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:

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?"

US colleges with legacy admissions are still among the highest rated schools nationally and internationally - if it was impacting their quality wouldn’t you expect to see them drop?

[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.

Check the Harvard data - it’s striking how much an edge being an athletic recruit provides

[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:

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?"

US colleges with legacy admissions are still among the highest rated schools nationally and internationally - if it was impacting their quality wouldn’t you expect to see them drop?

We should compare the ratings of colleges that offer legacy preferences vs the ratings of those that don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ The preference is slight, not substantial.

No it's not a "slight" preference unless you don't understand how numbers work. A paper on this topic by two Harvard professors shows that legacy students with the same SAT score as a non-legacy student are roughly five times more likely to be admitted to the elite university their parents attended.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2023/07/24/1189443223/affirmative-action-for-rich-kids-its-more-than-just-legacy-admissions
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/3/27/iop-chetty-deming-admissions/
https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Nontech.pdf

^^^

[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:

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?"

US colleges with legacy admissions are still among the highest rated schools nationally and internationally - if it was impacting their quality wouldn’t you expect to see them drop?

We should compare the ratings of colleges that offer legacy preferences vs the ratings of those that don’t.

^I’m guess that the data will show that colleges with legacy admissions rate higher on average than those that don’t. Seems like legacy admissions is helping those colleges.

[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:

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?"

US colleges with legacy admissions are still among the highest rated schools nationally and internationally - if it was impacting their quality wouldn’t you expect to see them drop?

We should compare the ratings of colleges that offer legacy preferences vs the ratings of those that don’t.

You could do that if you don't understand data and that many other factors other than legacy preferences influence those ratings.

[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:

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?"

US colleges with legacy admissions are still among the highest rated schools nationally and internationally - if it was impacting their quality wouldn’t you expect to see them drop?

The top 4 universities are 1) Oxford (does not have legacy preferences), 2) MIT (does not have legacy preferences, 3) Cambridge (does not have legacy preferences and 3) Princeton (tied with Cambridge, does have legacy preferences.) So under your extensive analysis--shouldn't we conclude that legacy admissions are harmful?
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/latest/world-ranking

[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:

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?"

US colleges with legacy admissions are still among the highest rated schools nationally and internationally - if it was impacting their quality wouldn’t you expect to see them drop?

We should compare the ratings of colleges that offer legacy preferences vs the ratings of those that don’t.

^I’m guess that the data will show that colleges with legacy admissions rate higher on average than those that don’t. Seems like legacy admissions is helping those colleges.

By the same token, you can see fat people drinking Diet Coke, so that means that Diet Coke makes you fat. Doesn’t work like that.

[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:

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?"

US colleges with legacy admissions are still among the highest rated schools nationally and internationally - if it was impacting their quality wouldn’t you expect to see them drop?

We should compare the ratings of colleges that offer legacy preferences vs the ratings of those that don’t.

You could do that if you don't understand data and that many other factors other than legacy preferences influence those ratings.

Maybe the top private colleges know what they’re doing and you should realize that you get zero say in what they 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:

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?"

US colleges with legacy admissions are still among the highest rated schools nationally and internationally - if it was impacting their quality wouldn’t you expect to see them drop?

We should compare the ratings of colleges that offer legacy preferences vs the ratings of those that don’t.

You could do that if you don't understand data and that many other factors other than legacy preferences influence those ratings.

Maybe the top private colleges know what they’re doing and you should realize that you get zero say in what they do.

Maybe, but some people are working on it. Wait and see:

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/legacy-college-admissions-preferences-backlash-772c88be?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqfGFvlrqmXVOOhJ18zHtfVzl-1vcfYhFrhg0cjg0gXd3i1KDaAmiYPX&gaa_ts=690a6313&gaa_sig=C1kojItHmI-q9r_wn1wq145nC4t7dKhywH75rZ_rgH0IK1OOiDE4uTZZhgDGvW6LjNPeZ3uq-J_Y8uhd3kkkmg%3D%3D

[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:

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?"

US colleges with legacy admissions are still among the highest rated schools nationally and internationally - if it was impacting their quality wouldn’t you expect to see them drop?

The top 4 universities are 1) Oxford (does not have legacy preferences), 2) MIT (does not have legacy preferences, 3) Cambridge (does not have legacy preferences and 3) Princeton (tied with Cambridge, does have legacy preferences.) So under your extensive analysis--shouldn't we conclude that legacy admissions are harmful?
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/latest/world-ranking

If you want to pick arbitrary endpoints go ahead, but HYPS are all still in the top ten worldwide so it tells me this isn’t a big deal

[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:

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?"

US colleges with legacy admissions are still among the highest rated schools nationally and internationally - if it was impacting their quality wouldn’t you expect to see them drop?

We should compare the ratings of colleges that offer legacy preferences vs the ratings of those that don’t.

^I’m guess that the data will show that colleges with legacy admissions rate higher on average than those that don’t. Seems like legacy admissions is helping those colleges.

By the same token, you can see fat people drinking Diet Coke, so that means that Diet Coke makes you fat. Doesn’t work like that.

I think the more apt Diet Coke analogy is some skinny people drink Diet Coke so you can’t really say that drinking Diet Coke makes you fat

[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:

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?"

US colleges with legacy admissions are still among the highest rated schools nationally and internationally - if it was impacting their quality wouldn’t you expect to see them drop?

We should compare the ratings of colleges that offer legacy preferences vs the ratings of those that don’t.

You could do that if you don't understand data and that many other factors other than legacy preferences influence those ratings.

Maybe the top private colleges know what they’re doing and you should realize that you get zero say in what they do.

Maybe, but some people are working on it. Wait and see:

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/legacy-college-admissions-preferences-backlash-772c88be?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqfGFvlrqmXVOOhJ18zHtfVzl-1vcfYhFrhg0cjg0gXd3i1KDaAmiYPX&gaa_ts=690a6313&gaa_sig=C1kojItHmI-q9r_wn1wq145nC4t7dKhywH75rZ_rgH0IK1OOiDE4uTZZhgDGvW6LjNPeZ3uq-J_Y8uhd3kkkmg%3D%3D

No one is forcing your kid to apply.

[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:

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?"

US colleges with legacy admissions are still among the highest rated schools nationally and internationally - if it was impacting their quality wouldn’t you expect to see them drop?

The top 4 universities are 1) Oxford (does not have legacy preferences), 2) MIT (does not have legacy preferences, 3) Cambridge (does not have legacy preferences and 3) Princeton (tied with Cambridge, does have legacy preferences.) So under your extensive analysis--shouldn't we conclude that legacy admissions are harmful?
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/latest/world-ranking

If you want to pick arbitrary endpoints go ahead, but HYPS are all still in the top ten worldwide so it tells me this isn’t a big deal

Maybe, but where is the evidence that if legacy admissions are removed they will go down in the ranking. How come mit is a top university ?

[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:

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?"

US colleges with legacy admissions are still among the highest rated schools nationally and internationally - if it was impacting their quality wouldn’t you expect to see them drop?

We should compare the ratings of colleges that offer legacy preferences vs the ratings of those that don’t.

You could do that if you don't understand data and that many other factors other than legacy preferences influence those ratings.

Maybe the top private colleges know what they’re doing and you should realize that you get zero say in what they do.

Maybe, but some people are working on it. Wait and see:

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/legacy-college-admissions-preferences-backlash-772c88be?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqfGFvlrqmXVOOhJ18zHtfVzl-1vcfYhFrhg0cjg0gXd3i1KDaAmiYPX&gaa_ts=690a6313&gaa_sig=C1kojItHmI-q9r_wn1wq145nC4t7dKhywH75rZ_rgH0IK1OOiDE4uTZZhgDGvW6LjNPeZ3uq-J_Y8uhd3kkkmg%3D%3D

No one is forcing your kid to apply.

Why are you afraid of removing legacy admissions if your kid is so talented?