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: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.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why we can't have nice things in the US of America. Some people want to grab every single toy and keep it theirs forever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Hahaha. Hahaha. So precious. The classic disparity proves discrimination trope.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Yes, I think that poster really is that dim. It’s sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Hahaha. Hahaha. So precious. The classic disparity proves discrimination trope.

You do not think URM face racism in the US? Well, that’s a bold take.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Yes, so please enlighten me why your kid should be with my entitled legacy and not at JMU.

[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.

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.

Yes, so please enlighten me why your kid should be with my entitled legacy and not at JMU.

Sure, give us the name and stats of your "entitled legacy" and we can describe whether our kids are higher performing. Do you see how this works and how stupid your question is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

My kid is a legacy who would not have gotten into the top 20 that he did without that status. It wasn't alone legacy that got him in, but also the multi-million dollar gifts from his family over the last 60 years. The thing is, he worked incredibly hard--as hard as any kid could--at a very intense independent school. He is incredibly bright but has ADHD and there was just no way, despite his 6-7 hours of homework a night, meeting with teachers, ECs, all of it--and probably more than 99% of his peers--that he could get straight As. He got into great schools, just not quite as high as the one that legacy got him. He chose it anyway, with some trepidation. He says that sometimes he feels "imposter" syndrome (I explained that's not exactly what that is), but he knows he worked every bit as hard as his classmates who didn't get in. So why does he deserve it less? He worked harder than most and is highly intelligent. If you think he didn't deserve it, then your argument must be that only those with a very certain kind of intelligence, regardless of work ethic, should get in. Is that what you think?

I think it's good that your kid has imposter syndrome, you said it yourself- money bought his way in. Hopefully it weights on him

Yeah, kid is clearly smarter than mom here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

My kid is a legacy who would not have gotten into the top 20 that he did without that status. It wasn't alone legacy that got him in, but also the multi-million dollar gifts from his family over the last 60 years. The thing is, he worked incredibly hard--as hard as any kid could--at a very intense independent school. He is incredibly bright but has ADHD and there was just no way, despite his 6-7 hours of homework a night, meeting with teachers, ECs, all of it--and probably more than 99% of his peers--that he could get straight As. He got into great schools, just not quite as high as the one that legacy got him. He chose it anyway, with some trepidation. He says that sometimes he feels "imposter" syndrome (I explained that's not exactly what that is), but he knows he worked every bit as hard as his classmates who didn't get in. So why does he deserve it less? He worked harder than most and is highly intelligent. If you think he didn't deserve it, then your argument must be that only those with a very certain kind of intelligence, regardless of work ethic, should get in. Is that what you think?

For every multimillionaire, hard-working, kid with a learning disability, there are probably 5 first gen college kids who are poorer, smarter and just as hard working, without the private school priviliege and tutors and extracurricular support that your kid had that helped your kid get into his elite college. And they will go to community college or JMU and all will be right in the world of the highly privileged.

[Anonymous]

Eh, my children had no interest in applying to either of their parents T20 colleges as legacies. This whole issues seems to be blown way out of proportion to its actual impact. If colleges want to advantage them so be it……certainly makes more sense than affirmative action or athletic bumps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

My kid is a legacy who would not have gotten into the top 20 that he did without that status. It wasn't alone legacy that got him in, but also the multi-million dollar gifts from his family over the last 60 years. The thing is, he worked incredibly hard--as hard as any kid could--at a very intense independent school. He is incredibly bright but has ADHD and there was just no way, despite his 6-7 hours of homework a night, meeting with teachers, ECs, all of it--and probably more than 99% of his peers--that he could get straight As. He got into great schools, just not quite as high as the one that legacy got him. He chose it anyway, with some trepidation. He says that sometimes he feels "imposter" syndrome (I explained that's not exactly what that is), but he knows he worked every bit as hard as his classmates who didn't get in. So why does he deserve it less? He worked harder than most and is highly intelligent. If you think he didn't deserve it, then your argument must be that only those with a very certain kind of intelligence, regardless of work ethic, should get in. Is that what you think?

For every multimillionaire, hard-working, kid with a learning disability, there are probably 5 first gen college kids who are poorer, smarter and just as hard working, without the private school priviliege and tutors and extracurricular support that your kid had that helped your kid get into his elite college. And they will go to community college or JMU and all will be right in the world of the highly privileged.

Clearing the path for their mediocre kids is the real point of all of this. The really smart hard working legacies will be fine somewhere else, it's kid's like OP's who need the boost into school and then the prestige that the degree carries

[Anonymous]

This thread is a $hitshow but highly comical, what a bunch of morons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

My kid is a legacy who would not have gotten into the top 20 that he did without that status. It wasn't alone legacy that got him in, but also the multi-million dollar gifts from his family over the last 60 years. The thing is, he worked incredibly hard--as hard as any kid could--at a very intense independent school. He is incredibly bright but has ADHD and there was just no way, despite his 6-7 hours of homework a night, meeting with teachers, ECs, all of it--and probably more than 99% of his peers--that he could get straight As. He got into great schools, just not quite as high as the one that legacy got him. He chose it anyway, with some trepidation. He says that sometimes he feels "imposter" syndrome (I explained that's not exactly what that is), but he knows he worked every bit as hard as his classmates who didn't get in. So why does he deserve it less? He worked harder than most and is highly intelligent. If you think he didn't deserve it, then your argument must be that only those with a very certain kind of intelligence, regardless of work ethic, should get in. Is that what you think?

I think it's good that your kid has imposter syndrome, you said it yourself- money bought his way in. Hopefully it weights on him

Yeah, kid is clearly smarter than mom here.

+1 Kid at least realizes he was born on third whereas mom thinks he hit a triple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

My kid is a legacy who would not have gotten into the top 20 that he did without that status. It wasn't alone legacy that got him in, but also the multi-million dollar gifts from his family over the last 60 years. The thing is, he worked incredibly hard--as hard as any kid could--at a very intense independent school. He is incredibly bright but has ADHD and there was just no way, despite his 6-7 hours of homework a night, meeting with teachers, ECs, all of it--and probably more than 99% of his peers--that he could get straight As. He got into great schools, just not quite as high as the one that legacy got him. He chose it anyway, with some trepidation. He says that sometimes he feels "imposter" syndrome (I explained that's not exactly what that is), but he knows he worked every bit as hard as his classmates who didn't get in. So why does he deserve it less? He worked harder than most and is highly intelligent. If you think he didn't deserve it, then your argument must be that only those with a very certain kind of intelligence, regardless of work ethic, should get in. Is that what you think?

He didn’t work harder that most. You need to dispense with that lie. He certainly did not work harder than a kid who has to work a 20-hour per week job in addition to getting higher grades than your DS. He didn’t work harder than an athlete who kept up a crushing training schedule while getting grades similar to your son’s. He didn’t work harder than a kid who had to get higher grades while also negotiating the college application system for the first time in his extended family.

Your son has figured out that his admission was based on reasons other than his own merit and accomplishments. You are bizarrely trying to create a fantasy world where that is not the case, whether to protect him or you, I don’t know. But your entire post reeks of self-delusion. Look, your DCs admission was bought and not based on his own merits. He sees it (a credit to him). It is you who are telling yourself fantasies to avoid the truth.

Oh, I forgot to mention, he has a job and played 3 varsity sports all through high school. I know you want to wish that our kids are all jerks--and by the way, wishing evil on an 18-year-old is demented--but most of them deserve it. Period.

So he studied for 5-7 hours a night, played three sports and held down a job? Sure

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

My kid is a legacy who would not have gotten into the top 20 that he did without that status. It wasn't alone legacy that got him in, but also the multi-million dollar gifts from his family over the last 60 years. The thing is, he worked incredibly hard--as hard as any kid could--at a very intense independent school. He is incredibly bright but has ADHD and there was just no way, despite his 6-7 hours of homework a night, meeting with teachers, ECs, all of it--and probably more than 99% of his peers--that he could get straight As. He got into great schools, just not quite as high as the one that legacy got him. He chose it anyway, with some trepidation. He says that sometimes he feels "imposter" syndrome (I explained that's not exactly what that is), but he knows he worked every bit as hard as his classmates who didn't get in. So why does he deserve it less? He worked harder than most and is highly intelligent. If you think he didn't deserve it, then your argument must be that only those with a very certain kind of intelligence, regardless of work ethic, should get in. Is that what you think?

He didn’t work harder that most. You need to dispense with that lie. He certainly did not work harder than a kid who has to work a 20-hour per week job in addition to getting higher grades than your DS. He didn’t work harder than an athlete who kept up a crushing training schedule while getting grades similar to your son’s. He didn’t work harder than a kid who had to get higher grades while also negotiating the college application system for the first time in his extended family.

Your son has figured out that his admission was based on reasons other than his own merit and accomplishments. You are bizarrely trying to create a fantasy world where that is not the case, whether to protect him or you, I don’t know. But your entire post reeks of self-delusion. Look, your DCs admission was bought and not based on his own merits. He sees it (a credit to him). It is you who are telling yourself fantasies to avoid the truth.

Oh, I forgot to mention, he has a job and played 3 varsity sports all through high school. I know you want to wish that our kids are all jerks--and by the way, wishing evil on an 18-year-old is demented--but most of them deserve it. Period.

No one wishes your kid evil. We just wish you would get a clue about how privileged you are so you would be less obnoxious about how all the little people don't deserve elite colleges and only your precious son does...it's a clue your son clearly has but you do not, probably because you are so over-the-top entitled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is a $hitshow but highly comical, what a bunch of morons.

And your post is the most highly intelligent of them all. Thanks for sharing.