Elite Colleges’ Quiet Fight to Favor Alumni Children

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like how the New York Times focuses on UVA in the article, putting to rest the claim by so many UVA bashers that it’s not a prestigious school and that its reputation doesn’t extend beyond the DMV. The Times frequently lumps UVA in with the nation’s top privates. You don’t see it doing that with Maryland lol.

+1000000

Bashers been real quiet lately

I'm the poster with the Brown family and state schools should not have legacy preference. IMO, UVA should take X% of the top of the class from each public HS as guaranteed admit.

[Anonymous]

The most important thing to take away from this article is that UVA is an elite school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of legacy preference does absolutely nothing. The same pool of privileged applicants will just spread themselves across the range of selective schools instead of getting funneled into the ones their parents attended. It won't create additional opportunities for another else when viewed in the aggregate.

+1

This. You get it.

Wrong. This is true only if you want to craft a narrative that suits your belief that the status quo in society should hold. Legacy status primarily benefits wealthy white people. When Johns Hopkins removed legacy preferences, the percentage of enrolled legacies declined from 12.5 to 3.5 percent, while Pell grant student enrollment (a proxy for low-income status) climbed from 9 to 19 percent.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/amhersts-legacy-announcement-wont-end-inequity/620476/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And already getting his butt kicked by the undeserving strivers.

The Cinderella myth, so cute. My DC1 was a Regeneron scholar and he's at a top med school now. All of the R. scholars and all of his med school class are from very affluent, connected families in the industry.

What does that have to do with your son who is feeling imposter syndrome at the school where his father attended because he only got in because he was a legacy? Are they clones?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of legacy preference does absolutely nothing. The same pool of privileged applicants will just spread themselves across the range of selective schools instead of getting funneled into the ones their parents attended. It won't create additional opportunities for another else when viewed in the aggregate.

+1

This. You get it.

Wrong. This is true only if you want to craft a narrative that suits your belief that the status quo in society should hold. Legacy status primarily benefits wealthy white people. When Johns Hopkins removed legacy preferences, the percentage of enrolled legacies declined from 12.5 to 3.5 percent, while Pell grant student enrollment (a proxy for low-income status) climbed from 9 to 19 percent.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/amhersts-legacy-announcement-wont-end-inequity/620476/

+1 you definitely get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And already getting his butt kicked by the undeserving strivers.

The Cinderella myth, so cute. My DC1 was a Regeneron scholar and he's at a top med school now. All of the R. scholars and all of his med school class are from very affluent, connected families in the industry.

What does that have to do with your son who is feeling imposter syndrome at the school where his father attended because he only got in because he was a legacy? Are they clones?

That was a different poster. I'm the one with the Brown family and the scholarship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of legacy preference does absolutely nothing. The same pool of privileged applicants will just spread themselves across the range of selective schools instead of getting funneled into the ones their parents attended. It won't create additional opportunities for another else when viewed in the aggregate.

+1

This. You get it.

Wrong. This is true only if you want to craft a narrative that suits your belief that the status quo in society should hold. Legacy status primarily benefits wealthy white people. When Johns Hopkins removed legacy preferences, the percentage of enrolled legacies declined from 12.5 to 3.5 percent, while Pell grant student enrollment (a proxy for low-income status) climbed from 9 to 19 percent.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/amhersts-legacy-announcement-wont-end-inequity/620476/

Did you even read the link you posted? Removal of legacy status and increasing socioeconomic diversity are completely independent of one another.

“Hill’s absolutely accurate point is that increased institutional spending on grant aid—not loans—for students with economic need will do much more to increase the enrollment of working-class and low-income students at wealthy colleges than getting rid of legacy admissions will.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of legacy preference does absolutely nothing. The same pool of privileged applicants will just spread themselves across the range of selective schools instead of getting funneled into the ones their parents attended. It won't create additional opportunities for another else when viewed in the aggregate.

+1

This. You get it.

Wrong. This is true only if you want to craft a narrative that suits your belief that the status quo in society should hold. Legacy status primarily benefits wealthy white people. When Johns Hopkins removed legacy preferences, the percentage of enrolled legacies declined from 12.5 to 3.5 percent, while Pell grant student enrollment (a proxy for low-income status) climbed from 9 to 19 percent.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/amhersts-legacy-announcement-wont-end-inequity/620476/

Apparently you didn’t read it. Did you see how the share of Pell grant recipients increased by 10 pct in 2 years after legacy admissions were removed at John’s Hopkins while the share of legacy admin dropped? The point is they would increase even more if more grants were available for poor kids.

Did you even read the link you posted? Removal of legacy status and increasing socioeconomic diversity are completely independent of one another.

“Hill’s absolutely accurate point is that increased institutional spending on grant aid—not loans—for students with economic need will do much more to increase the enrollment of working-class and low-income students at wealthy colleges than getting rid of legacy admissions will.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of legacy preference does absolutely nothing. The same pool of privileged applicants will just spread themselves across the range of selective schools instead of getting funneled into the ones their parents attended. It won't create additional opportunities for another else when viewed in the aggregate.

+1

This. You get it.

Wrong. This is true only if you want to craft a narrative that suits your belief that the status quo in society should hold. Legacy status primarily benefits wealthy white people. When Johns Hopkins removed legacy preferences, the percentage of enrolled legacies declined from 12.5 to 3.5 percent, while Pell grant student enrollment (a proxy for low-income status) climbed from 9 to 19 percent.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/amhersts-legacy-announcement-wont-end-inequity/620476/

Did you even read the link you posted? Removal of legacy status and increasing socioeconomic diversity are completely independent of one another.

“Hill’s absolutely accurate point is that increased institutional spending on grant aid—not loans—for students with economic need will do much more to increase the enrollment of working-class and low-income students at wealthy colleges than getting rid of legacy admissions will.”

Apparently you didn’t read it. Did you see how the share of Pell grant recipients increased by 10 pct in 2 years after legacy admissions were removed at John’s Hopkins while the share of legacy admin dropped? The point is they would increase even more if more grants were available for poor kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of legacy preference does absolutely nothing. The same pool of privileged applicants will just spread themselves across the range of selective schools instead of getting funneled into the ones their parents attended. It won't create additional opportunities for another else when viewed in the aggregate.

+1

This. You get it.

Wrong. This is true only if you want to craft a narrative that suits your belief that the status quo in society should hold. Legacy status primarily benefits wealthy white people. When Johns Hopkins removed legacy preferences, the percentage of enrolled legacies declined from 12.5 to 3.5 percent, while Pell grant student enrollment (a proxy for low-income status) climbed from 9 to 19 percent.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/amhersts-legacy-announcement-wont-end-inequity/620476/

Did you even read the link you posted? Removal of legacy status and increasing socioeconomic diversity are completely independent of one another.

“Hill’s absolutely accurate point is that increased institutional spending on grant aid—not loans—for students with economic need will do much more to increase the enrollment of working-class and low-income students at wealthy colleges than getting rid of legacy admissions will.”

Apparently you didn’t read it. Did you see how the share of Pell grant recipients increased by 10 pct in 2 years after legacy admissions were removed at John’s Hopkins while the share of legacy admin dropped? The point is they would increase even more if more grants were available for poor kids.

They are completely independent events.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The most important thing to take away from this article is that UVA is an elite school.

when definition of elite is T30

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of legacy preference does absolutely nothing. The same pool of privileged applicants will just spread themselves across the range of selective schools instead of getting funneled into the ones their parents attended. It won't create additional opportunities for another else when viewed in the aggregate.

+1

This. You get it.

Wrong. This is true only if you want to craft a narrative that suits your belief that the status quo in society should hold. Legacy status primarily benefits wealthy white people. When Johns Hopkins removed legacy preferences, the percentage of enrolled legacies declined from 12.5 to 3.5 percent, while Pell grant student enrollment (a proxy for low-income status) climbed from 9 to 19 percent.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/amhersts-legacy-announcement-wont-end-inequity/620476/

Did you even read the link you posted? Removal of legacy status and increasing socioeconomic diversity are completely independent of one another.

“Hill’s absolutely accurate point is that increased institutional spending on grant aid—not loans—for students with economic need will do much more to increase the enrollment of working-class and low-income students at wealthy colleges than getting rid of legacy admissions will.”

Apparently you didn’t read it. Did you see how the share of Pell grant recipients increased by 10 pct in 2 years after legacy admissions were removed at John’s Hopkins while the share of legacy admin dropped? The point is they would increase even more if more grants were available for poor kids.

They are completely independent events.

Sure-the legacy admits just magically dropped when the policy not to give them preference changed.

[Anonymous]

These schools are trying to please both the Woke and the Elites. Since most legacies are white, an elite school must achieve “diversity” by limiting the number of non-legacy white admits.

It's great for smart POCs and rich/connected white kids. Tough luck to non-legacy white kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of legacy preference does absolutely nothing. The same pool of privileged applicants will just spread themselves across the range of selective schools instead of getting funneled into the ones their parents attended. It won't create additional opportunities for another else when viewed in the aggregate.

+1

This. You get it.

Wrong. This is true only if you want to craft a narrative that suits your belief that the status quo in society should hold. Legacy status primarily benefits wealthy white people. When Johns Hopkins removed legacy preferences, the percentage of enrolled legacies declined from 12.5 to 3.5 percent, while Pell grant student enrollment (a proxy for low-income status) climbed from 9 to 19 percent.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/amhersts-legacy-announcement-wont-end-inequity/620476/

Did you even read the link you posted? Removal of legacy status and increasing socioeconomic diversity are completely independent of one another.

“Hill’s absolutely accurate point is that increased institutional spending on grant aid—not loans—for students with economic need will do much more to increase the enrollment of working-class and low-income students at wealthy colleges than getting rid of legacy admissions will.”

Apparently you didn’t read it. Did you see how the share of Pell grant recipients increased by 10 pct in 2 years after legacy admissions were removed at John’s Hopkins while the share of legacy admin dropped? The point is they would increase even more if more grants were available for poor kids.

They are completely independent events.

Sure-the legacy admits just magically dropped when the policy not to give them preference changed.

Pell grants and legacy admit rates are completely independent.

[Anonymous]

If you are against legacy admissions, do not have your children apply to schools that consider legacy in admissions. There are plenty of good ones!!
And if you have another hook— URM, first gen, recruited athlete, faculty or employee kid— use that instead.