to interview undergraduate applicants for admission in their town?

What about the alumni who spend hundreds of hours volunteering to organize the 5 year class reunions?

Should the relationship for those employees and alumni be a one way street with all the benefits going to the university?

My long experience with a school that offers a legacy boost (for ED applicants only) is that a large percentage of "legacy" applicants fall into one of the above categories. That makes sense as those are the parents/kids who know the university better than your ordinary alumni whose connection to the University may not go much beyond some donations to the annual fund.

Curious whether folks on here think banning all legacy -- with zero exceptions -- really is the right approach.



They are hoping for one of the ~300 slots at Harvard that went to a legacy. Harvard admits 2318 students, and supposedly they admit 14% legacy (not sure if it's admit or of the actual class that attends). so they want one of the 300*20 slots that went to legacy at T20 schools. It's actually less than the 6000 because Harvard likely has the highest legacy admissions. So lets say 6000 spots, and estimate that 50% of those legacies would have gotten in anyhow. SO these people are complaining that their snowflake (who is already privileged, just not as privileged as those 6000), did not get one of those 3000 spots. In the grand scheme of things, their kids wasn't getting that spot anyhow, it's a lottery crap shoot.

I agree that alumni who donate a lot, work for free for the university over the years should receive a perk when their qualified kid applies. We cannot as a society remove all levels of privilege (nor should we want to). Ironically the people who complain about legacy are largely still extremely privileged themselves, and daily take advantage of their privileges. They only want them removed when it's not accessible to them.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:If legacy status is no longer considered, neither should First Gen. Apples to apples means removing all info related to an applicant’s family and parents.


You don't "get" that schools are trying to help lift those who have been given less.
Anonymous
Spouse and and I attended the same TOP 10 SLAC to which we have committed much time, talent and treasure over the 30+ years since graduation. I am gong to be completely honest, the legacy status of our children would be recognized by the university even if there wasn't a box to check on the Common App. There is no denying when you are on a first name basis with the Dean of Admissions, Alumini Director and other top administrators. I say this as someone who received 100% financial aid from this institution and have been more than happy to give back to them.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:For the anti-legacy posters do you also oppose any and all legacy preference for kids of current and former faculty, staff and employees of the University (including those who are alumni themselves)?

What about legacy preference for kids of alumni who donate hundreds (or thousands) of hours of their time over the years answering the university's call to interview undergraduate applicants for admission in their town?

What about the alumni who spend hundreds of hours volunteering to organize the 5 year class reunions?

Should the relationship for those employees and alumni be a one way street with all the benefits going to the university?

My long experience with a school that offers a legacy boost (for ED applicants only) is that a large percentage of "legacy" applicants fall into one of the above categories. That makes sense as those are the parents/kids who know the university better than your ordinary alumni whose connection to the University may not go much beyond some donations to the annual fund.

Curious whether folks on here think banning all legacy -- with zero exceptions -- really is the right approach.



Yes, I include all of these groups when removing legacy. You don't "volunteer" or "donate" to an organization because you are expecting to get something in return for the organization.

If I were to choose one category to keep, it would be probably be faculty children. But, if I were a prof, I'd be ok if that were removed as long as my benefits included reimbursement for my kid to go to whatever other school they were accepted to (they get paid so little!)
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Spouse and and I attended the same TOP 10 SLAC to which we have committed much time, talent and treasure over the 30+ years since graduation. I am gong to be completely honest, the legacy status of our children would be recognized by the university even if there wasn't a box to check on the Common App. There is no denying when you are on a first name basis with the Dean of Admissions, Alumini Director and other top administrators. I say this as someone who received 100% financial aid from this institution and have been more than happy to give back to them.


Nice pat for yourself on the back there.
post reply Forum Index » College and University Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: