Legacy? Some are worried it would also mean the end Children of Faculty Admissions Boost?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. I suppose it is very, very academic to call someone that has a reasoned position that is in conflict with yours a “troll.” I’ve read this whole thread, and while I don’t think the benefit should go away, I also haven’t seen anyone who comes close to approximating a troll. The only petulance I see is the entitled PP who calls everyone who disagrees with her a troll.

I’m not that poster but if you think there’s no evidence of trolling here, you didn’t read the whole thread or you’re new to the forum.

I have been on DCUM for over ten years. I have little patience with the new generation of posters who dismiss any hint of disagreement as “trolling,” which you are doing.

[Anonymous]

If there is no bump, it should be fine to remove the extra handling applications of faculty children get (that is documented, see the Harvard lawsuit).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And what people seem to forget (or the petulant child/troll who keeps posting does) is that kids of Professors are extremely likely to do well academically and be exceptionally prepared for college---it's how they have grown up. So duh, of course they will have the resume to compete for the top schools.

In which case they don't need any extra admissions bump. Duh.

NP. Of course they do when so many high stats kids are vying for the same limited spots. It's just one small means to differentiate.

What we (general population) really need to do is redefine "top tier college" and stop all applying for the same few options! Then, stop thinking that because our kid has certain stats that we value, that should somehow merit their place at Institution X. It is not a cut and dry list of tic boxes. Some folks seem to be sold on this idea that if they enrich their kid to the level where kid can check boxes for certain merits, that is the recipe for admission, and anything else is not merit. There is not merit ladder.

+1

Majority of MC/UMC+ kids do not receive much benefits from attending an elite university. Those kids have the drive and ability to excel wherever they go and 99% of them will even if they end up at their state U in the honors program. Even more, the smart ones will find excellent schools in the 25-60 range that will give them merit making costs same or less than their state U.
The obsession with "someone is taking my snowflakes spot at a T20 U" is ridiculous. Statistics---they are all highly rejective and yes most will be rejected.
However, having gone thru this 1 year ago and 3 years ago and I can tell you outside of the T25, if your kid has the stats and good Recs/good EC and most importantly good essays and demonstrated interest, they can and should get into 90% of their targets and safeties.
My own kid got Ultimately rejected from ED1/T10 school, WL at a T30 and into 6 schools ranked 30-65 most with good merit. Exactly what you would expect to happen.

You are missing one crucial point - the kids who are successful without prep are kids that have successful parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If there is no bump, it should be fine to remove the extra handling applications of faculty children get (that is documented, see the Harvard lawsuit).

So thanks to you, the schools will no longer document it. Good job?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. I suppose it is very, very academic to call someone that has a reasoned position that is in conflict with yours a “troll.” I’ve read this whole thread, and while I don’t think the benefit should go away, I also haven’t seen anyone who comes close to approximating a troll. The only petulance I see is the entitled PP who calls everyone who disagrees with her a troll.

I’m not that poster but if you think there’s no evidence of trolling here, you didn’t read the whole thread or you’re new to the forum.

I have been on DCUM for over ten years. I have little patience with the new generation of posters who dismiss any hint of disagreement as “trolling,” which you are doing.

It’s not a new generation. Trolling has been a problem for years. It’s not a “hint of disagreement “, it a complete inability to have a discussion or exchange ideas. It’s persistently repeating the same dumb lines over and over again as if they’re not reading at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there is no bump, it should be fine to remove the extra handling applications of faculty children get (that is documented, see the Harvard lawsuit).

So thanks to you, the schools will no longer document it. Good job?

Amazing that I have this much power. Glad to know about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. I suppose it is very, very academic to call someone that has a reasoned position that is in conflict with yours a “troll.” I’ve read this whole thread, and while I don’t think the benefit should go away, I also haven’t seen anyone who comes close to approximating a troll. The only petulance I see is the entitled PP who calls everyone who disagrees with her a troll.

I’m not that poster but if you think there’s no evidence of trolling here, you didn’t read the whole thread or you’re new to the forum.

I have been on DCUM for over ten years. I have little patience with the new generation of posters who dismiss any hint of disagreement as “trolling,” which you are doing.

It’s not a new generation. Trolling has been a problem for years. It’s not a “hint of disagreement “, it a complete inability to have a discussion or exchange ideas. It’s persistently repeating the same dumb lines over and over again as if they’re not reading at all.

… which is exactly what you are doing? Are you calling yourself a troll?

[Anonymous]

The faculty preference will be easily defended in court. As will the legacy preference. Both have reasonable bases for the university (benefit to employees, and to maintain loyalty to the school). And neither uses race as an express factor. Both could survive under the current state of disparate impact case law (and will be even stronger when the Supreme Court no doubt guts disparate impact).

[Anonymous]

For those of you who are advocating for eliminating this employment perk for professors, are you are okay then with raising tuitions for all students so that the university can pay their staff better compensation for taking the jobs in academia? In many cases, collegiate staff take lower paying jobs in academia in part because of this perk, that their children will get some or all tuition waived, if the children qualify to attend the institution where their parent works. But here's the thing, only some of the employees will actually have their dependents admitted to the institution and therefore have that perk. If you do away with the faculty admissions perk, then you'll be paying all employees higher wages, including those children go to other institutions. It will cost the institution and the enrolled students a lot more to do away with this perk than it would be to offer the perk and have a small percentage of the staff actually take advantage of the perk.

It's penny-wise and pound foolish to be advocating for doing away with this particular employment perk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. I suppose it is very, very academic to call someone that has a reasoned position that is in conflict with yours a “troll.” I’ve read this whole thread, and while I don’t think the benefit should go away, I also haven’t seen anyone who comes close to approximating a troll. The only petulance I see is the entitled PP who calls everyone who disagrees with her a troll.

I’m not that poster but if you think there’s no evidence of trolling here, you didn’t read the whole thread or you’re new to the forum.

I have been on DCUM for over ten years. I have little patience with the new generation of posters who dismiss any hint of disagreement as “trolling,” which you are doing.

It’s not a new generation. Trolling has been a problem for years. It’s not a “hint of disagreement “, it a complete inability to have a discussion or exchange ideas. It’s persistently repeating the same dumb lines over and over again as if they’re not reading at all.

… which is exactly what you are doing? Are you calling yourself a troll?

Yawn. I guess if you don’t understand what trolls are, it would be frustrating to see it called out.