Would You Support A Legacy Lottery?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No.

If colleges want to give admission to families that donate buildings, improve infastructure, renovate dorms, fund full rides for poor kids, or donate things like specialized expensive science equipment, bravo to them.

It is a small sacrifice with far more benefits to the student body as a whole, to give a spot to the kids of major donors, than any possible tiny negative of the perception from those rejected from the university that their kid's potential spot was "taken" by the offspring of a rich donor.

Dollar to dollar, the lifetime benefits to the university and the tens to hundreds of thousands of other kids at the university, of giving maybe1 to 3 spots over a 4 to 10 year window (depending on family size) every generation to the kids of big donors, is incredibly lopsided, with almost all of the benefits going to students who are not the donor's kids.

Anyone who is pushing for the elimination of legacy/donor preference in admissions is, at best, a petty and shortsighted fool.

Reasonable logic. But then why limit to alumni? Why not just give preference to anyone who donates? Or give preference to anyone who pledges extra money.
"Dear Mr. X: Although you are qualified, we cannot offer you admission. Unless you want to pay us $190,000 instead of $90,000. Then we'll take you."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No.

If colleges want to give admission to families that donate buildings, improve infastructure, renovate dorms, fund full rides for poor kids, or donate things like specialized expensive science equipment, bravo to them.

It is a small sacrifice with far more benefits to the student body as a whole, to give a spot to the kids of major donors, than any possible tiny negative of the perception from those rejected from the university that their kid's potential spot was "taken" by the offspring of a rich donor.

Dollar to dollar, the lifetime benefits to the university and the tens to hundreds of thousands of other kids at the university, of giving maybe1 to 3 spots over a 4 to 10 year window (depending on family size) every generation to the kids of big donors, is incredibly lopsided, with almost all of the benefits going to students who are not the donor's kids.

Anyone who is pushing for the elimination of legacy/donor preference in admissions is, at best, a petty and shortsighted fool.

Reasonable logic. But then why limit to alumni? Why not just give preference to anyone who donates? Or give preference to anyone who pledges extra money.
"Dear Mr. X: Although you are qualified, we cannot offer you admission. Unless you want to pay us $190,000 instead of $90,000. Then we'll take you."

Buildings and science equipment cost many times over a few hundred thousand dollars.

If the Walmart family, a tech entrepreneur or some other rich tycoon 1% family wants to build a new football stadium at XYZ flagship university, who cares if their dumbest offspring get a fast tracked admission to the school, ending up one special case in a sea of 10,000 freshmen students.

Letting the legacy kids of big donors attend a university is an investment in the school that yields a benefit to all the other students that is many times more than the tuition itself, and a way better return than any other special admittance class that universities offer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. No legacy preference period.

+1.

It is wild that we have a heritable preference for elite college admissions. This would cause riots in other countries.

[Anonymous]

The Rothschild kid (Alice), who was not a legacy, was denied entry to columbia university.

NYU (lol) took her happily.

https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-news/alice-de-rothschild-epstein-files-columbia-university-nyu-new-questions-article-153664654

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No.

If colleges want to give admission to families that donate buildings, improve infastructure, renovate dorms, fund full rides for poor kids, or donate things like specialized expensive science equipment, bravo to them.

It is a small sacrifice with far more benefits to the student body as a whole, to give a spot to the kids of major donors, than any possible tiny negative of the perception from those rejected from the university that their kid's potential spot was "taken" by the offspring of a rich donor.

Dollar to dollar, the lifetime benefits to the university and the tens to hundreds of thousands of other kids at the university, of giving maybe1 to 3 spots over a 4 to 10 year window (depending on family size) every generation to the kids of big donors, is incredibly lopsided, with almost all of the benefits going to students who are not the donor's kids.

Anyone who is pushing for the elimination of legacy/donor preference in admissions is, at best, a petty and shortsighted fool.

Reasonable logic. But then why limit to alumni? Why not just give preference to anyone who donates? Or give preference to anyone who pledges extra money.
"Dear Mr. X: Although you are qualified, we cannot offer you admission. Unless you want to pay us $190,000 instead of $90,000. Then we'll take you."

Buildings and science equipment cost many times over a few hundred thousand dollars.

If the Walmart family, a tech entrepreneur or some other rich tycoon 1% family wants to build a new football stadium at XYZ flagship university, who cares if their dumbest offspring get a fast tracked admission to the school, ending up one special case in a sea of 10,000 freshmen students.

Letting the legacy kids of big donors attend a university is an investment in the school that yields a benefit to all the other students that is many times more than the tuition itself, and a way better return than any other special admittance class that universities offer.

These are two separate issues: 1) Preferences for big donors (millions) and 2) Preferences for legacy who aren't big donors.

If I was running a college, I'd be annoyed that #1 was necessary, but I'd do it. I see no reason to do #2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No.

If colleges want to give admission to families that donate buildings, improve infastructure, renovate dorms, fund full rides for poor kids, or donate things like specialized expensive science equipment, bravo to them.

It is a small sacrifice with far more benefits to the student body as a whole, to give a spot to the kids of major donors, than any possible tiny negative of the perception from those rejected from the university that their kid's potential spot was "taken" by the offspring of a rich donor.

Dollar to dollar, the lifetime benefits to the university and the tens to hundreds of thousands of other kids at the university, of giving maybe1 to 3 spots over a 4 to 10 year window (depending on family size) every generation to the kids of big donors, is incredibly lopsided, with almost all of the benefits going to students who are not the donor's kids.

Anyone who is pushing for the elimination of legacy/donor preference in admissions is, at best, a petty and shortsighted fool.

Reasonable logic. But then why limit to alumni? Why not just give preference to anyone who donates? Or give preference to anyone who pledges extra money.
"Dear Mr. X: Although you are qualified, we cannot offer you admission. Unless you want to pay us $190,000 instead of $90,000. Then we'll take you."

Buildings and science equipment cost many times over a few hundred thousand dollars.

If the Walmart family, a tech entrepreneur or some other rich tycoon 1% family wants to build a new football stadium at XYZ flagship university, who cares if their dumbest offspring get a fast tracked admission to the school, ending up one special case in a sea of 10,000 freshmen students.

Letting the legacy kids of big donors attend a university is an investment in the school that yields a benefit to all the other students that is many times more than the tuition itself, and a way better return than any other special admittance class that universities offer.

These are two separate issues: 1) Preferences for big donors (millions) and 2) Preferences for legacy who aren't big donors.

If I was running a college, I'd be annoyed that #1 was necessary, but I'd do it. I see no reason to do #2.

Until your progeny was a legacy. Then you would support it.

Maybe all the $1000 to $5000 recurring donations from everyday alumni are actually more important than the very very rare $100mm donation?

Why do you get to decide how they run their institution? Because your STEM robot got denied from Stanford?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. No legacy preference period.

+1.

It is wild that we have a heritable preference for elite college admissions. This would cause riots in other countries.

Interestingly, the other countries lie cheat and steal to not have to suffer the indignity of actually attending the schools in the countries where they live. "I desperately want to be in your system."

"Your system is terrible"

You can choose one or the other, but not both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. No legacy preference period.

+1.

It is wild that we have a heritable preference for elite college admissions. This would cause riots in other countries.

Most Elite schools in the US are private. They should be able to admit whomever they please. Do what you want with Public schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. No legacy preference period.

+1.

It is wild that we have a heritable preference for elite college admissions. This would cause riots in other countries.

Most Elite schools in the US are private. They should be able to admit whomever they please. Do what you want with Public schools.

Hint, they don't want to make US schools better. They just don't like the way the legacies look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. No legacy preference period.

+1.

It is wild that we have a heritable preference for elite college admissions. This would cause riots in other countries.

Interestingly, the other countries lie cheat and steal to not have to suffer the indignity of actually attending the schools in the countries where they live. "I desperately want to be in your system."

"Your system is terrible"

You can choose one or the other, but not both.

You sound dim. There are plenty of universities around the world that are highly selective, world class and which do not admit students based on whether their parents attended.

Not sure why OP is talking about a legacy lottery. It's far more efficient/profitable to auction off legacy slots to the highest bidder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. No legacy preference period.

+1.

It is wild that we have a heritable preference for elite college admissions. This would cause riots in other countries.

Interestingly, the other countries lie cheat and steal to not have to suffer the indignity of actually attending the schools in the countries where they live. "I desperately want to be in your system."

"Your system is terrible"

You can choose one or the other, but not both.

You sound dim. There are plenty of universities around the world that are highly selective, world class and which do not admit students based on whether their parents attended.

Not sure why OP is talking about a legacy lottery. It's far more efficient/profitable to auction off legacy slots to the highest bidder.

So, go attend the other schools in the other countries (who produce no novel ideas, products, or anything else). Our system was working fine for centuries.

[Anonymous]

UNC Chapel Hill, now does Legacy for only out of state students. And now they are mainly wanting DOUBLE LEGACY OOS.

Think of that approach it eliminates everyone except the most loyal of loyal whose both parents went there.

[Anonymous]

My college I graduated way back in 1985 went full tilt D&I and international students after I graduated. I was offered chance to speak at a event there back in 2008 and was shocked at the 300 person event of students there was many at most 1-2 white people. And I say 50 percent of students English was a second language. It was a white Catholic College when I went there. It was tons of Muslims and Hindus and Chinese as well as international students Africa all over.

I went to campus one more time around 2018 and same thing. I recently went to an Alumni Event first time ever. It was 99 percent White or Back. But nearly all white Catholic. No one in room under 55. Turns out none of those international or D&I students give back they just want degree and move on.

They still have a strong donor base but will soon disapear. They have a very good basketball team. Wont say school but Chris Mullen type players are no longer on team. And the blonde cheerleaders of 1985 are now overweight international students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My college I graduated way back in 1985 went full tilt D&I and international students after I graduated. I was offered chance to speak at a event there back in 2008 and was shocked at the 300 person event of students there was many at most 1-2 white people. And I say 50 percent of students English was a second language. It was a white Catholic College when I went there. It was tons of Muslims and Hindus and Chinese as well as international students Africa all over.

I went to campus one more time around 2018 and same thing. I recently went to an Alumni Event first time ever. It was 99 percent White or Back. But nearly all white Catholic. No one in room under 55. Turns out none of those international or D&I students give back they just want degree and move on.

They still have a strong donor base but will soon disapear. They have a very good basketball team. Wont say school but Chris Mullen type players are no longer on team. And the blonde cheerleaders of 1985 are now overweight international students.

Correct. The legacy, and to a lesser degree Athlete, admissions discussion is about the way the legacies look. Once the complexion of the student body changes, legacy admissions will come back with a vengeance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. No legacy preference period.

+1.

It is wild that we have a heritable preference for elite college admissions. This would cause riots in other countries.

Interestingly, the other countries lie cheat and steal to not have to suffer the indignity of actually attending the schools in the countries where they live. "I desperately want to be in your system."

"Your system is terrible"

You can choose one or the other, but not both.

You sound dim. There are plenty of universities around the world that are highly selective, world class and which do not admit students based on whether their parents attended.

Not sure why OP is talking about a legacy lottery. It's far more efficient/profitable to auction off legacy slots to the highest bidder.

So, go attend the other schools in the other countries (who produce no novel ideas, products, or anything else). Our system was working fine for centuries.

If you think that schools in other countries produce "no novel ideas, products or anything else" whomever educated you should retract your degree.