Aha moment - I know 7 current Ivy League students, and all of them happen to be legacies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have a legacy kid at Princeton. Should probably not assume anything about their qualifications, as this kid had single-sitting 36/4.0 in high school and has one A- at Princeton in a rigorous major. This kid can compete with anyone and don't see why given equivalent stats, a university should be criticized for admitting them. This is anecdotal of course, but my point is don't assume.

But why should your kid with these stats get a boost over another with the same stats? They shouldn't.....

I guess my question back to you is why not? What are your proposed more objective criteria to adjudicate this situation given perfect scores? One could argue for a lottery of course or a matching algorithm, but I don't think that is a possibility. Thus, I think legacy status is a reasonable differentiating factor to be considered.

Because when a college states that it wants diversity, they aren't achieving that when they admit 43% legacy. It's just the same ol' same ol' from the same families. This doesn't breed diversity. It breeds an insular environment. Seems counter to all their talk about diversity.

This is on Havard's website:

"We continue to believe deeply that a thriving diverse intellectual community is essential to academic excellence. "

How are they achieving that when almost half their student body comes from the same families from previous generations, mostly wealthy and white.

I don't know Harvard's stats, but at Princeton, 10-11% of the class are considered legacies.

The difference in legacy percentages between Harvard (~40%) and Princeton (~12%) is really telling. I wonder if it has gotten worse in the last few decades. My spouse was a dual Harvard legacy, fantastic test scores, ECs, grades and a top varsity athlete and got flat out rejected in the 80s, not even a waitlist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have a legacy kid at Princeton. Should probably not assume anything about their qualifications, as this kid had single-sitting 36/4.0 in high school and has one A- at Princeton in a rigorous major. This kid can compete with anyone and don't see why given equivalent stats, a university should be criticized for admitting them. This is anecdotal of course, but my point is don't assume.

But why should your kid with these stats get a boost over another with the same stats? They shouldn't.....

I guess my question back to you is why not? What are your proposed more objective criteria to adjudicate this situation given perfect scores? One could argue for a lottery of course or a matching algorithm, but I don't think that is a possibility. Thus, I think legacy status is a reasonable differentiating factor to be considered.

Because when a college states that it wants diversity, they aren't achieving that when they admit 43% legacy. It's just the same ol' same ol' from the same families. This doesn't breed diversity. It breeds an insular environment. Seems counter to all their talk about diversity.

This is on Havard's website:

"We continue to believe deeply that a thriving diverse intellectual community is essential to academic excellence. "

How are they achieving that when almost half their student body comes from the same families from previous generations, mostly wealthy and white.

I don't know Harvard's stats, but at Princeton, 10-11% of the class are considered legacies.

The difference in legacy percentages between Harvard (~40%) and Princeton (~12%) is really telling. I wonder if it has gotten worse in the last few decades. My spouse was a dual Harvard legacy, fantastic test scores, ECs, grades and a top varsity athlete and got flat out rejected in the 80s, not even a waitlist.

Where is the 40% number?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have a legacy kid at Princeton. Should probably not assume anything about their qualifications, as this kid had single-sitting 36/4.0 in high school and has one A- at Princeton in a rigorous major. This kid can compete with anyone and don't see why given equivalent stats, a university should be criticized for admitting them. This is anecdotal of course, but my point is don't assume.

But why should your kid with these stats get a boost over another with the same stats? They shouldn't.....

I guess my question back to you is why not? What are your proposed more objective criteria to adjudicate this situation given perfect scores? One could argue for a lottery of course or a matching algorithm, but I don't think that is a possibility. Thus, I think legacy status is a reasonable differentiating factor to be considered.

Because when a college states that it wants diversity, they aren't achieving that when they admit 43% legacy. It's just the same ol' same ol' from the same families. This doesn't breed diversity. It breeds an insular environment. Seems counter to all their talk about diversity.

This is on Havard's website:

"We continue to believe deeply that a thriving diverse intellectual community is essential to academic excellence. "

How are they achieving that when almost half their student body comes from the same families from previous generations, mostly wealthy and white.

I don't know Harvard's stats, but at Princeton, 10-11% of the class are considered legacies.

The difference in legacy percentages between Harvard (~40%) and Princeton (~12%) is really telling. I wonder if it has gotten worse in the last few decades. My spouse was a dual Harvard legacy, fantastic test scores, ECs, grades and a top varsity athlete and got flat out rejected in the 80s, not even a waitlist.

Where is the 40% number?

Yeah, I can't believe this is right. Vanishingly few of my Harvard friends had their own kids get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My son is a recruited athlete and all the kids I know that got into Ivy schools are recruited athletes.

The Ivy athletic recruits we know over the last ten years were matches for degree mill state schools. I don’t think people realize how low they stoop for athletic recruits, especially if they check another box.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son is a recruited athlete and all the kids I know that got into Ivy schools are recruited athletes.

The Ivy athletic recruits we know over the last ten years were matches for degree mill state schools. I don’t think people realize how low they stoop for athletic recruits, especially if they check another box.

75-80% of Ivy athletic recruits we know have a 2nd hook. They are athletic recruits and also URM or legacies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son is a recruited athlete and all the kids I know that got into Ivy schools are recruited athletes.

The Ivy athletic recruits we know over the last ten years were matches for degree mill state schools. I don’t think people realize how low they stoop for athletic recruits, especially if they check another box.

It’s repulsive and a form of affirmative action for dumb white kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have a legacy kid at Princeton. Should probably not assume anything about their qualifications, as this kid had single-sitting 36/4.0 in high school and has one A- at Princeton in a rigorous major. This kid can compete with anyone and don't see why given equivalent stats, a university should be criticized for admitting them. This is anecdotal of course, but my point is don't assume.

But why should your kid with these stats get a boost over another with the same stats? They shouldn't.....

I guess my question back to you is why not? What are your proposed more objective criteria to adjudicate this situation given perfect scores? One could argue for a lottery of course or a matching algorithm, but I don't think that is a possibility. Thus, I think legacy status is a reasonable differentiating factor to be considered.

Because when a college states that it wants diversity, they aren't achieving that when they admit 43% legacy. It's just the same ol' same ol' from the same families. This doesn't breed diversity. It breeds an insular environment. Seems counter to all their talk about diversity.

This is on Havard's website:

"We continue to believe deeply that a thriving diverse intellectual community is essential to academic excellence. "

How are they achieving that when almost half their student body comes from the same families from previous generations, mostly wealthy and white.

I don't know Harvard's stats, but at Princeton, 10-11% of the class are considered legacies.

Mis-stated. It's 30%.

“ALDC applicants make up less than 5% of applicants to Harvard” despite making up “around 30% of the applicants admitted each year.”

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/6/30/legacy-scrutiny-sffa-harvard/

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf


43% of WHITE students are ALDC.

70% of legacy admits are white.

Those are large numbers.

[Anonymous]

Don’t smart, high achievers beget smart, high achievers, on average?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son is a recruited athlete and all the kids I know that got into Ivy schools are recruited athletes.

The Ivy athletic recruits we know over the last ten years were matches for degree mill state schools. I don’t think people realize how low they stoop for athletic recruits, especially if they check another box.

It’s repulsive and a form of affirmative action for dumb white kids.

+1 — and imagine the top SLACs, which have a way greater percentage of athletes than Ivies: we are talking 35-40% of students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son is a recruited athlete and all the kids I know that got into Ivy schools are recruited athletes.

The Ivy athletic recruits we know over the last ten years were matches for degree mill state schools. I don’t think people realize how low they stoop for athletic recruits, especially if they check another box.

75-80% of Ivy athletic recruits we know have a 2nd hook. They are athletic recruits and also URM or legacies.

Consisting 70% of Ivy athletic recruits are white you seem to be pulling that number out of your ass

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have a legacy kid at Princeton. Should probably not assume anything about their qualifications, as this kid had single-sitting 36/4.0 in high school and has one A- at Princeton in a rigorous major. This kid can compete with anyone and don't see why given equivalent stats, a university should be criticized for admitting them. This is anecdotal of course, but my point is don't assume.

But why should your kid with these stats get a boost over another with the same stats? They shouldn't.....

I guess my question back to you is why not? What are your proposed more objective criteria to adjudicate this situation given perfect scores? One could argue for a lottery of course or a matching algorithm, but I don't think that is a possibility. Thus, I think legacy status is a reasonable differentiating factor to be considered.

Because when a college states that it wants diversity, they aren't achieving that when they admit 43% legacy. It's just the same ol' same ol' from the same families. This doesn't breed diversity. It breeds an insular environment. Seems counter to all their talk about diversity.

This is on Havard's website:

"We continue to believe deeply that a thriving diverse intellectual community is essential to academic excellence. "

How are they achieving that when almost half their student body comes from the same families from previous generations, mostly wealthy and white.

I don't know Harvard's stats, but at Princeton, 10-11% of the class are considered legacies.

Mis-stated. It's 30%.

“ALDC applicants make up less than 5% of applicants to Harvard” despite making up “around 30% of the applicants admitted each year.”

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/6/30/legacy-scrutiny-sffa-harvard/

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf


43% of WHITE students are ALDC.

70% of legacy admits are white.

Those are large numbers.

Does that 30% number come from the Crimson survey that isn’t exactly scientific?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t smart, high achievers beget smart, high achievers, on average?

Yes. Legacy kids must have the stats to get in. I know many who were not strong enough students, and were not admitted. And some with outstanding stats but not admitted.

There's a good article about the real corruption being in the area of athletic recruits, for whom academic standards are substantially lowered by contrast:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/09/opinions/college-admissions-elite-sports-harvard-affirmative-action-macintosh/index.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son is a recruited athlete and all the kids I know that got into Ivy schools are recruited athletes.

The Ivy athletic recruits we know over the last ten years were matches for degree mill state schools. I don’t think people realize how low they stoop for athletic recruits, especially if they check another box.

75-80% of Ivy athletic recruits we know have a 2nd hook. They are athletic recruits and also URM or legacies.

Athletes don’t need a second hook. Legacies do. The percentage of URM athletes is way below the overall URM percentage at these schools. These schools were trying to recruit more URM — as opposed to white — athletes to make this (only slightly) less egregious.

That is now illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son is a recruited athlete and all the kids I know that got into Ivy schools are recruited athletes.

The Ivy athletic recruits we know over the last ten years were matches for degree mill state schools. I don’t think people realize how low they stoop for athletic recruits, especially if they check another box.

It’s repulsive and a form of affirmative action for dumb white kids.

I don’t think athletic recruiting is a problem, since the schools do have sports programs that bring money to a school. Besides, aren’t most basketball and football recruits Black?
Maybe athletics be such a huge focus at colleges, but since it exists, they’re allowed to select athletes just like the music program can recruit top musicians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son is a recruited athlete and all the kids I know that got into Ivy schools are recruited athletes.

The Ivy athletic recruits we know over the last ten years were matches for degree mill state schools. I don’t think people realize how low they stoop for athletic recruits, especially if they check another box.

It’s repulsive and a form of affirmative action for dumb white kids.

I don’t think athletic recruiting is a problem, since the schools do have sports programs that bring money to a school. Besides, aren’t most basketball and football recruits Black?
Maybe athletics be such a huge focus at colleges, but since it exists, they’re allowed to select athletes just like the music program can recruit top musicians.

Don’t confuse University of Alabama with what we are talking about…athletic recruiting is overwhelmingly white. Get thee some education on this here issue.