Conservatives are now targeting legacy admission preference

[Anonymous]

All you pure merit zealots. Do you seriously think merit is totally objective and gives every kid the appropriately weighted admissions chance?
Dream on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s almost like they actually believe that merit matters. The gall.

+1. lol! That’s what this is about - a return to
Merit, which should be applauded

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All you pure merit zealots. Do you seriously think merit is totally objective and gives every kid the appropriately weighted admissions chance?
Dream on.

Yes that’s what Oxford uses and why my kid is there. They don’t engage in social engineering

[Anonymous]

I think he doesn't care, but likes being an important person.

He's right about this.

ALL of this pales in comparison to athletic preferences though

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All you pure merit zealots. Do you seriously think merit is totally objective and gives every kid the appropriately weighted admissions chance?
Dream on.

There's no such thing as perfect world.
However, we still need to progress and there are obvious things we can improve upon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think he doesn't care, but likes being an important person.

He's right about this.

ALL of this pales in comparison to athletic preferences though

I'm a conservative who fights racial preferences in schools and the workplaces professionally (Blum and I know each other), but I don't agree with this. It's a separate track for a separate initiative undertaken by schools (academics vs athletic programs). I don't have a problem with schools running top flight athletic programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They don’t like the educated intellectual elites, so they are trying to break down the whole system of higher education. This is just part of that.

Whatever the reason, you have to agree that legacy has to go. Get rid of ED next. Have a majority, democratic and republican (not politicians, but certainly voters) on both fronts.

Oh it’s true, getting rid of legacy in and of itself doesn’t bother me. The wholesale attack on institutions of higher education, including Dept of Education, not just schools themselves, bothers me. I was just answering OP’s question about what their motives might be.

I worked as a high level appointee to ED and can explain in detail why ED needs to go and why it’s programs need to be returned to the states -and I’m not MAGA - it was a bad idea when Carter started it and still is. But most people in the board just want to repeat what soundbites they’ve ingested without thinking. But happy to explain is someone actually wants to learn

[Anonymous]

Wait for what's coming....a college's racial breakdown/percentage should mimic the state's racial percentage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They don’t like the educated intellectual elites, so they are trying to break down the whole system of higher education. This is just part of that.

Whatever the reason, you have to agree that legacy has to go. Get rid of ED next. Have a majority, democratic and republican (not politicians, but certainly voters) on both fronts.

If you are getting rid of ED, then schools also need to get rid of preferences for athletes and their alternative admissions path

Athletes are getting in based on merit. It may not be the “merit” that a lot of people here believe that it should be prioritized, but there is achievement required there that isn’t solely based on a characteristic from birth that cannot ever be changed. (If you want to argue that athletics are disproportionately going to favor wealthier families, you can also argue that for every single part of the entire American education system from disparities between public school systems to test scores to other non-athletic extracurricular activities.)

“Merit” at least for most people means a combo of GPA, test scores, and extracurricular activities (not just GPA and test scores alone) and athletics will fit into that last category.

[Anonymous]

Oxford is not pure scores or pure objective merit. Dream on. Nice your kid got in. Are they personable?
https://www.crimsoneducation.org/us/blog/how-to-get-into-oxford

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They don’t like the educated intellectual elites, so they are trying to break down the whole system of higher education. This is just part of that.

Whatever the reason, you have to agree that legacy has to go. Get rid of ED next. Have a majority, democratic and republican (not politicians, but certainly voters) on both fronts.

If you are getting rid of ED, then schools also need to get rid of preferences for athletes and their alternative admissions path

Athletes are getting in based on merit. It may not be the “merit” that a lot of people here believe that it should be prioritized, but there is achievement required there that isn’t solely based on a characteristic from birth that cannot ever be changed. (If you want to argue that athletics are disproportionately going to favor wealthier families, you can also argue that for every single part of the entire American education system from disparities between public school systems to test scores to other non-athletic extracurricular activities.)

“Merit” at least for most people means a combo of GPA, test scores, and extracurricular activities (not just GPA and test scores alone) and athletics will fit into that last category.

For most people merit probably means GPA and test scores alone. That's how most of the countries of the world do it. Universities are, after all, supposedly academic institutions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a little surprised that Edward Blum is now going after legacy preference. What is he up to? Doesn't legacy preference mostly benefit whites?

“Legacy applicants have done nothing meritorious to earn this advantage,” wrote Edward Blum, joined by economist Peter Arcidiacono and policy analyst Richard Kahlenberg

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/legacy-college-admissions-preferences-backlash-772c88be?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqelU63wJGabsIFG9rGpGkpH_vcIyXP2BkpJL5ibvFYyVRgAgEymUCcG&gaa_ts=68ff74fb&gaa_sig=e-oJQnF9yQIwpJCQOYUbPw12oYuxaKE-9sEslu4tQFgS-_H-rhbMRd9dgsa7wx88BW2n_kOxOCDLMjCbcFRv-g%3D%3D

Here's an alternative hypothesis. Every major admissions policy change has basically been to either: 1) gatekeep more qualified Asians from taking white seats; or 2) displace Asian seats with lower stats DEI applicants. Getting rid of legacy preference is another way to do this because, who stands to have the most disproportionate benefit from future legacy admissions? The 2nd gen Asian kids whose parents were lucky enough to not be quota'ed from earlier cycles of racist admissions policies and who now have the backing from the SFA v. Harvard decision. I'm guessing that a whole population of these ms/hs kids are starting to peak from all those Asian parents who went to Ivy+ colleges in the '90s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a little surprised that Edward Blum is now going after legacy preference. What is he up to? Doesn't legacy preference mostly benefit whites?

“Legacy applicants have done nothing meritorious to earn this advantage,” wrote Edward Blum, joined by economist Peter Arcidiacono and policy analyst Richard Kahlenberg

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/legacy-college-admissions-preferences-backlash-772c88be?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqelU63wJGabsIFG9rGpGkpH_vcIyXP2BkpJL5ibvFYyVRgAgEymUCcG&gaa_ts=68ff74fb&gaa_sig=e-oJQnF9yQIwpJCQOYUbPw12oYuxaKE-9sEslu4tQFgS-_H-rhbMRd9dgsa7wx88BW2n_kOxOCDLMjCbcFRv-g%3D%3D

Here's an alternative hypothesis. Every major admissions policy change has basically been to either: 1) gatekeep more qualified Asians from taking white seats; or 2) displace Asian seats with lower stats DEI applicants. Getting rid of legacy preference is another way to do this because, who stands to have the most disproportionate benefit from future legacy admissions? The 2nd gen Asian kids whose parents were lucky enough to not be quota'ed from earlier cycles of racist admissions policies and who now have the backing from the SFA v. Harvard decision. I'm guessing that a whole population of these ms/hs kids are starting to peak from all those Asian parents who went to Ivy+ colleges in the '90s.

Just when all people of color can start taking advantage of legacy preferences for their 2nd gen college kids…..

[Anonymous]

Obscure conservative advocates something libs have long believed in, and instead of being happy, libs are all “what is he up to, what could be his nefarious agenda here?” 😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They don’t like the educated intellectual elites, so they are trying to break down the whole system of higher education. This is just part of that.

Whatever the reason, you have to agree that legacy has to go. Get rid of ED next. Have a majority, democratic and republican (not politicians, but certainly voters) on both fronts.

If you are getting rid of ED, then schools also need to get rid of preferences for athletes and their alternative admissions path

Athletes are getting in based on merit. It may not be the “merit” that a lot of people here believe that it should be prioritized, but there is achievement required there that isn’t solely based on a characteristic from birth that cannot ever be changed. (If you want to argue that athletics are disproportionately going to favor wealthier families, you can also argue that for every single part of the entire American education system from disparities between public school systems to test scores to other non-athletic extracurricular activities.)

“Merit” at least for most people means a combo of GPA, test scores, and extracurricular activities (not just GPA and test scores alone) and athletics will fit into that last category.

For most people merit probably means GPA and test scores alone. That's how most of the countries of the world do it. Universities are, after all, supposedly academic institutions.

This isn't India or China. It won't be by stats. They want more white males. That's what this is about.