Elite Colleges’ Quiet Fight to Favor Alumni Children

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look -- college is not a government program where the "most deserving" whatever that means gets the slot. Getting federal money to do things for the common good does not change that. Colleges get to pick what they want. I get legacy. It grounds the college and helps give it a history that can be shared. But the college gets to decide what it wants. Hey we need more music majors let's lower the scores for them or any other majors.

And this is the exact time that URMs admitted in an earlier time in great numbers have the legacy option. Seems a bit harsh to pull from them.

It will never be a "fair system". There is no way for that to happen. Just like life isn't fair. The fact that some people can afford tutoring and extras to help their kids isn't fair either. The fact that I can afford private schools (don't do that but I could) and can also afford to live in a top public district isn't fair. State schools should not use legacy, but private schools should get to pick what they want. Just like you stated, they do that when they don't admit 90% of their class as engineering, unless it's solely an engineering school. They do that with athletics, and many other admits.
Most of these on DCUM complaining that it isn't fair don't really appreciate all of the advantages they already have over most of the kids in the USA/world.

I think legacy should be abolished and it’s not because of fairness. I don’t think fairness is a reasonable objection to legacy. It’s because legacy are the only group that get admissions advantages without accompanying accomplishments or benefits to the school. I honestly don’t understand how parents can even put their kids through admission as a legacy — it’s like flat-out telling them they are mediocre — but my real objection is that legacy admissions bring a lot of extremely entitled kids to campuses and I think it harms the environment of schools.

Well the school does get a benefit. legacies, especially if it's multiple generations are much more likely to donate after graduation. Really legacy is all about financial issues for the university. Similarly, a Rich legacy whose family actually donates is more likely to get admitted than someone whose parents have not. I agree it's not the best for the school environment, but dont kid yourself, the places that admit by legacy are expensive schools and typically 50%+ are full pay students anyhow, with many being rich kids so that would be there no matter what.

Fixed the quoting:

The school gets a benefit from the student’s family, not from the student himself or herself. It’s the only category of admissions where the student doesn’t bring a benefit on their own. On their own, they bring nothing, unlike all their peers.

It does have to gnaw at the legacy students. They must know

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look -- college is not a government program where the "most deserving" whatever that means gets the slot. Getting federal money to do things for the common good does not change that. Colleges get to pick what they want. I get legacy. It grounds the college and helps give it a history that can be shared. But the college gets to decide what it wants. Hey we need more music majors let's lower the scores for them or any other majors.

And this is the exact time that URMs admitted in an earlier time in great numbers have the legacy option. Seems a bit harsh to pull from them.

It will never be a "fair system". There is no way for that to happen. Just like life isn't fair. The fact that some people can afford tutoring and extras to help their kids isn't fair either. The fact that I can afford private schools (don't do that but I could) and can also afford to live in a top public district isn't fair. State schools should not use legacy, but private schools should get to pick what they want. Just like you stated, they do that when they don't admit 90% of their class as engineering, unless it's solely an engineering school. They do that with athletics, and many other admits.
Most of these on DCUM complaining that it isn't fair don't really appreciate all of the advantages they already have over most of the kids in the USA/world.

I think legacy should be abolished and it’s not because of fairness. I don’t think fairness is a reasonable objection to legacy. It’s because legacy are the only group that get admissions advantages without accompanying accomplishments or benefits to the school. I honestly don’t understand how parents can even put their kids through admission as a legacy — it’s like flat-out telling them they are mediocre — but my real objection is that legacy admissions bring a lot of extremely entitled kids to campuses and I think it harms the environment of schools.

Oh, child. How much are you willing to pony up? Most of you can't even make the tuition without loans and/or whining and begging for money, forget about donating decent amounts. No, we make the environment of the school. We've been attending for generations.

"Princeton's Annual Giving campaign raises $68.6 million"
"Fiscal Year 2021 was the most successful fundraising year in Brown's history, with a whopping $430.5 million raised."
"Harvard topped the donation league in 2018, bringing in a mammoth $1.4 billion."

Yes---those "legacy" admits and their families help fund everyone else.

Not only the tuition for the low and middle class kids. DC1's program received millions for the bipolar seed grant program from a very generous family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look -- college is not a government program where the "most deserving" whatever that means gets the slot. Getting federal money to do things for the common good does not change that. Colleges get to pick what they want. I get legacy. It grounds the college and helps give it a history that can be shared. But the college gets to decide what it wants. Hey we need more music majors let's lower the scores for them or any other majors.

And this is the exact time that URMs admitted in an earlier time in great numbers have the legacy option. Seems a bit harsh to pull from them.

It will never be a "fair system". There is no way for that to happen. Just like life isn't fair. The fact that some people can afford tutoring and extras to help their kids isn't fair either. The fact that I can afford private schools (don't do that but I could) and can also afford to live in a top public district isn't fair. State schools should not use legacy, but private schools should get to pick what they want. Just like you stated, they do that when they don't admit 90% of their class as engineering, unless it's solely an engineering school. They do that with athletics, and many other admits.
Most of these on DCUM complaining that it isn't fair don't really appreciate all of the advantages they already have over most of the kids in the USA/world.

I think legacy should be abolished and it’s not because of fairness. I don’t think fairness is a reasonable objection to legacy. It’s because legacy are the only group that get admissions advantages without accompanying accomplishments or benefits to the school. I honestly don’t understand how parents can even put their kids through admission as a legacy — it’s like flat-out telling them they are mediocre — but my real objection is that legacy admissions bring a lot of extremely entitled kids to campuses and I think it harms the environment of schools.

Well the school does get a benefit. legacies, especially if it's multiple generations are much more likely to donate after graduation. Really legacy is all about financial issues for the university. Similarly, a Rich legacy whose family actually donates is more likely to get admitted than someone whose parents have not. I agree it's not the best for the school environment, but dont kid yourself, the places that admit by legacy are expensive schools and typically 50%+ are full pay students anyhow, with many being rich kids so that would be there no matter what.

There are no kids getting into anywhere because of legacy that are mediocre. Just not a thing. They are in the group at each school that have the potential to be admitted. No people who make multi million donations may get mediocre kids in. But legacy is just not that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look -- college is not a government program where the "most deserving" whatever that means gets the slot. Getting federal money to do things for the common good does not change that. Colleges get to pick what they want. I get legacy. It grounds the college and helps give it a history that can be shared. But the college gets to decide what it wants. Hey we need more music majors let's lower the scores for them or any other majors.

And this is the exact time that URMs admitted in an earlier time in great numbers have the legacy option. Seems a bit harsh to pull from them.

It will never be a "fair system". There is no way for that to happen. Just like life isn't fair. The fact that some people can afford tutoring and extras to help their kids isn't fair either. The fact that I can afford private schools (don't do that but I could) and can also afford to live in a top public district isn't fair. State schools should not use legacy, but private schools should get to pick what they want. Just like you stated, they do that when they don't admit 90% of their class as engineering, unless it's solely an engineering school. They do that with athletics, and many other admits.
Most of these on DCUM complaining that it isn't fair don't really appreciate all of the advantages they already have over most of the kids in the USA/world.

I think legacy should be abolished and it’s not because of fairness. I don’t think fairness is a reasonable objection to legacy. It’s because legacy are the only group that get admissions advantages without accompanying accomplishments or benefits to the school. I honestly don’t understand how parents can even put their kids through admission as a legacy — it’s like flat-out telling them they are mediocre — but my real objection is that legacy admissions bring a lot of extremely entitled kids to campuses and I think it harms the environment of schools.

Well the school does get a benefit. legacies, especially if it's multiple generations are much more likely to donate after graduation. Really legacy is all about financial issues for the university. Similarly, a Rich legacy whose family actually donates is more likely to get admitted than someone whose parents have not. I agree it's not the best for the school environment, but dont kid yourself, the places that admit by legacy are expensive schools and typically 50%+ are full pay students anyhow, with many being rich kids so that would be there no matter what.

There are no kids getting into anywhere because of legacy that are mediocre. Just not a thing. They are in the group at each school that have the potential to be admitted. No people who make multi million donations may get mediocre kids in. But legacy is just not that.

I agree. Most who get in via legacy have the stats to be admitted or extremely close (and really someone who has a 1500 SAT and 4.2 W GPA are not that much different than a 1580 and 4.4). And that's to be expected because someone growing up in a wealthy family would have had the best educational opportunities available to them all the way thru life and expected to excel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1

This. You get it.

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

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

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

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

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

They are completely independent events.

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

Pell grants and legacy admit rates are completely independent.

Johns Hopkins got rid of legacy preferences and it’s share of legacy students dropped from 12.5 to 3.5 percent. Ergo, without said preferences a good chunk of legacy students were no longer competitive against the broader pool of admitted students. People may try to argue as people on this thread have that this doesn’t matter because that 10 percent that Johns Hopkins now rejects are all commendable qualified students, but the face is that they weren’t as good as the legacy students weren’t as good as the students admitted in their place.

And you may choose to interpret the fact that the share of Pell grant students increased dramatically has nothing to do with dropping legacy preferences is a completely independent trend but you would be completely wrong, at least according to people who know anything about education statistics. Admissions are not a win win situation. If rich legacy kids lose, other kids gain, and in the case of Johns Hopkins it was poorer but more talented kids than the legacy pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1

This. You get it.

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

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

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

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

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

They are completely independent events.

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

Pell grants and legacy admit rates are completely independent.

Johns Hopkins got rid of legacy preferences and it’s share of legacy students dropped from 12.5 to 3.5 percent. Ergo, without said preferences a good chunk of legacy students were no longer competitive against the broader pool of admitted students. People may try to argue as people on this thread have that this doesn’t matter because that 10 percent that Johns Hopkins now rejects are all commendable qualified students, but the face is that they weren’t as good as the legacy students weren’t as good as the students admitted in their place.

And you may choose to interpret the fact that the share of Pell grant students increased dramatically has nothing to do with dropping legacy preferences is a completely independent trend but you would be completely wrong, at least according to people who know anything about education statistics. Admissions are not a win win situation. If rich legacy kids lose, other kids gain, and in the case of Johns Hopkins it was poorer but more talented kids than the legacy pool.

When JHU got rid of legacy, legacy students stopped applying ED! That’s why the numbers went down. It isn’t because they weren’t as competitive. It’s because they decided that if they weren’t going to have a hook, they would just assume apply ED somewhere they actually wanted to go. They probably ended up in other T20 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look -- college is not a government program where the "most deserving" whatever that means gets the slot. Getting federal money to do things for the common good does not change that. Colleges get to pick what they want. I get legacy. It grounds the college and helps give it a history that can be shared. But the college gets to decide what it wants. Hey we need more music majors let's lower the scores for them or any other majors.

And this is the exact time that URMs admitted in an earlier time in great numbers have the legacy option. Seems a bit harsh to pull from them.

It will never be a "fair system". There is no way for that to happen. Just like life isn't fair. The fact that some people can afford tutoring and extras to help their kids isn't fair either. The fact that I can afford private schools (don't do that but I could) and can also afford to live in a top public district isn't fair. State schools should not use legacy, but private schools should get to pick what they want. Just like you stated, they do that when they don't admit 90% of their class as engineering, unless it's solely an engineering school. They do that with athletics, and many other admits.
Most of these on DCUM complaining that it isn't fair don't really appreciate all of the advantages they already have over most of the kids in the USA/world.

I think legacy should be abolished and it’s not because of fairness. I don’t think fairness is a reasonable objection to legacy. It’s because legacy are the only group that get admissions advantages without accompanying accomplishments or benefits to the school. I honestly don’t understand how parents can even put their kids through admission as a legacy — it’s like flat-out telling them they are mediocre — but my real objection is that legacy admissions bring a lot of extremely entitled kids to campuses and I think it harms the environment of schools.

Well the school does get a benefit. legacies, especially if it's multiple generations are much more likely to donate after graduation. Really legacy is all about financial issues for the university. Similarly, a Rich legacy whose family actually donates is more likely to get admitted than someone whose parents have not. I agree it's not the best for the school environment, but dont kid yourself, the places that admit by legacy are expensive schools and typically 50%+ are full pay students anyhow, with many being rich kids so that would be there no matter what.

There are no kids getting into anywhere because of legacy that are mediocre. [b] Just not a thing. They are in the group at each school that have the potential to be admitted. No people who make multi million donations may get mediocre kids in. But legacy is just not that.

FALSE. The legacy kids at my meh Slac were definitely a cut below the other students

[Anonymous]

If applicants with less than stellar scores can get into the elite schools because people who were brown or black faced legal discrimination over 50 years ago, by claiming that they still can't compete because of that past wrong, then white kids whose parents attended the elite colleges should be able to get in by claiming that they have the right family connections to keep growing the endowments.

Actually the white kids have a stronger case, because their argument rings truer to me.

If I were the President of Harvard and not married to my first cousin and struggling to raise our five kids on her waiters salary in Alabama, I would make legacy admissions 75% of all seats at Harvard and all other elites like the University of Alabama. I will pray to JEESUS to make this dream of mine come true when we go to our Southern Baptist Church service today

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look -- college is not a government program where the "most deserving" whatever that means gets the slot. Getting federal money to do things for the common good does not change that. Colleges get to pick what they want. I get legacy. It grounds the college and helps give it a history that can be shared. But the college gets to decide what it wants. Hey we need more music majors let's lower the scores for them or any other majors.

And this is the exact time that URMs admitted in an earlier time in great numbers have the legacy option. Seems a bit harsh to pull from them.

It will never be a "fair system". There is no way for that to happen. Just like life isn't fair. The fact that some people can afford tutoring and extras to help their kids isn't fair either. The fact that I can afford private schools (don't do that but I could) and can also afford to live in a top public district isn't fair. State schools should not use legacy, but private schools should get to pick what they want. Just like you stated, they do that when they don't admit 90% of their class as engineering, unless it's solely an engineering school. They do that with athletics, and many other admits.
Most of these on DCUM complaining that it isn't fair don't really appreciate all of the advantages they already have over most of the kids in the USA/world.

I think legacy should be abolished and it’s not because of fairness. I don’t think fairness is a reasonable objection to legacy. It’s because legacy are the only group that get admissions advantages without accompanying accomplishments or benefits to the school. I honestly don’t understand how parents can even put their kids through admission as a legacy — it’s like flat-out telling them they are mediocre — but my real objection is that legacy admissions bring a lot of extremely entitled kids to campuses and I think it harms the environment of schools.

Well the school does get a benefit. legacies, especially if it's multiple generations are much more likely to donate after graduation. Really legacy is all about financial issues for the university. Similarly, a Rich legacy whose family actually donates is more likely to get admitted than someone whose parents have not. I agree it's not the best for the school environment, but dont kid yourself, the places that admit by legacy are expensive schools and typically 50%+ are full pay students anyhow, with many being rich kids so that would be there no matter what.

There are no kids getting into anywhere because of legacy that are mediocre. Just not a thing. They are in the group at each school that have the potential to be admitted. No people who make multi million donations may get mediocre kids in. But legacy is just not that.

FALSE. The legacy kids at [b]my meh Slac were definitely a cut below the other students

We're talking about elite schools here. Meh SLACS have small endowments and can't afford to be picky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look -- college is not a government program where the "most deserving" whatever that means gets the slot. Getting federal money to do things for the common good does not change that. Colleges get to pick what they want. I get legacy. It grounds the college and helps give it a history that can be shared. But the college gets to decide what it wants. Hey we need more music majors let's lower the scores for them or any other majors.

And this is the exact time that URMs admitted in an earlier time in great numbers have the legacy option. Seems a bit harsh to pull from them.

It will never be a "fair system". There is no way for that to happen. Just like life isn't fair. The fact that some people can afford tutoring and extras to help their kids isn't fair either. The fact that I can afford private schools (don't do that but I could) and can also afford to live in a top public district isn't fair. State schools should not use legacy, but private schools should get to pick what they want. Just like you stated, they do that when they don't admit 90% of their class as engineering, unless it's solely an engineering school. They do that with athletics, and many other admits.
Most of these on DCUM complaining that it isn't fair don't really appreciate all of the advantages they already have over most of the kids in the USA/world.

I think legacy should be abolished and it’s not because of fairness. I don’t think fairness is a reasonable objection to legacy. It’s because legacy are the only group that get admissions advantages without accompanying accomplishments or benefits to the school. I honestly don’t understand how parents can even put their kids through admission as a legacy — it’s like flat-out telling them they are mediocre — but my real objection is that legacy admissions bring a lot of extremely entitled kids to campuses and I think it harms the environment of schools.

Well the school does get a benefit. legacies, especially if it's multiple generations are much more likely to donate after graduation. Really legacy is all about financial issues for the university. Similarly, a Rich legacy whose family actually donates is more likely to get admitted than someone whose parents have not. I agree it's not the best for the school environment, but dont kid yourself, the places that admit by legacy are expensive schools and typically 50%+ are full pay students anyhow, with many being rich kids so that would be there no matter what.

There are no kids getting into anywhere because of legacy that are mediocre. [b] Just not a thing. They are in the group at each school that have the potential to be admitted. No people who make multi million donations may get mediocre kids in. But legacy is just not that.

FALSE. The legacy kids at my meh Slac were definitely a cut below the other students

Then your school is an outlier. Sorry to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1

This. You get it.

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

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

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

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

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

They are completely independent events.

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

Pell grants and legacy admit rates are completely independent.

Johns Hopkins got rid of legacy preferences and it’s share of legacy students dropped from 12.5 to 3.5 percent. Ergo, without said preferences a good chunk of legacy students were no longer competitive against the broader pool of admitted students. People may try to argue as people on this thread have that this doesn’t matter because that 10 percent that Johns Hopkins now rejects are all commendable qualified students, but the face is that they weren’t as good as the legacy students weren’t as good as the students admitted in their place.

And you may choose to interpret the fact that the share of Pell grant students increased dramatically has nothing to do with dropping legacy preferences is a completely independent trend but you would be completely wrong, at least according to people who know anything about education statistics. Admissions are not a win win situation. If rich legacy kids lose, other kids gain, and in the case of Johns Hopkins it was poorer but more talented kids than the legacy pool.

Yes they would not get in. But they were no lower than admitted students. At all selectives there are about double the number of qualified students who are not admitted. All you have done is shited those admits to someone else. You have not changed the profile of the class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If applicants with less than stellar scores can get into the elite schools because people who were brown or black faced legal discrimination over 50 years ago, by claiming that they still can't compete because of that past wrong, then white kids whose parents attended the elite colleges should be able to get in by claiming that they have the right family connections to keep growing the endowments.

Actually the white kids have a stronger case, because their argument rings truer to me.

If I were the President of Harvard and not married to my first cousin and struggling to raise our five kids on her waiters salary in Alabama, I would make legacy admissions 75% of all seats at Harvard and all other elites like the University of Alabama. I will pray to JEESUS to make this dream of mine come true when we go to our Southern Baptist Church service today

Your JEESUS is weird
Can you not tell the difference between giving an admission break to the privileged among the privileged, compared to someone disadvantaged by the heavy hand of history
These institutions for the privileged are loosing their status, the best among the best go elsewhere
Harvard does have a high ranking in the US, but not the top of the world

[Anonymous]

My husband was a first gen, non-legacy at a selective private university. Very poor.

Now his son will be non-preferred over a non-legacy according to the school’s prez.

We are not a wealthy, privileged family, but he is a legacy. Not all legacies are rich and entitled.

The school wants no legacies. Seriously f’d up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My husband was a first gen, non-legacy at a selective private university. Very poor.

Now his son will be non-preferred over a non-legacy according to the school’s prez.

We are not a wealthy, privileged family, but he is a legacy. Not all legacies are rich and entitled.

The school wants no legacies. Seriously f’d up.

Oh and was donating since he graduated (what he could afford to—not much). I told him to stop doing that. Screw ‘em.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1

This. You get it.

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

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

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

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

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

They are completely independent events.

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

Pell grants and legacy admit rates are completely independent.

Johns Hopkins got rid of legacy preferences and it’s share of legacy students dropped from 12.5 to 3.5 percent. Ergo, without said preferences a good chunk of legacy students were no longer competitive against the broader pool of admitted students. People may try to argue as people on this thread have that this doesn’t matter because that 10 percent that Johns Hopkins now rejects are all commendable qualified students, but the face is that they weren’t as good as the legacy students weren’t as good as the students admitted in their place.

And you may choose to interpret the fact that the share of Pell grant students increased dramatically has nothing to do with dropping legacy preferences is a completely independent trend but you would be completely wrong, at least according to people who know anything about education statistics. Admissions are not a win win situation. If rich legacy kids lose, other kids gain, and in the case of Johns Hopkins it was poorer but more talented kids than the legacy pool.

Yes they would not get in. But they were no lower than admitted students. At all selectives there are about double the number of qualified students who are not admitted. All you have done is shited those admits to someone else. You have not changed the profile of the class.

Husband raised poor, single parent working two jobs. Our kids are now f’d at Hopkins because they are technically “legacy”. They are neither rich or entitled, but have the stats to get in on their own. However, since they are non-minority, non first-Gen and legacies, they will take the kid with slightly lower crowds according to Hopkin’s President.