Wesleyan University drops Legacy Preferences in Admissions Decisions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More schools will be doing this because it is a relatively cosmetic change and good PR; it barely moves the needle. Athletes have a far greater impact: what about admission preferences for Wesleyan’s 900 or so athletes, the vast majority of whom are white? Reserve plaudits until Wesleyan, Amherst and their brethren do something about the real issue. This is a mere distraction from more fundamental change, so don’t fall for it.

What the heck? Where are you getting 900 recruited athletes at Wes? That’s nearly a third of the student body. I went to Wes and hardly knew any serious athletes. I serious doubt thirty percent of the student body is recruited athletes with admissions preference.

I do agree with doing away with athletic recruitment however.

You are right. It is closer to 25%. So almost 800. It is irrelevant whether you thought they were serious athletes: they have a huge fist pressed down on the admissions scale — and legacy was but a pinky.

Where are you getting these stats from? Just because a kid is an athlete doesn’t mean he was recruited and given admissions preference.

Apparently, you don't know the hook a recruited athlete has in college admissions regardless of division, and especially for the selective Division 3 colleges like Wesleyan.

We're not merely talking about Johnny or Sally playing a high school sport as an extracurricular activity.

Yes, I do understand that recruited athletes have a huge leg up I college admissions. What I’m challenging is your assertion that 800 Wes students are RECRUITED athletes. I seriously doubt that. You haven’t provided any evidence for that.

It’s possible that 800 of the students might say they play a sport, but that doesn’t mean that they were all recruited in the admissions sense.

NP: is recruited athlete the same as varsity athletes? According to this link 25% of the students at Wesleyan are varsity athletes.

https://www.koppelmangroup.com/blog/2023/4/1/college-athletic-recruiting-for-wesleyan

If you read this article, it states that typical requirements aren’t lowered at Wesleyan if you apply as an athlete and so not sure athletes are given any special favors as such.

As a parent of a student-athlete who was called the "top recruit" by coaches at two other NESCAC schools, but didn't pass the pre-read at either, I can attest to that. Athletes are no less, in any way, academically qualified. They have to meet the admissions requirements. The only benefit they get is knowing before the regular cycle that they will get in. There is no academic "bump."

That’s not going to stop DCUM from crying that athletic recruiting is wrong, unfair, and racist. 🙄

(Haters, sorry your young nerd sucked at sports.)

Most applicants are qualified. The vast majority of applicants do not get in. Athletes get in, other qualified kids don’t. This is called an admissions preference. Duh.

By definition everyone who got in had some kind of preference over everyone who did not get in. Why are you obsessed with the athletes when the vast majority of kids who are not athletes also shut out many other qualified applicants?

There is nothing "wrong" or "unfair" about schools recruiting athletes. Sorry it makes you all mad though.

[Anonymous]

Fwiw I found these two opinion articles on legacy admissions interesting:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-case-for-legacy-admissions-harvard-institutional-trust-loyalty-alumni-42991af3

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/07/opinion/alumni-affirmative-action-legacy-admissions.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More schools will be doing this because it is a relatively cosmetic change and good PR; it barely moves the needle. Athletes have a far greater impact: what about admission preferences for Wesleyan’s 900 or so athletes, the vast majority of whom are white? Reserve plaudits until Wesleyan, Amherst and their brethren do something about the real issue. This is a mere distraction from more fundamental change, so don’t fall for it.

What the heck? Where are you getting 900 recruited athletes at Wes? That’s nearly a third of the student body. I went to Wes and hardly knew any serious athletes. I serious doubt thirty percent of the student body is recruited athletes with admissions preference.

I do agree with doing away with athletic recruitment however.

You are right. It is closer to 25%. So almost 800. It is irrelevant whether you thought they were serious athletes: they have a huge fist pressed down on the admissions scale — and legacy was but a pinky.

Where are you getting these stats from? Just because a kid is an athlete doesn’t mean he was recruited and given admissions preference.

Apparently, you don't know the hook a recruited athlete has in college admissions regardless of division, and especially for the selective Division 3 colleges like Wesleyan.

We're not merely talking about Johnny or Sally playing a high school sport as an extracurricular activity.

Yes, I do understand that recruited athletes have a huge leg up I college admissions. What I’m challenging is your assertion that 800 Wes students are RECRUITED athletes. I seriously doubt that. You haven’t provided any evidence for that.

It’s possible that 800 of the students might say they play a sport, but that doesn’t mean that they were all recruited in the admissions sense.

NP: is recruited athlete the same as varsity athletes? According to this link 25% of the students at Wesleyan are varsity athletes.

https://www.koppelmangroup.com/blog/2023/4/1/college-athletic-recruiting-for-wesleyan

If you read this article, it states that typical requirements aren’t lowered at Wesleyan if you apply as an athlete and so not sure athletes are given any special favors as such.

As a parent of a student-athlete who was called the "top recruit" by coaches at two other NESCAC schools, but didn't pass the pre-read at either, I can attest to that. Athletes are no less, in any way, academically qualified. They have to meet the admissions requirements. The only benefit they get is knowing before the regular cycle that they will get in. There is no academic "bump."

That’s not going to stop DCUM from crying that athletic recruiting is wrong, unfair, and racist. 🙄

(Haters, sorry your young nerd sucked at sports.)

Most applicants are qualified. The vast majority of applicants do not get in. Athletes get in, other qualified kids don’t. This is called an admissions preference. Duh.

By definition everyone who got in had some kind of preference over everyone who did not get in. Why are you obsessed with the athletes when the vast majority of kids who are not athletes also shut out many other qualified applicants?

There is nothing "wrong" or "unfair" about schools recruiting athletes. Sorry it makes you all mad though.

I’m not the poster you’re responding to but please read the comments so you can understand why some people do believe it’s wrong, unfair, and significant. I don’t believe you’re being sincere, but if you are, it’s been spelled out in these comments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s the athletics that kills me. Elite NESCAC schools 30-40% Seriously??

I mean, these are schools very few people care about anymore, let alone athletics within those schools that even fewer people care about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t colleges fighting back against the recent SCOTUS decision saying they are entitled to put together any kind of diverse class they want? They don’t just want high stats, they want a kid who is going to contribute in some way to a diverse community? Well, athletics is one way, music/theater another etc.

Tons of music/theater scholarships available?

[Anonymous]

ALL preferences need to go. Legacies. Dumb kids of professors. Dumb white kids with their athletic preference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ALL preferences need to go. Legacies. Dumb kids of professors. Dumb white kids with their athletic preference.

But in all honesty how are these schools supposed to whittle down the admits from the large numbers that apply? Fact is that the college process, even grades and test scores, is very subjective. So much of it depends on who is reviewing your application, when are they looking at your application, have they seen other students with a similar profile in that same day? Nothing in the college process is objective, so really why bother exclude legacies, athletes, and affirmative action as criteria? Removing them won't make the process objective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ALL preferences need to go. Legacies. Dumb kids of professors. Dumb white kids with their athletic preference.

But in all honesty how are these schools supposed to whittle down the admits from the large numbers that apply? Fact is that the college process, even grades and test scores, is very subjective. So much of it depends on who is reviewing your application, when are they looking at your application, have they seen other students with a similar profile in that same day? Nothing in the college process is objective, so really why bother exclude legacies, athletes, and affirmative action as criteria? Removing them won't make the process objective.

Nothing is perfect. But removing preferences for legacies, professors’ kids, and at least some athletes who game the system would be a start.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacy preference is NOT Unconstitutional!! What part of this is not clear to posters here. There is no mention of Legacy in Title VI or VII.
We didn't fight a civil war for legacy!!!
This "If, I can't have my special unconstitutional preference, then you can't have any yourself, even if it is constitutional" is just rage induced vindictiveness and will be thrown out of court.

So leechers want other folks to donate to the schools to build the endowment and will gladly use that endowment to get financial aid from the schools for their kids, but don't want the donors to GET ANY BENEFIT for their donations for their kids, even though many legacies have excellent grades and scores?

Do they think that tuition alone is enough to run these schools?

I have donated regularly to my alma mater and my kids are in the sweet spot for admissions in the unhooked category there based on their academics.

I fully expect the school to give my kids a tip. If they instead publicly announce that they will no longer support legacy admissions, I will be damned if I contribute a single additional dollar to them. They can look elsewhere to build up their endowment and support their expensive administrative bloat.

And if that pisses you off, you're welcome. C'est la vie

ie, as a wealthy person, I should be able to bribe my kid's way into the school.

[Have you noticed that schools are not charitable enterprises, but businesses? As such, it should not surprise you that you should be able to buy your kid a spot.]

Legacy is just affirmative action for the rich, and you are using poor kids as an excuse to hoard opportunity.

[Legacy is very different from rich. Most legacy students are nowhere near rich enough for schools to give them an admissions edge. And the donors who are rich are not "hoarding" opportunity, they are creating opportunity. Each rich kid who is admitted enables much more than one poor kid to attend the school.]

It doesn't have to cost so much to run a school. Have you looked at the rise in college costs in relation to wages? It's ridiculous. Some of these schools have very large endowments, and they spend the money on non academic related expenses. Maybe if they lowered the tuition then more MC kids could afford to go there without needing aid (which you seem to think you're paying for) or loans.

[If you are waiting for a world where schools become affordable because they dramatically cut their costs... don't hold your breath.]

Please.. The vast majority of legacies are wealthy. And it is basically bribing the school.

And yes, they can reduce costs, and they should if they are getting any federal money. If they want to be a completely private business, fine. Don't accept ANY federal money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ALL preferences need to go. Legacies. Dumb kids of professors. Dumb white kids with their athletic preference.

But in all honesty how are these schools supposed to whittle down the admits from the large numbers that apply? Fact is that the college process, even grades and test scores, is very subjective. So much of it depends on who is reviewing your application, when are they looking at your application, have they seen other students with a similar profile in that same day? Nothing in the college process is objective, so really why bother exclude legacies, athletes, and affirmative action as criteria? Removing them won't make the process objective.

Nothing is perfect. But removing preferences for legacies, professors’ kids, and at least some athletes who game the system would be a start.

Inconsequential imo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ALL preferences need to go. Legacies. Dumb kids of professors. Dumb white kids with their athletic preference.

But in all honesty how are these schools supposed to whittle down the admits from the large numbers that apply? Fact is that the college process, even grades and test scores, is very subjective. So much of it depends on who is reviewing your application, when are they looking at your application, have they seen other students with a similar profile in that same day? Nothing in the college process is objective, so really why bother exclude legacies, athletes, and affirmative action as criteria? Removing them won't make the process objective.

Nothing is perfect. But removing preferences for legacies, professors’ kids, and at least some athletes who game the system would be a start.

Inconsequential imo.

Even at the SLACs where 36% of the student body is comprised of athletes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ALL preferences need to go. Legacies. Dumb kids of professors. Dumb white kids with their athletic preference.

But in all honesty how are these schools supposed to whittle down the admits from the large numbers that apply? Fact is that the college process, even grades and test scores, is very subjective. So much of it depends on who is reviewing your application, when are they looking at your application, have they seen other students with a similar profile in that same day? Nothing in the college process is objective, so really why bother exclude legacies, athletes, and affirmative action as criteria? Removing them won't make the process objective.

At the elite colleges the legacies, professors' kids or athletes aren't dumb. Far from it. If anything, they significantly outscore blacks and hispanics. Asians, of course, still outscore them.

[Anonymous]

One thing I've noticed about recruited athletes when I'm on Wesleyan's campus is that they really add to diversity. Not just racial diversity. Also socioeconomic diversity. If you live in a wealthy suburb of DC or send your kids to privat school in DC, recruitment of athletes can look like another way to make rich families get richer. But if you are on Wesleyan's campus, you'll encounter a lot of athletes of all ethnicities from non-elite high schools and communities. The athletes also add to the political diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One thing I've noticed about recruited athletes when I'm on Wesleyan's campus is that they really add to diversity. Not just racial diversity. Also socioeconomic diversity. If you live in a wealthy suburb of DC or send your kids to privat school in DC, recruitment of athletes can look like another way to make rich families get richer. But if you are on Wesleyan's campus, you'll encounter a lot of athletes of all ethnicities from non-elite high schools and communities. The athletes also add to the political diversity.

And gender balance. Many non-STEM heavy schools have a gender imbalance problem and athletics is viewed as one way to help make the school attractive, both to the male students they recruit for the male teams, but also to non-participant male students who want to be at a school that has a robust athletics program. Varsity athletics is considered a good recruitment tool for enrollment generally.

https://universitybusiness.com/bringing-male-students-back-to-college/

https://theathletic.com/1164094/2019/08/30/traditional-thrill-football-is-a-small-college-enrollment-elixir-despite-attendance-participation-declines/

One example is Lewis & Clark college in Portland, which had a student population that was 62% female and 38% male in Fall 2021. One of the things they did to help address that was to start a men's soccer team in Fall 2022. This didn't come at the expense of women's athletics though, as they also started a women's lacrosse team.