Stanford bringing back legacy preference and test required

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stanford is a private institution that rejects 95% of applicants and probably 80% of those are academically equivalent to each other.
They have to use some criteria to prefer some applicants over others. Legacy is one of those and it has merit. Legacy students are more likely to matriculate, parents likely to stay involved, hire and mentor students, come to events. Every college wants involved alumni- its part of what makes these schools great.

Legacy does not have merit.

Neither did affirmative action but back then we all thought private colleges should get to create their entering class any way they wanted.

What changed?

There's no more quid in the quid pro quo. The woke crowd is no longer getting URM preferences to justify the white preferences.

This is how they want to pick students, if it's not for you, then move along and find another school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stanford is a private institution that rejects 95% of applicants and probably 80% of those are academically equivalent to each other.
They have to use some criteria to prefer some applicants over others. Legacy is one of those and it has merit. Legacy students are more likely to matriculate, parents likely to stay involved, hire and mentor students, come to events. Every college wants involved alumni- its part of what makes these schools great.

Legacy does not have merit.

Neither did affirmative action but back then we all thought private colleges should get to create their entering class any way they wanted.

What changed?

There's no more quid in the quid pro quo. The woke crowd is no longer getting URM preferences to justify the white preferences.

This is how they want to pick students, if it's not for you, then move along and find another school.

This would be a sensible argument if affirmative action was still legal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stanford is a private institution that rejects 95% of applicants and probably 80% of those are academically equivalent to each other.
They have to use some criteria to prefer some applicants over others. Legacy is one of those and it has merit. Legacy students are more likely to matriculate, parents likely to stay involved, hire and mentor students, come to events. Every college wants involved alumni- its part of what makes these schools great.

Legacy does not have merit.

Neither did affirmative action but back then we all thought private colleges should get to create their entering class any way they wanted.

What changed?

There's no more quid in the quid pro quo. The woke crowd is no longer getting URM preferences to justify the white preferences.

This is how they want to pick students, if it's not for you, then move along and find another school.

So you agree that institutions should be allowed to do affirmative action? I mean, that is how they want to pick students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stanford is a private institution that rejects 95% of applicants and probably 80% of those are academically equivalent to each other.
They have to use some criteria to prefer some applicants over others.

1)Legacy is one of those and it has merit.
2)Legacy students are more likely to matriculate,
3)parents likely to stay involved,
4)hire and mentor students,
5)come to events. Every college wants involved alumni- its part of what makes these schools great.

1) legacy is the exact opposite of merit. It is choosing someone based off of their spawn point over their credentials.
2) A non issue for an institution with an 82% yield
3) This wouldn't change if they were just parents who happened to be alumni. Getting rid of legacy doesn't bar your kid from attendance; they just have to earn it. They already are wealthier on average, and the common claim of being a potential donor means they have the economic privilege to get into Stanford without rigging the game
4) Source on legacy parents' propensity to hire and mentor students compared to parents of similar economic status?
5) What kind? Alumni come to the college during alumni weekend, and once again, you don't stop becoming an alum if there's no legacy preference.

Some other notes: Stanford has over 38 billion dollars in its pockets. Institutions of much smaller size have gotten rid of legacy. Being wealthy alone already makes you much more likely to get into an elite school. You don't need any more advantages.
-Alum of a top college that doesn't do legacy and continues to donate and who has a child attending my alma mater.

First off there is no evidence that legacy admits don't have the same or higher academic credentials. Assuming that it totally makes sense for Stanford and the rest of the Ivy+ schools to give preference to legacies. There is already a suit challenging legacy practice on the basis that it discriminates on race- if that is the case it will be held to be a violation. I frankly doubt these schools are dumb enough to do that.

The larger point is that the true benefit of attending one these "elite" private institutions is the network that graduates gain access to. Alumni post jobs and internships exclusively for students at their alma maters constantly (my kid is at an Ivy and is not a legacy). They also present seminars, join panels, judge student competitions etc. The FGLI students don't/can't bring that network but they benefit from it. Admitting qualified legacy students is part of what maintains the value of what you are all clamoring to gain access to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stanford is a private institution that rejects 95% of applicants and probably 80% of those are academically equivalent to each other.
They have to use some criteria to prefer some applicants over others.

1)Legacy is one of those and it has merit.
2)Legacy students are more likely to matriculate,
3)parents likely to stay involved,
4)hire and mentor students,
5)come to events. Every college wants involved alumni- its part of what makes these schools great.

1) legacy is the exact opposite of merit. It is choosing someone based off of their spawn point over their credentials.
2) A non issue for an institution with an 82% yield
3) This wouldn't change if they were just parents who happened to be alumni. Getting rid of legacy doesn't bar your kid from attendance; they just have to earn it. They already are wealthier on average, and the common claim of being a potential donor means they have the economic privilege to get into Stanford without rigging the game
4) Source on legacy parents' propensity to hire and mentor students compared to parents of similar economic status?
5) What kind? Alumni come to the college during alumni weekend, and once again, you don't stop becoming an alum if there's no legacy preference.

Some other notes: Stanford has over 38 billion dollars in its pockets. Institutions of much smaller size have gotten rid of legacy. Being wealthy alone already makes you much more likely to get into an elite school. You don't need any more advantages.
-Alum of a top college that doesn't do legacy and continues to donate and who has a child attending my alma mater.

First off there is no evidence that legacy admits don't have the same or higher academic credentials. Assuming that it totally makes sense for Stanford and the rest of the Ivy+ schools to give preference to legacies. There is already a suit challenging legacy practice on the basis that it discriminates on race- if that is the case it will be held to be a violation. I frankly doubt these schools are dumb enough to do that.

The larger point is that the true benefit of attending one these "elite" private institutions is the network that graduates gain access to. Alumni post jobs and internships exclusively for students at their alma maters constantly (my kid is at an Ivy and is not a legacy). They also present seminars, join panels, judge student competitions etc. The FGLI students don't/can't bring that network but they benefit from it. Admitting qualified legacy students is part of what maintains the value of what you are all clamoring to gain access to.

4) Source on legacy parents' propensity to hire and mentor students compared to parents of similar economic status? Are they more likely to hire compared to alum? I’m well aware of what the benefits of an elite college are, I went to one. I’m asking you use your education to critically think and support your claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stanford is a private institution that rejects 95% of applicants and probably 80% of those are academically equivalent to each other.
They have to use some criteria to prefer some applicants over others.

1)Legacy is one of those and it has merit.
2)Legacy students are more likely to matriculate,
3)parents likely to stay involved,
4)hire and mentor students,
5)come to events. Every college wants involved alumni- its part of what makes these schools great.

1) legacy is the exact opposite of merit. It is choosing someone based off of their spawn point over their credentials.
2) A non issue for an institution with an 82% yield
3) This wouldn't change if they were just parents who happened to be alumni. Getting rid of legacy doesn't bar your kid from attendance; they just have to earn it. They already are wealthier on average, and the common claim of being a potential donor means they have the economic privilege to get into Stanford without rigging the game
4) Source on legacy parents' propensity to hire and mentor students compared to parents of similar economic status?
5) What kind? Alumni come to the college during alumni weekend, and once again, you don't stop becoming an alum if there's no legacy preference.

Some other notes: Stanford has over 38 billion dollars in its pockets. Institutions of much smaller size have gotten rid of legacy. Being wealthy alone already makes you much more likely to get into an elite school. You don't need any more advantages.
-Alum of a top college that doesn't do legacy and continues to donate and who has a child attending my alma mater.

They want legacy. If you don't want a school that wants legacy them move along and find one that doesn't want legacy. John's Hopkins and MIT might work for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stanford is a private institution that rejects 95% of applicants and probably 80% of those are academically equivalent to each other.
They have to use some criteria to prefer some applicants over others.

1)Legacy is one of those and it has merit.
2)Legacy students are more likely to matriculate,
3)parents likely to stay involved,
4)hire and mentor students,
5)come to events. Every college wants involved alumni- its part of what makes these schools great.

1) legacy is the exact opposite of merit. It is choosing someone based off of their spawn point over their credentials.
2) A non issue for an institution with an 82% yield
3) This wouldn't change if they were just parents who happened to be alumni. Getting rid of legacy doesn't bar your kid from attendance; they just have to earn it. They already are wealthier on average, and the common claim of being a potential donor means they have the economic privilege to get into Stanford without rigging the game
4) Source on legacy parents' propensity to hire and mentor students compared to parents of similar economic status?
5) What kind? Alumni come to the college during alumni weekend, and once again, you don't stop becoming an alum if there's no legacy preference.

Some other notes: Stanford has over 38 billion dollars in its pockets. Institutions of much smaller size have gotten rid of legacy. Being wealthy alone already makes you much more likely to get into an elite school. You don't need any more advantages.
-Alum of a top college that doesn't do legacy and continues to donate and who has a child attending my alma mater.

First off there is no evidence that legacy admits don't have the same or higher academic credentials. Assuming that it totally makes sense for Stanford and the rest of the Ivy+ schools to give preference to legacies. There is already a suit challenging legacy practice on the basis that it discriminates on race- if that is the case it will be held to be a violation. I frankly doubt these schools are dumb enough to do that.

The larger point is that the true benefit of attending one these "elite" private institutions is the network that graduates gain access to. Alumni post jobs and internships exclusively for students at their alma maters constantly (my kid is at an Ivy and is not a legacy). They also present seminars, join panels, judge student competitions etc. The FGLI students don't/can't bring that network but they benefit from it. Admitting qualified legacy students is part of what maintains the value of what you are all clamoring to gain access to.

4) Source on legacy parents' propensity to hire and mentor students compared to parents of similar economic status? Are they more likely to hire compared to alum? I’m well aware of what the benefits of an elite college are, I went to one. I’m asking you use your education to critically think and support your claims.

See https://stanfordreview.org/a-defense-of-legacy-admissions-the-surprising-engine-of-meritocracy/
Also Harvard published a report from their committee which studied a variety of admissions practices (early action, test scores, racial preferences, preferences for faculty/staff children as well as legacy) and found the following:
The practice of considering, among many other factors, whether an applicant’s parent
attended Harvard College or Radcliffe College as an undergraduate also helps to
cement strong bonds between the university and its alumni. Harvard hopes that its
alumni will remain engaged with the College for the rest of their lives, and this
consideration is one way that it encourages them to do so. Harvard also relies to an
unusual degree on the participation of its alumni in the admissions process. In every state and almost every country around the world, Harvard graduates volunteer their
time to serve as alumni interviewers. Harvard alumni also offer generous financial
support to their alma mater. That financial support is essential to Harvard’s position as
a leading institution of higher learning; indeed, it helps make the financial aid policies
possible that help the diversity and excellence of the College’s student body. Although
alumni support Harvard for many reasons, the committee is concerned that eliminating
any consideration of whether an applicant’s parent attended Harvard or Radcliffe would
diminish this vital sense of engagement and support. In addition, giving consideration
to whether an applicant’s parent attended the College serves a community-building
function, and contributes to a sense among all undergraduates that they are part of a
lifelong educational engagement. Finally, the committee notes that children of Harvard
alumni tend to be very strong applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stanford is a private institution that rejects 95% of applicants and probably 80% of those are academically equivalent to each other.
They have to use some criteria to prefer some applicants over others. Legacy is one of those and it has merit. Legacy students are more likely to matriculate, parents likely to stay involved, hire and mentor students, come to events. Every college wants involved alumni- its part of what makes these schools great.

Legacy does not have merit.

Neither did affirmative action but back then we all thought private colleges should get to create their entering class any way they wanted.

What changed?

There's no more quid in the quid pro quo. The woke crowd is no longer getting URM preferences to justify the white preferences.

This is how they want to pick students, if it's not for you, then move along and find another school.

So you agree that institutions should be allowed to do affirmative action? I mean, that is how they want to pick students.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stanford is a private institution that rejects 95% of applicants and probably 80% of those are academically equivalent to each other.
They have to use some criteria to prefer some applicants over others. Legacy is one of those and it has merit. Legacy students are more likely to matriculate, parents likely to stay involved, hire and mentor students, come to events. Every college wants involved alumni- its part of what makes these schools great.

Legacy does not have merit.

Neither did affirmative action but back then we all thought private colleges should get to create their entering class any way they wanted.

What changed?

There's no more quid in the quid pro quo. The woke crowd is no longer getting URM preferences to justify the white preferences.

This is how they want to pick students, if it's not for you, then move along and find another school.

So you agree that institutions should be allowed to do affirmative action? I mean, that is how they want to pick students.

As long as it’s constitutional. Affirmative action race-based admission is unconstitutional. So, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:but the alumni office says "zero dollar requirement"

I have never received anything from the alumni office with those words.

Call and ask how much you have to donate to get the legacy preference. The answer is, you have to have a parent that is a graduate. That's it. They might change that but I doubt it.

How naive of you to think that all legacies are treated the same.

[Anonymous]

So sad the legacy kids can’t hack it on their own.