Is there anything positive about legacy admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very clear : nothing positive for the vast majority of families and students.

So what? Athletic admissions offers nothing positive either. Same with international students. Or Questbridge. Whether it benefits you is a weird yardstick to choose

This.

And for the person saying it should be a transparent process like with private company hiring, wut? Companies can hire who they want.

Companies can't discriminate by race, gender, religion, etc, but they don't have to hire based on some governmental definition of merit. In fact, companies often reject candidates as OVER-qualified.

Companies typically don’t hire based on the last name. Just they hire the most talented person. Otherwise they can generate lower profits.

I’m not sure which is worse, your understanding of how legacy works or how companies hire.

Yeah most companies I’ve worked for have a lot of people hiring friends and family, also true for major American companies. Do you have any idea how many Fords work or have worked for Ford Motor Company? Life isn’t fair, colleges that rely on donations like having wealthy legacy families and it doesn’t mean the students aren’t qualified, it means you really don’t understand what they value.

Yeah, ask meta, google, Microsoft, and Apple why the hire it workers from India and not with last name gates. Think about sundar pichai and not tech support people.

They hire IT workers from India because they’re cheap. I promise you the executives at every one of those companies are getting their own kids whatever internships and first jobs their connections allow. Do you really know nothing about how the world works? Do you ever interact with real humans outside of trolling on this website?

Yeah, I am sure Sundar Pichai from google is super cheap.

You are so maddeningly obtuse. You are talking about one person, think of the thousands they hire in India because they are cheap. It’s amazing how long you can argue a stupid point on all of your crazy threads. Are you a foreign troll just trying to drive this forum insane?

Yeah, Jensen huang works in nvidia just because of his last name, talent is secondary. I like your logic.

Once again you are talking about individual examples at the very top of of select companies and not about the many thousands of normal hires, you really don’t get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very clear : nothing positive for the vast majority of families and students.

No, it is not clear, it is your opinion. I am fine with legacy admissions.
You all want to strip what make these schools special, and when they are no longer special, you are going to move on to the next set of schools that are prestigious.

If legacy students are truly talented, they will be admitted to top universities on their own merits. So what exactly is the problem with eliminating legacy admissions? Unless, of course, one believes they are not actually that talented.

What's next? The government inserting itself into corporate hiring decisions?

No, open and transparent admissions. In the same way you got your job in a competitive process. Or you got a “legacy” job through connections?

Of course people get jobs through connections. In fact, it is likely that MOST people get jobs through connections.

Maybe for some . But you can get fired at any time even with connections. Your last name doesn’t make your productive magically. At the end of the day, profit-making corporations care more if you contribute to the bottom line rather than how many friends you have at the company.

Have you ever worked at a large or mid sized American company? Your contribution to the bottom line is enhanced by connections, most people get their job through someone they know. Do you have any in person friends?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very clear : nothing positive for the vast majority of families and students.

No, it is not clear, it is your opinion. I am fine with legacy admissions.
You all want to strip what make these schools special, and when they are no longer special, you are going to move on to the next set of schools that are prestigious.

If legacy students are truly talented, they will be admitted to top universities on their own merits. So what exactly is the problem with eliminating legacy admissions? Unless, of course, one believes they are not actually that talented.

What's next? The government inserting itself into corporate hiring decisions?

No, open and transparent admissions. In the same way you got your job in a competitive process. Or you got a “legacy” job through connections?

Of course people get jobs through connections. In fact, it is likely that MOST people get jobs through connections.

Maybe for some . But you can get fired at any time even with connections. Your last name doesn’t make your productive magically. At the end of the day, profit-making corporations care more if you contribute to the bottom line rather than how many friends you have at the company.

Have you ever worked at a large or mid sized American company? Your contribution to the bottom line is enhanced by connections, most people get their job through someone they know. Do you have any in person friends?

I recruit workers for my own consultancy firm, and I definitely wouldn’t hire a person like you. (Protip: check LinkedIn if people highlight their last names in their applications)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very clear : nothing positive for the vast majority of families and students.

So what? Athletic admissions offers nothing positive either. Same with international students. Or Questbridge. Whether it benefits you is a weird yardstick to choose

This.

And for the person saying it should be a transparent process like with private company hiring, wut? Companies can hire who they want.

Companies can't discriminate by race, gender, religion, etc, but they don't have to hire based on some governmental definition of merit. In fact, companies often reject candidates as OVER-qualified.

Companies typically don’t hire based on the last name. Just they hire the most talented person. Otherwise they can generate lower profits.

I’m not sure which is worse, your understanding of how legacy works or how companies hire.

Yeah most companies I’ve worked for have a lot of people hiring friends and family, also true for major American companies. Do you have any idea how many Fords work or have worked for Ford Motor Company? Life isn’t fair, colleges that rely on donations like having wealthy legacy families and it doesn’t mean the students aren’t qualified, it means you really don’t understand what they value.

Yeah, ask meta, google, Microsoft, and Apple why the hire it workers from India and not with last name gates. Think about sundar pichai and not tech support people.

They hire IT workers from India because they’re cheap. I promise you the executives at every one of those companies are getting their own kids whatever internships and first jobs their connections allow. Do you really know nothing about how the world works? Do you ever interact with real humans outside of trolling on this website?

Yeah, I am sure Sundar Pichai from google is super cheap.

You are so maddeningly obtuse. You are talking about one person, think of the thousands they hire in India because they are cheap. It’s amazing how long you can argue a stupid point on all of your crazy threads. Are you a foreign troll just trying to drive this forum insane?

Yeah, Jensen huang works in nvidia just because of his last name, talent is secondary. I like your logic.

Once again you are talking about individual examples at the very top of of select companies and not about the many thousands of normal hires, you really don’t get it.

Sure, talent is so out of fashion!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very clear : nothing positive for the vast majority of families and students.

No, it is not clear, it is your opinion. I am fine with legacy admissions.
You all want to strip what make these schools special, and when they are no longer special, you are going to move on to the next set of schools that are prestigious.

If legacy students are truly talented, they will be admitted to top universities on their own merits. So what exactly is the problem with eliminating legacy admissions? Unless, of course, one believes they are not actually that talented.

What's next? The government inserting itself into corporate hiring decisions?

No, open and transparent admissions. In the same way you got your job in a competitive process. Or you got a “legacy” job through connections?

Of course people get jobs through connections. In fact, it is likely that MOST people get jobs through connections.

Maybe for some . But you can get fired at any time even with connections. Your last name doesn’t make your productive magically. At the end of the day, profit-making corporations care more if you contribute to the bottom line rather than how many friends you have at the company.

Have you ever worked at a large or mid sized American company? Your contribution to the bottom line is enhanced by connections, most people get their job through someone they know. Do you have any in person friends?

I recruit workers for my own consultancy firm, and I definitely wouldn’t hire a person like you. (Protip: check LinkedIn if people highlight their last names in their applications)

How exceptional that you think you can discern who is posting and their characteristics from an anonymous message board. You may want to speak to your psychiatrist about that.

I said, “a person like you,” in response to your erratic train of thought. That’s all.

Do you think it's only one person responding to you? You're quite limited in your scope.

Ah, I see. That’s your gotcha moment. Anything else or that’s it?

As someone who sees people who are not me disagreeing with you and posting in this thread, I'm a little shocked that the possibility hasn't occurred to you. But enjoy your imaginary enemies.

That’s it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole point of going to an elite school is to rub elbows with the “privileged few.” Otherwise we would just administer an IQ test and take the top X%.

It's also why those privileged few get hired: the companies want access to the same connections, especially in finance.

Funny that the wage difference between Ivy League and public Ivy graduates is not significant.

So we should leave colleges alone and let them do their thing.

+1

THE END.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very clear : nothing positive for the vast majority of families and students.

No, it is not clear, it is your opinion. I am fine with legacy admissions.
You all want to strip what make these schools special, and when they are no longer special, you are going to move on to the next set of schools that are prestigious.

If legacy students are truly talented, they will be admitted to top universities on their own merits. So what exactly is the problem with eliminating legacy admissions? Unless, of course, one believes they are not actually that talented.

What's next? The government inserting itself into corporate hiring decisions?

No, open and transparent admissions. In the same way you got your job in a competitive process. Or you got a “legacy” job through connections?

Of course people get jobs through connections. In fact, it is likely that MOST people get jobs through connections.

Maybe for some . But you can get fired at any time even with connections. Your last name doesn’t make your productive magically. At the end of the day, profit-making corporations care more if you contribute to the bottom line rather than how many friends you have at the company.

Have you ever worked at a large or mid sized American company? Your contribution to the bottom line is enhanced by connections, most people get their job through someone they know. Do you have any in person friends?

+1

Clearly the PP is clearless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacies keep the alumi donation pipeline full. With no legacies donations would plummet. It is that simple.

There's no evidence of this: an alternative hypothesis is that legacy boosts lead to admissions of kids who wouldn't have been admitted were it not for the legacy boost, thereby perpetuating the supremacy of otherwise less than stellar kids. And maybe one of the kids who would have been admitted, if selection were fully merit based would be the next billionaire who could keep college coffers full.

It's a pretty straight forward assumption. Most people would donate less if their child was rejected.

The even bigger issue for schools is that alumni are walking billboards. They have a much larger impact an application rates than you realize.

None of this is measurable by a study.

Yes, so you should stop stating your opinions as if they're fact. Stating "most people would donate less if their child was rejected" does not mean that legacy admissions are the best option for universities, and the most elite universities don't need their alumni to be walking billboards for them--they're already at sub-5% admittance rates. It could be that cchools could do better if they picked the best applicant, and that best applicant was more successful and could donate more than the legacy student.

The elite schools are at sub 5% admittance rates BECAUSE of their alumni. "Best" as you say, is subjective. Best to Americans means reputation, cache, prestige, and perceived smarts, if the elite schools just focus on a cut off line based off test scores and grades, they will soon no longer be elite, because the elite of the U.S. will not want to go to these schools.

That’s your opinion, not a fact. As mentioned earlier in this thread, plenty of countries (ex: England, France, India, Korea, China) have elite universities with admissions that are entirely merit based that are perceived as elite.

I would love to see the stats on US citizen admissions to the elite universities in those countries. They also have very different funding mechanisms.

The educational environment for kids is incredibly miserable in Asia. I see this first-hand as I live in Singapore. It is exhausting to witness the intensity with which families are pursuing US university options. The kids have after school and Saturday tuition all designed to optimize test scores and grades. And yes, all of the selection tests are trainable with enough effort. They no longer measure anything other than test prep.

They’ve even managed to add in certifications to after school art, theater, and music programs. The credentialism is out of control.

I'm sure you can find those stats using a handy tool that "the kids" call Google. You just need to look at numbers and read more rather than state opinions without evidence. Perhaps because you live in Singapore, you have not realized that plenty of American kids are also in Saturday and/or Sunday academic enrichment classes and activities. It's competitive here too. But your anecdote is not data anyway--plenty of desirable schools (ex: Oxford and Cambridge) do not have legacy admissions despite being in a country with its own aristocracy.

+1 The USA is the only advanced country I have heard of that rewards kids with a substantial preference for elite college admissions just because their parents went there.

+1 it’s an anomaly for international standards.

+100 "No other way to do this," says the only country where universities admit students this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacies keep the alumi donation pipeline full. With no legacies donations would plummet. It is that simple.

There's no evidence of this: an alternative hypothesis is that legacy boosts lead to admissions of kids who wouldn't have been admitted were it not for the legacy boost, thereby perpetuating the supremacy of otherwise less than stellar kids. And maybe one of the kids who would have been admitted, if selection were fully merit based would be the next billionaire who could keep college coffers full.

It's a pretty straight forward assumption. Most people would donate less if their child was rejected.

The even bigger issue for schools is that alumni are walking billboards. They have a much larger impact an application rates than you realize.

None of this is measurable by a study.

Yes, so you should stop stating your opinions as if they're fact. Stating "most people would donate less if their child was rejected" does not mean that legacy admissions are the best option for universities, and the most elite universities don't need their alumni to be walking billboards for them--they're already at sub-5% admittance rates. It could be that cchools could do better if they picked the best applicant, and that best applicant was more successful and could donate more than the legacy student.

The elite schools are at sub 5% admittance rates BECAUSE of their alumni. "Best" as you say, is subjective. Best to Americans means reputation, cache, prestige, and perceived smarts, if the elite schools just focus on a cut off line based off test scores and grades, they will soon no longer be elite, because the elite of the U.S. will not want to go to these schools.

That’s your opinion, not a fact. As mentioned earlier in this thread, plenty of countries (ex: England, France, India, Korea, China) have elite universities with admissions that are entirely merit based that are perceived as elite.

I would love to see the stats on US citizen admissions to the elite universities in those countries. They also have very different funding mechanisms.

The educational environment for kids is incredibly miserable in Asia. I see this first-hand as I live in Singapore. It is exhausting to witness the intensity with which families are pursuing US university options. The kids have after school and Saturday tuition all designed to optimize test scores and grades. And yes, all of the selection tests are trainable with enough effort. They no longer measure anything other than test prep.

They’ve even managed to add in certifications to after school art, theater, and music programs. The credentialism is out of control.

I'm sure you can find those stats using a handy tool that "the kids" call Google. You just need to look at numbers and read more rather than state opinions without evidence. Perhaps because you live in Singapore, you have not realized that plenty of American kids are also in Saturday and/or Sunday academic enrichment classes and activities. It's competitive here too. But your anecdote is not data anyway--plenty of desirable schools (ex: Oxford and Cambridge) do not have legacy admissions despite being in a country with its own aristocracy.

+1 The USA is the only advanced country I have heard of that rewards kids with a substantial preference for elite college admissions just because their parents went there.

+1 it’s an anomaly for international standards.

+100 "No other way to do this," says the only country where universities admit students this way.

On the other hand it doesn’t seem to impact the overall quality of the colleges so why do we need to change it? If you’re going to whine about “unqualified” admits, the legacy admits are not the logical starting point anyway. Athletes are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacies keep the alumi donation pipeline full. With no legacies donations would plummet. It is that simple.

There's no evidence of this: an alternative hypothesis is that legacy boosts lead to admissions of kids who wouldn't have been admitted were it not for the legacy boost, thereby perpetuating the supremacy of otherwise less than stellar kids. And maybe one of the kids who would have been admitted, if selection were fully merit based would be the next billionaire who could keep college coffers full.

It's a pretty straight forward assumption. Most people would donate less if their child was rejected.

The even bigger issue for schools is that alumni are walking billboards. They have a much larger impact an application rates than you realize.

None of this is measurable by a study.

Yes, so you should stop stating your opinions as if they're fact. Stating "most people would donate less if their child was rejected" does not mean that legacy admissions are the best option for universities, and the most elite universities don't need their alumni to be walking billboards for them--they're already at sub-5% admittance rates. It could be that cchools could do better if they picked the best applicant, and that best applicant was more successful and could donate more than the legacy student.

The elite schools are at sub 5% admittance rates BECAUSE of their alumni. "Best" as you say, is subjective. Best to Americans means reputation, cache, prestige, and perceived smarts, if the elite schools just focus on a cut off line based off test scores and grades, they will soon no longer be elite, because the elite of the U.S. will not want to go to these schools.

That’s your opinion, not a fact. As mentioned earlier in this thread, plenty of countries (ex: England, France, India, Korea, China) have elite universities with admissions that are entirely merit based that are perceived as elite.

I would love to see the stats on US citizen admissions to the elite universities in those countries. They also have very different funding mechanisms.

The educational environment for kids is incredibly miserable in Asia. I see this first-hand as I live in Singapore. It is exhausting to witness the intensity with which families are pursuing US university options. The kids have after school and Saturday tuition all designed to optimize test scores and grades. And yes, all of the selection tests are trainable with enough effort. They no longer measure anything other than test prep.

They’ve even managed to add in certifications to after school art, theater, and music programs. The credentialism is out of control.

I'm sure you can find those stats using a handy tool that "the kids" call Google. You just need to look at numbers and read more rather than state opinions without evidence. Perhaps because you live in Singapore, you have not realized that plenty of American kids are also in Saturday and/or Sunday academic enrichment classes and activities. It's competitive here too. But your anecdote is not data anyway--plenty of desirable schools (ex: Oxford and Cambridge) do not have legacy admissions despite being in a country with its own aristocracy.

+1 The USA is the only advanced country I have heard of that rewards kids with a substantial preference for elite college admissions just because their parents went there.

+1 it’s an anomaly for international standards.

+100 "No other way to do this," says the only country where universities admit students this way.

On the other hand it doesn’t seem to impact the overall quality of the colleges so why do we need to change it? If you’re going to whine about “unqualified” admits, the legacy admits are not the logical starting point anyway. Athletes are.

Do you have evidence that it does not impact the overall quality of the colleges? And sure, many other countries do not provide athletes with advantages to admissions to their elite schools.

[Anonymous]

Maybe the US can learn a bit about fair admissions in the rest of the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very clear : nothing positive for the vast majority of families and students.

No, it is not clear, it is your opinion. I am fine with legacy admissions.
You all want to strip what make these schools special, and when they are no longer special, you are going to move on to the next set of schools that are prestigious.

If legacy students are truly talented, they will be admitted to top universities on their own merits. So what exactly is the problem with eliminating legacy admissions? Unless, of course, one believes they are not actually that talented.

What's next? The government inserting itself into corporate hiring decisions?

No, open and transparent admissions. In the same way you got your job in a competitive process. Or you got a “legacy” job through connections?

Of course people get jobs through connections. In fact, it is likely that MOST people get jobs through connections.

Maybe for some . But you can get fired at any time even with connections. Your last name doesn’t make your productive magically. At the end of the day, profit-making corporations care more if you contribute to the bottom line rather than how many friends you have at the company.

Have you ever worked at a large or mid sized American company? Your contribution to the bottom line is enhanced by connections, most people get their job through someone they know. Do you have any in person friends?

+1

Clearly the PP is clearless.

Clearly that’s clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole point of going to an elite school is to rub elbows with the “privileged few.” Otherwise we would just administer an IQ test and take the top X%.

It's also why those privileged few get hired: the companies want access to the same connections, especially in finance.

Funny that the wage difference between Ivy League and public Ivy graduates is not significant.

So we should leave colleges alone and let them do their thing.

+1

THE END.

Not yet. We can reach 300 posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacies keep the alumi donation pipeline full. With no legacies donations would plummet. It is that simple.

There's no evidence of this: an alternative hypothesis is that legacy boosts lead to admissions of kids who wouldn't have been admitted were it not for the legacy boost, thereby perpetuating the supremacy of otherwise less than stellar kids. And maybe one of the kids who would have been admitted, if selection were fully merit based would be the next billionaire who could keep college coffers full.

It's a pretty straight forward assumption. Most people would donate less if their child was rejected.

The even bigger issue for schools is that alumni are walking billboards. They have a much larger impact an application rates than you realize.

None of this is measurable by a study.

Yes, so you should stop stating your opinions as if they're fact. Stating "most people would donate less if their child was rejected" does not mean that legacy admissions are the best option for universities, and the most elite universities don't need their alumni to be walking billboards for them--they're already at sub-5% admittance rates. It could be that cchools could do better if they picked the best applicant, and that best applicant was more successful and could donate more than the legacy student.

The elite schools are at sub 5% admittance rates BECAUSE of their alumni. "Best" as you say, is subjective. Best to Americans means reputation, cache, prestige, and perceived smarts, if the elite schools just focus on a cut off line based off test scores and grades, they will soon no longer be elite, because the elite of the U.S. will not want to go to these schools.

That’s your opinion, not a fact. As mentioned earlier in this thread, plenty of countries (ex: England, France, India, Korea, China) have elite universities with admissions that are entirely merit based that are perceived as elite.

I would love to see the stats on US citizen admissions to the elite universities in those countries. They also have very different funding mechanisms.

The educational environment for kids is incredibly miserable in Asia. I see this first-hand as I live in Singapore. It is exhausting to witness the intensity with which families are pursuing US university options. The kids have after school and Saturday tuition all designed to optimize test scores and grades. And yes, all of the selection tests are trainable with enough effort. They no longer measure anything other than test prep.

They’ve even managed to add in certifications to after school art, theater, and music programs. The credentialism is out of control.

I'm sure you can find those stats using a handy tool that "the kids" call Google. You just need to look at numbers and read more rather than state opinions without evidence. Perhaps because you live in Singapore, you have not realized that plenty of American kids are also in Saturday and/or Sunday academic enrichment classes and activities. It's competitive here too. But your anecdote is not data anyway--plenty of desirable schools (ex: Oxford and Cambridge) do not have legacy admissions despite being in a country with its own aristocracy.

+1 The USA is the only advanced country I have heard of that rewards kids with a substantial preference for elite college admissions just because their parents went there.

+1 it’s an anomaly for international standards.

+100 "No other way to do this," says the only country where universities admit students this way.

On the other hand it doesn’t seem to impact the overall quality of the colleges so why do we need to change it? If you’re going to whine about “unqualified” admits, the legacy admits are not the logical starting point anyway. Athletes are.

Absolutely not. People that are competitive enough to play a sport in college bring incredible skills to the table. Being an elite athlete shows a dedication, grit, and ability to work in a team that 99% of regular people do not possess. I don’t care if they can regurgitate facts well enough to get great grades and I certainly don’t care if they had enough resources growing up to have tutors and college application consultants. I think most athletes are far better prepared for the real world than coddle UMC private school kids.

If I could, I would only hire athletes. And you’re also forgetting that most athletes that get recruited for elite schools are also decently smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacies keep the alumi donation pipeline full. With no legacies donations would plummet. It is that simple.

There's no evidence of this: an alternative hypothesis is that legacy boosts lead to admissions of kids who wouldn't have been admitted were it not for the legacy boost, thereby perpetuating the supremacy of otherwise less than stellar kids. And maybe one of the kids who would have been admitted, if selection were fully merit based would be the next billionaire who could keep college coffers full.

It's a pretty straight forward assumption. Most people would donate less if their child was rejected.

The even bigger issue for schools is that alumni are walking billboards. They have a much larger impact an application rates than you realize.

None of this is measurable by a study.

Yes, so you should stop stating your opinions as if they're fact. Stating "most people would donate less if their child was rejected" does not mean that legacy admissions are the best option for universities, and the most elite universities don't need their alumni to be walking billboards for them--they're already at sub-5% admittance rates. It could be that cchools could do better if they picked the best applicant, and that best applicant was more successful and could donate more than the legacy student.

The elite schools are at sub 5% admittance rates BECAUSE of their alumni. "Best" as you say, is subjective. Best to Americans means reputation, cache, prestige, and perceived smarts, if the elite schools just focus on a cut off line based off test scores and grades, they will soon no longer be elite, because the elite of the U.S. will not want to go to these schools.

That’s your opinion, not a fact. As mentioned earlier in this thread, plenty of countries (ex: England, France, India, Korea, China) have elite universities with admissions that are entirely merit based that are perceived as elite.

I would love to see the stats on US citizen admissions to the elite universities in those countries. They also have very different funding mechanisms.

The educational environment for kids is incredibly miserable in Asia. I see this first-hand as I live in Singapore. It is exhausting to witness the intensity with which families are pursuing US university options. The kids have after school and Saturday tuition all designed to optimize test scores and grades. And yes, all of the selection tests are trainable with enough effort. They no longer measure anything other than test prep.

They’ve even managed to add in certifications to after school art, theater, and music programs. The credentialism is out of control.

I'm sure you can find those stats using a handy tool that "the kids" call Google. You just need to look at numbers and read more rather than state opinions without evidence. Perhaps because you live in Singapore, you have not realized that plenty of American kids are also in Saturday and/or Sunday academic enrichment classes and activities. It's competitive here too. But your anecdote is not data anyway--plenty of desirable schools (ex: Oxford and Cambridge) do not have legacy admissions despite being in a country with its own aristocracy.

+1 The USA is the only advanced country I have heard of that rewards kids with a substantial preference for elite college admissions just because their parents went there.

+1 it’s an anomaly for international standards.

+100 "No other way to do this," says the only country where universities admit students this way.

On the other hand it doesn’t seem to impact the overall quality of the colleges so why do we need to change it? If you’re going to whine about “unqualified” admits, the legacy admits are not the logical starting point anyway. Athletes are.

Absolutely not. People that are competitive enough to play a sport in college bring incredible skills to the table. Being an elite athlete shows a dedication, grit, and ability to work in a team that 99% of regular people do not possess. I don’t care if they can regurgitate facts well enough to get great grades and I certainly don’t care if they had enough resources growing up to have tutors and college application consultants. I think most athletes are far better prepared for the real world than coddle UMC private school kids.

If I could, I would only hire athletes. And you’re also forgetting that most athletes that get recruited for elite schools are also decently smart.

It is an academic institution.
It should not be screening for athletic ability or genetic.
Both are IRRELEVANT to the argument if you are reductive about it.

BUT, the institution is allowed to build the community as it sees fit....
So, selecting students by their connectivity to the institution and the added incentive to make monetary gifts (legacy) makes just as much sense as selecting students who are team players and have visible (athletes)
Both are VALID to the argument if you are holistic about it.

If you are letting people in for anything other than athletic ability - legacy is kosher.