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:

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.

Sorry *academic* ability

[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.

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.

I mean to the extent you can judge the quality of a college, the national and international rankings don’t have any issue with it.

[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.

Sure but the evidence we have is that athletic recruits have markedly lower academic achievement than other admitted student groups. That’s not to say they’re dumb but they’re definitely getting a huge admissions advantage from being an athlete.

If you want to believe in those values that you think athletes bring the table that others don’t, that’s great. Colleges do too. But it is inconsistent to argue colleges can deviate from academics in one place but not in any other.

[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.

Accenture explicitly seeks out athletes when hiring.

[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:

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.

Private institutions are whatever they want to be. DCUM doesn’t get to decide that for them.

[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:

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.

I mean to the extent you can judge the quality of a college, the national and international rankings don’t have any issue with it.

What's your evidence that national and international rankings "don't have any issue with it?"

[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:

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.

Accenture explicitly seeks out athletes when hiring.

So do investment banks who also seek out ex-military. But that's not because they're necessarily the smartest candidates available, it's because they're willing/able to work 12 hours+ a day and to follow orders without complaining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the reasons people send their kids to private schools (though not the only reason) is to increase their chances of getting into an elite university. However, these students still have to compete with others who benefit from legacy admissions.

In a society that prides itself on meritocracy and free enterprise, is there anything positive for society about this type of admission practice—or does it simply entrench the privileges of a few? What do you think?

Yes. A sense of belonging. A sense of history and tradition. And fundraising. Slots at private colleges are not set aside for the highest scorers. It is however the college wants to do it. My children did not select to go to my top school. They both went to higher ranked on even though mine is quite highly ranked. But I fully support the legacy idea.

[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:

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.

Accenture explicitly seeks out athletes when hiring.

So do investment banks who also seek out ex-military. But that's not because they're necessarily the smartest candidates available, it's because they're willing/able to work 12 hours+ a day and to follow orders without complaining.

Exactly. There may be non-academic reasons why universities seek out top athletes.

[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:

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.

Accenture explicitly seeks out athletes when hiring.

So do investment banks who also seek out ex-military. But that's not because they're necessarily the smartest candidates available, it's because they're willing/able to work 12 hours+ a day and to follow orders without complaining.

On your last point , your bias is showing. They are selecting ex-officers because of their ability to multi-task, and work under pressure as well as their ability to problem solve. Everyone at investment banks work 12 hour days or they get fired or do not advance. And if you think the military is about following orders without complaining you never served.

[Anonymous]

I went to a top college and my kids may benefit from legacy status if/when they apply.

I’m ok getting rid of legacy but ultimately it’s a decision made by the university as a private business.

The gov’t overreach into education right now is disconcerting.

[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:

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.

Sure but the evidence we have is that athletic recruits have markedly lower academic achievement than other admitted student groups. That’s not to say they’re dumb but they’re definitely getting a huge admissions advantage from being an athlete.

If you want to believe in those values that you think athletes bring the table that others don’t, that’s great. Colleges do too. But it is inconsistent to argue colleges can deviate from academics in one place but not in any other.

There is no such evidence actually. Especially at top schools. The numbers are the same or quite similar.

[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:

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.

Colleges are only in part academic institutions. What they are is a place for young people to develop the life skills and the life smarts to take their place in the world. The best students do not make the best people, the best employees, the best leaders. Well rounded people do.

[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:

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.

Sure but the evidence we have is that athletic recruits have markedly lower academic achievement than other admitted student groups. That’s not to say they’re dumb but they’re definitely getting a huge admissions advantage from being an athlete.

If you want to believe in those values that you think athletes bring the table that others don’t, that’s great. Colleges do too. But it is inconsistent to argue colleges can deviate from academics in one place but not in any other.

There is no such evidence actually. Especially at top schools. The numbers are the same or quite similar.

What's your evidence? Because this paper by 2 Harvard econ professors shows that for elite colleges, athletic recruits and legacy admits are many times more likely to be admitted than non-legacy/non-athlete candidates with similar academic performance.
https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Nontech.pdf

[Anonymous]

So I’ll take the legacy admissions do have value argument.

1. They create a lifelong and multigenerational relationship with the university. They lead to higher alumni engagement which provides better networking opportunities for recent graduates and higher donations for the university.

2. For non legacy admits, having legacy advantages for their kids lets them break into the club. It kinda sucks for all the GenX alumni who got in despite not having legacy to have that advantage taken away from them. I do wonder if the swing against legacy now is because there are more women and POC with legacy status. The club is no longer rich white men, no more gentlemen’s C students being admitted so close the club mentality.

3. For the subset of applicants who are legacy, love the school , have super high stats and whose families having been going for generations it’s a blow to not get in. Active donors will immediately cease engaging when this happens.

4. Removing the advantage probably also ends up making it a disadvantage. There’s a joke that the best way not to get into CAL is admitting that your parents went there.