Elite Colleges’ Quiet Fight to Favor Alumni Children

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lower creds

[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.

Good. Why should he be "preferred"?

[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.

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.

I've heard it said that people who come from privileged backgrounds have a leg up already in life compared to mere mortals. Hence, part of the reason for holistic admissions.

If you compare two students with the same stats: one from a MC family whose parents went to a B rated state univ and the other whose a child of an ivy league graduate, the MC student probably had to work harder for those stats than the legacy kid.

Isn't that what we are told about poor kids, first gen kids.. that they have to work harder? MC kids have to work harder than UMC.

So, yes, I would expect UMC kids whose parents are ivy league educated to have super high stats, but that kid most likely didn't have to work as hard, or at least had more opportunities than a MC, or LMC kid did with the same stats.

In that way, the MC or even UMC kid whose parents just managed to work hard an save seems to always be screwed - no hooks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Good. Why should he be "preferred"?

Two equal candidates, they will automatically take the non-legacy.

The non-legacy is the one automatically preferred even if stats slightly lower.

[Anonymous]

I heard that being a legacy and needing financial aid will hurt you.
They want full pay students, if a legacy admits parents cannot full pay, then they do not want to make the same mistake again

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Good. Why should he be "preferred"?

Two equal candidates, they will automatically take the non-legacy.

The non-legacy is the one automatically preferred even if stats slightly lower.

Why should a school not give someone new an opportunity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Good. Why should he be "preferred"?

Two equal candidates, they will automatically take the non-legacy.

The non-legacy is the one automatically preferred even if stats slightly lower.

Why should a school not give someone new an opportunity?

Both students are new. Neither should be punished or declined merely for who their parents are or whether or not the parents are alum.

Things should be 100% merit based. It’s 2022. Bring back test scores too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

They will get into schools they’re qualified to attend. Maybe it will be selective, maybe it won’t. Imagine if there were no special side doors or loop holes or handshake deals- some of these kids would have to go to average schools. They’re not all smart.

This. I have a white, high functioning kid at the top of their class in one of the top private schools in the country. He has zero chance at any Top 20 university or college because we grew up outside of the US and are not legacies anywhere. We were born poor and worked really hard to be able to afford the financial position we are in. Between legacies, athletes and URMs, all the spots are taken these days, which would be fair if these applicants were all as qualified, but let's not kid ourselves, for many in these groups the academic bar is lowered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Good. Why should he be "preferred"?

Two equal candidates, they will automatically take the non-legacy.

The non-legacy is the one automatically preferred even if stats slightly lower.

Why should a school not give someone new an opportunity?

Both students are new. Neither should be punished or declined merely for who their parents are or whether or not the parents are alum.

Things should be 100% merit based. It’s 2022. Bring back test scores too.

100%.

[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.

Why is this f-ed up? This is fair. Just like your huband got in on his own, your child should be able to do so too!

[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.

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.

So these JHU legacy kids didn't really want to go to JHU so they went elsewhere once they no longer had legacy preference. Um, ok. I don't agree with that interpretation, but if the kids didn't want to go to the same school as their parents, why is this a bad outcome?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacy is a problem, but kids getting into schools because of sports is an even bigger problem. Those two student populations take a significant number of spots at top schools. A kid could be busting their ass, and an athlete who has a weaker transcript & test scores will get it.

If it's that easy, teach your kid how to play lacrosse.

My kid used athletic talent to access high academic college. I can't control that that is the system, so we played that game, but it's a silly criteria to use to help gain admittance to a place for academic pursuits.

Of course, if that’s the game, that’s the game, and people will follow the system set up. But my god is the process corrupt.

In the end you still have to get through the academic rigor of a real school. Most of these athletes are still smart but as stated in another thread, not the best athlete. They are less average academically and maybe a slight above average athletically. They rode the margins...I get parents are proud but it's really just a ruse.

Not really. You don't get recruited as an athlete in D1 unless you are very, very good. You must be way better than "a slight above average." The Ivies basically take Olympic level athletes. E.g., Chloe Kim is going to Princeton, Nathan Chen to Yale etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I heard that being a legacy and needing financial aid will hurt you.
They want full pay students, if a legacy admits parents cannot full pay, then they do not want to make the same mistake again

Many elite colleges are need-blind (all the Ivies at least). That means they don't look at need when they make admissions decisions. So you're either talking about different eilte colleges who are not need blind or think there's some shadow policy that contradicts their official one (which is not the case).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you that are okay with legacy preference, are you okay with affirmative action? Same thing but in reverse.

I am ok with both.

As long as you are aware that both work against equality and meritocracy.
I believe that admittance should be based solely on academic achievement. Geography, race, sports, legacy, music talents...none of those should matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I've heard it said that people who come from privileged backgrounds have a leg up already in life compared to mere mortals. Hence, part of the reason for holistic admissions.

If you compare two students with the same stats: one from a MC family whose parents went to a B rated state univ and the other whose a child of an ivy league graduate, the MC student probably had to work harder for those stats than the legacy kid.

Isn't that what we are told about poor kids, first gen kids.. that they have to work harder? MC kids have to work harder than UMC.

So, yes, I would expect UMC kids whose parents are ivy league educated to have super high stats, but that kid most likely didn't have to work as hard, or at least had more opportunities than a MC, or LMC kid did with the same stats.

In that way, the MC or even UMC kid whose parents just managed to work hard an save seems to always be screwed - no hooks.

No that UMC kid had to work just as hard.