Elite Colleges’ Quiet Fight to Favor Alumni Children

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you that are okay with legacy preference, are you okay with affirmative action? Same thing but in reverse.

I am ok with both.

+2. DC1 is the 3rd generation at Brown, where DH's grandmother established a scholarship. I can see why the school would want us versus someone who sent 25 copy/paste applications to whatever US News ranked at the top that year.

How special for your DC1. I guess she didn’t need to send 25 applications like the rest of the unwashed masses because she knew she had an advantage as a legacy.

Do you think only rich heiress legacies are capable of tailoring an essay to explain why Brown? Brown has more than its fair share of mediocre wealthy kids and was the last Ivy to become need blind.

You're not explaining why your child wants Brown or other elite college. She seems desperate to join this "mediocre wealthy kids" club, despite the fact that these schools are terrible and admit lowlife idiots like us who can't stand strivers and desperate social climbers. She would be better off at a college without legacy consideration, where her 10 point SAT increase will lead to a life of greatness.

Who do you think you’re talking to? I have two Ivy League degrees (two colleges ranked far higher than Brown and accepted without any legacy privileges unlike your daughter) and kids who are far too young to think about college admissions. But if you want to demean everyone who doesn’t have your daughter’s legacy privileges and enough wealth to endow a scholarship at Brown as low life strivers, you’re just making the case for why some legacy applicants don’t deserve to be there. *** By the way, Brown is less transparent than Harvard and Yale about the admissions stats of legacy students but if it’s comparable to those two Ivies, the legacy bonus provided to your daughter was far more than 10 points on the SATs.

Apparently with someone without a degree and with elementary school kids, who is having a mental crisis at 1 AM about college admissions. Get a Xanax, go to bed, and in 10 years make them apply to whatever top 25 will be at that time. Going back to my opinion about why rankings are so important for strivers.

They live in CA, stupid. It's not past midnight there.

And this is why Brayden, Jayden, and Logan will end up at Chico, where they belong.

You're really not making the pro-legacy privilege side look smarter. You know on this newfangled Internet, people can post from many different time zones. They may even be in another country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man, the proponents of legacy admissions on this thread are really not looking good.

Yup. They can’t make an argument or use data, so they go onto being racist and complaining about URMs. And their kids probably inherited some of these traits.

NP- Both sides in this discussion aren't really looking good. They are equally jabbing the other and not providing much useful information so maybe both sides need to have a seat, look in the mirror and quit the virtue signaling.

Nah, don’t “both sides” this. The legacy supporters look much, much worse, and also dumber.

Yeah, I'll both sides this, you're a prime example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man, the proponents of legacy admissions on this thread are really not looking good.

Yup. They can’t make an argument or use data, so they go onto being racist and complaining about URMs. And their kids probably inherited some of these traits.

I don't have a problem with the URM. I support priority admission for URM, athlete, and legacy, as well as children of exceptional abilities, as these kids are all special. I don't understand why the dime-a-dozen feels entitled to a spot.

This, yes! The bolded exemplifies the exact people who are complaining about legacy.

You and the PP should be disqualified on the basis of stupidity alone. I can’t believe people with working brain cells would write the nonsense above.

They're just making the case that people who promote legacy admission privileges aren't very bright. Why would they be? If their kids could compete and get in fairly they wouldn't be clamoring to protect their privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people lament legacy advantages, but simultaneously want them for their own kids. Including the politicians.

Fully support it. Private colleges should be able to pick who they want for whatever reasons they want.

+1. Some schools want to be family traditions. Personally, I was crafting a class I would much rather have a kid who wants to be at my school than another kid who applied based on ranking and doesn't really care if they're at much school or another similar school.

I'd prefer to craft a class with students that earned a place at the school and want to attend rather than students who slipped in through mommy or daddy's name and attend that school only because their mommy or daddy wants them to attend that school.

Legacy is never exclusively considered. Look on the common data set. It's often "somewhat considered" after GPA, course rigor, extracurriculars, recommendations, demonstrated interest etc.

With thousands of strong applicants, legacy status can definitely tip many kids over the edge over other equally strong (or even stronger) applicants. A 2020 Duke University analysis of legacies and athletes at Harvard found that 75 percent of white legacies and athletes would not have gotten in without legacy preference.
http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did a degree at an Oxbridge school, and my classmates there thought my stories about my legacy undergrad roommate at my Ivy were funny. She went to an elite boarding school, and had a very rich family but had about a 2.7 GPA which is very difficult to do at an Ivy where most people get a 3.0 without trying just because of the ways grading curves are structured. My roommate was not the sharpest tool in the shed, but she was a legacy and she got in. These Oxbridge students who wore gowns and coattails regularly and bowed to the Queen and were part of a 1000 year old college thought it was ridiculously backwards that an American student might get into college with a big boost because their parents had attended the same college before them.

Sure, remember last year when teachers could just assess A levels and boarding school students where all qualified to attend schools they weren't remotely qualified to attend?

sh** happened during CoViD. It wasn’t perfect but it was a once in a century pandemic. What’s America’s excuse for giving people a leg up based on where their parents went to school. My spouse and I have 4 Ivy degrees between us (although I guess the graduate ones don’t count for legacy status for our kids) so we have a lot to lose if legacy preferences go away but I can’t defend my kids having a probability of getting admitted at 5x the rate of a comparable student in the applicant pool. It’s really unmeritocratic

But why does a kid who happened to have been born with a better capacity for doing well in high school than my learning disabled kid have a much better chance of getting in? He isn't a better person. He didn't work harder. He probably won't contribute more to making this world a better place. He was just lucky enough not to be born with a learning disability. Why does he have a better shot at a top school than my kid? Why is that fair?

colleges have no way of observing how hard a kid works to get a grade-they only see the grade. I also don’t know how you think colleges can assess how applicants will or won’t contribute more to making the world a better place. Maybe your kid is great but how would you assess that in an unbiased way beyond the essays, extracurricular and teacher references which they ask for already.

You can't. Which puts him a great disadvantage. Why is that fair? Why does a kid who can easily show it have more of a chance to get into a top school? According to this site, colleges have some sort of moral obligation to build their communities according to the highest GPAs, starting from the top and going down. Fortunately, the people who run those colleges aren't as stupid and narrow minded as the people who think this. They know they need diverse communities and a a strong foundation to stay relevant and solvent. People say "it's not fair" that legacies get an advantage. I say that it's not fair that neurotypical kids get an advantage. You see, fairness doesn't come into play and the stupid people on here complaining about it will never get it. They just think their neurotypical, above average, one-dimensional GPA chases is entitled to something more than others.

The debate about legacy is about a kid getting a substantial edge on admissions to an elite college over a kid with equivalent stats and extracurriculars simply because of who where their parents went to college. I don’t know why you’re complaining that college admissions officers can’t magically see that your special needs kid is better than a neurotypical applicant. Start your own thread if you want to complain about that.

Missing the point. There are many unfair aspects of college admissions. Ones that put some kids at advantages over others. Why does legacy get everybody so stirred up and not other things? The neurotypical kid has an edge on admissions over a kid born without that particular advantage simply because of who he was born to, just like the legacy kid. Why is that any more fair? And not, I really don't feel like starting my own thread. This is actually about the whiny babies who weren't smart enough to get into good colleges and are now mad that they can't get their kids into one either.

Pot meet kettle. We've heard enough whining about your special snowflake here that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

NP here. Yes it does. I think I get the point. People believe that entrance to top schools should be only about high grades and high test scores. Some people are born without those things coming easily or naturally to them, whether it's from being raised in an underserved school, poor upbringing, or from learning disabilities. They are prevented from having the same advantage that normal middle class, upper class, and wealthy children have. The poster I believe is trying to say that advantage and disadvantage comes in all forms. Why is everyone attacking this one single advantage, legacy? And not seeing the unfairness in college admissions overall? It favors people who aren't poor, have access to solid educations and parental support, and who don't have learning disabilities. Why go after the kids who get a legacy advantage and not the kids who were just lucky to be born to two smart parents? Where's the difference? These high stats kids in most cases were also born lucky--in most cases to two smart, probably well-off parents, just like the legacy kids.

Oh my God, I understand the legacy proponents now. They don’t think of universities as places of education. They think of them as exclusive country clubs. Hence you have this PP complaining that it’s not fair that smart children could have an advantage over legacy admissions in university admissions.

In this world view, where education is irrelevant, legacy should be more valuable than intelligence and hard work because they just want the ticket to the exclusive social club, and not actual education. Wow. I feel like I just got clarification on a whole world view I didn’t understand before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man, the proponents of legacy admissions on this thread are really not looking good.

Yup. They can’t make an argument or use data, so they go onto being racist and complaining about URMs. And their kids probably inherited some of these traits.

NP- Both sides in this discussion aren't really looking good. They are equally jabbing the other and not providing much useful information so maybe both sides need to have a seat, look in the mirror and quit the virtue signaling.

Nah, don’t “both sides” this. The legacy supporters look much, much worse, and also dumber.

Yeah, I'll both sides this, you're a prime example.

I do see that legacy supporters on this thread seem to be enthusiastically demonstrating that brains are not their thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man, the proponents of legacy admissions on this thread are really not looking good.

Yup. They can’t make an argument or use data, so they go onto being racist and complaining about URMs. And their kids probably inherited some of these traits.

I don't have a problem with the URM. I support priority admission for URM, athlete, and legacy, as well as children of exceptional abilities, as these kids are all special. I don't understand why the dime-a-dozen feels entitled to a spot.

Because those people think a school just wants the best students when most schools want students who will contribute while on campus, become successful after graduation and continue to be part of the community

I believe it's the fear of admitting that their kids are mediocre and also having no understanding of what defines a best student. I interview for my undergrad program and I've been very impressed with the Li Po Chun's kids. These kids are what elite schools are looking for - very smart future leaders with already established networks and wealth. Their parents are also generous donors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man, the proponents of legacy admissions on this thread are really not looking good.

Yup. They can’t make an argument or use data, so they go onto being racist and complaining about URMs. And their kids probably inherited some of these traits.

NP- Both sides in this discussion aren't really looking good. They are equally jabbing the other and not providing much useful information so maybe both sides need to have a seat, look in the mirror and quit the virtue signaling.

Nah, don’t “both sides” this. The legacy supporters look much, much worse, and also dumber.

Yeah, I'll both sides this, you're a prime example.

I do see that legacy supporters on this thread seem to be enthusiastically demonstrating that brains are not their thing.

Absolutely. This is why we encourage your child to apply to JMU or UMD.

[Anonymous]

If I were a legacy or big donor kid, legacy/donor admissions would make me really question my worth. Every other admissions category comes with a personal challenge and merit. Athletes are exceptionally hard workers (I’m not one btw, but do not understand the unhinged DCUM haters). First-gen did not have the family assistance. URM have faced racism. But legacy and donor kids did literally nothing to merit their admissions. It had to mess with their heads. They must know they are only there because of pure luck. Idk. I can’t understand why people want that for their kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you that are okay with legacy preference, are you okay with affirmative action? Same thing but in reverse.

I am ok with both.

+2. DC1 is the 3rd generation at Brown, where DH's grandmother established a scholarship. I can see why the school would want us versus someone who sent 25 copy/paste applications to whatever US News ranked at the top that year.

I'm neutral on legacy admissions, but you are clueless. The whole reason why someone HAS to send 25 copy/paste applications is because they don't have your advantage.

+1 I guess their Ivy league education wasn't enough to give ^PP critical thinking skills. To the ^PP: your post reeks of privilege and stupidity.

And this is why your kids will not get admitted. I'm asking a simple question - why are you applying to an elite college with legacy preference - and you can't even answer that.

Yes, you are a genius and all the many different people posting on this thread won't have their kids admitted. Sure. Yes, you're the epitome of a legacy parent.

You still haven't answered why do you want your child to apply to an elite school with legacy preference when you are against it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did a degree at an Oxbridge school, and my classmates there thought my stories about my legacy undergrad roommate at my Ivy were funny. She went to an elite boarding school, and had a very rich family but had about a 2.7 GPA which is very difficult to do at an Ivy where most people get a 3.0 without trying just because of the ways grading curves are structured. My roommate was not the sharpest tool in the shed, but she was a legacy and she got in. These Oxbridge students who wore gowns and coattails regularly and bowed to the Queen and were part of a 1000 year old college thought it was ridiculously backwards that an American student might get into college with a big boost because their parents had attended the same college before them.

Sure, remember last year when teachers could just assess A levels and boarding school students where all qualified to attend schools they weren't remotely qualified to attend?

sh** happened during CoViD. It wasn’t perfect but it was a once in a century pandemic. What’s America’s excuse for giving people a leg up based on where their parents went to school. My spouse and I have 4 Ivy degrees between us (although I guess the graduate ones don’t count for legacy status for our kids) so we have a lot to lose if legacy preferences go away but I can’t defend my kids having a probability of getting admitted at 5x the rate of a comparable student in the applicant pool. It’s really unmeritocratic

But why does a kid who happened to have been born with a better capacity for doing well in high school than my learning disabled kid have a much better chance of getting in? He isn't a better person. He didn't work harder. He probably won't contribute more to making this world a better place. He was just lucky enough not to be born with a learning disability. Why does he have a better shot at a top school than my kid? Why is that fair?

colleges have no way of observing how hard a kid works to get a grade-they only see the grade. I also don’t know how you think colleges can assess how applicants will or won’t contribute more to making the world a better place. Maybe your kid is great but how would you assess that in an unbiased way beyond the essays, extracurricular and teacher references which they ask for already.

You can't. Which puts him a great disadvantage. Why is that fair? Why does a kid who can easily show it have more of a chance to get into a top school? According to this site, colleges have some sort of moral obligation to build their communities according to the highest GPAs, starting from the top and going down. Fortunately, the people who run those colleges aren't as stupid and narrow minded as the people who think this. They know they need diverse communities and a a strong foundation to stay relevant and solvent. People say "it's not fair" that legacies get an advantage. I say that it's not fair that neurotypical kids get an advantage. You see, fairness doesn't come into play and the stupid people on here complaining about it will never get it. They just think their neurotypical, above average, one-dimensional GPA chases is entitled to something more than others.

The debate about legacy is about a kid getting a substantial edge on admissions to an elite college over a kid with equivalent stats and extracurriculars simply because of who where their parents went to college. I don’t know why you’re complaining that college admissions officers can’t magically see that your special needs kid is better than a neurotypical applicant. Start your own thread if you want to complain about that.

Missing the point. There are many unfair aspects of college admissions. Ones that put some kids at advantages over others. Why does legacy get everybody so stirred up and not other things? The neurotypical kid has an edge on admissions over a kid born without that particular advantage simply because of who he was born to, just like the legacy kid. Why is that any more fair? And not, I really don't feel like starting my own thread. This is actually about the whiny babies who weren't smart enough to get into good colleges and are now mad that they can't get their kids into one either.

Pot meet kettle. We've heard enough whining about your special snowflake here that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

NP here. Yes it does. I think I get the point. People believe that entrance to top schools should be only about high grades and high test scores. Some people are born without those things coming easily or naturally to them, whether it's from being raised in an underserved school, poor upbringing, or from learning disabilities. They are prevented from having the same advantage that normal middle class, upper class, and wealthy children have. The poster I believe is trying to say that advantage and disadvantage comes in all forms. Why is everyone attacking this one single advantage, legacy? And not seeing the unfairness in college admissions overall? It favors people who aren't poor, have access to solid educations and parental support, and who don't have learning disabilities. Why go after the kids who get a legacy advantage and not the kids who were just lucky to be born to two smart parents? Where's the difference? These high stats kids in most cases were also born lucky--in most cases to two smart, probably well-off parents, just like the legacy kids.

Oh my God, I understand the legacy proponents now. They don’t think of universities as places of education. They think of them as exclusive country clubs. Hence you have this PP complaining that it’s not fair that smart children could have an advantage over legacy admissions in university admissions.

In this world view, where education is irrelevant, legacy should be more valuable than intelligence and hard work because they just want the ticket to the exclusive social club, and not actual education. Wow. I feel like I just got clarification on a whole world view I didn’t understand before.

They are both valuable and both necessary in some cases. Don't forget that the vast majority of humanities scholars are currently wealthy legacies. My BFF from college is one of the top early Christianity philosophers - he studied under Elaine Pagels - and he was able to do so because of his trust. Go to the Nature Conservancy and see how many employees are independently wealthy, highly educated people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you that are okay with legacy preference, are you okay with affirmative action? Same thing but in reverse.

I am ok with both.

+2. DC1 is the 3rd generation at Brown, where DH's grandmother established a scholarship. I can see why the school would want us versus someone who sent 25 copy/paste applications to whatever US News ranked at the top that year.

I'm neutral on legacy admissions, but you are clueless. The whole reason why someone HAS to send 25 copy/paste applications is because they don't have your advantage.

+1 I guess their Ivy league education wasn't enough to give ^PP critical thinking skills. To the ^PP: your post reeks of privilege and stupidity.

There's actually a strong student movement at Brown to eliminate legacy privileges and let legacy students compete on an even playing field as other students that has substantial alumni support. I'm guessing Grandbaby Brown isn't a part of that.

https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2021/10/students-call-for-end-to-legacy-admissions

Nell Salzman ’22 supports the campaign as she believes it promotes diversity and “feels weird” about being a legacy herself. She shared that last weekend, when her parents came to visit, they discussed the effort. “We just talked about how strange it feels that this is part of college admissions and how wrong it is,” she said. “People should be judged for other things and looked at holistically instead of based on what their parents did.”

Well yeah. It’s not like legacy applicants are systematically underprivileged and lack opportunities to succeed at the same level as wealthier kids. These are kids who are privileged and then the elite school gives them a big boost.

[Anonymous]

Elites must have elite privileges. Plebes must serve the Elites. That's the circle of life. Stop whining and try to become Elite. You are welcome

[Anonymous]

Looks like a lot of folks have been hitting the sauce early today, so salty. Take a break and drink some water people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you that are okay with legacy preference, are you okay with affirmative action? Same thing but in reverse.

I am ok with both.

+2. DC1 is the 3rd generation at Brown, where DH's grandmother established a scholarship. I can see why the school would want us versus someone who sent 25 copy/paste applications to whatever US News ranked at the top that year.

I'm neutral on legacy admissions, but you are clueless. The whole reason why someone HAS to send 25 copy/paste applications is because they don't have your advantage.

+1 I guess their Ivy league education wasn't enough to give ^PP critical thinking skills. To the ^PP: your post reeks of privilege and stupidity.

And this is why your kids will not get admitted. I'm asking a simple question - why are you applying to an elite college with legacy preference - and you can't even answer that.

Yes, you are a genius and all the many different people posting on this thread won't have their kids admitted. Sure. Yes, you're the epitome of a legacy parent.

You still haven't answered why do you want your child to apply to an elite school with legacy preference when you are against it.

I’m not that PP… but are you truly this slow? Really?

Wow.