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:I did a degree at an Oxbridge school, and my classmates there thought my stories about my legacy undergrad roommate at my Ivy were funny. She went to an elite boarding school, and had a very rich family but had about a 2.7 GPA which is very difficult to do at an Ivy where most people get a 3.0 without trying just because of the ways grading curves are structured. My roommate was not the sharpest tool in the shed, but she was a legacy and she got in. These Oxbridge students who wore gowns and coattails regularly and bowed to the Queen and were part of a 1000 year old college thought it was ridiculously backwards that an American student might get into college with a big boost because their parents had attended the same college before them.

Sure, remember last year when teachers could just assess A levels and boarding school students where all qualified to attend schools they weren't remotely qualified to attend?

sh** happened during CoViD. It wasn’t perfect but it was a once in a century pandemic. What’s America’s excuse for giving people a leg up based on where their parents went to school. My spouse and I have 4 Ivy degrees between us (although I guess the graduate ones don’t count for legacy status for our kids) so we have a lot to lose if legacy preferences go away but I can’t defend my kids having a probability of getting admitted at 5x the rate of a comparable student in the applicant pool. It’s really unmeritocratic

+1.

If the special needs kid has the same academic stats as the top achiever at their top high school, then by all means they should have the same shot at college. The point is that the bar is lowered for legacy kids over non-legacy ones. In fact, as far as I know the bar is lowered for many special needs kids too (extra time allowed on tests etc.). Same for athletes. Same for URMs. At the expense of whom do you think?! At the expense of those who are the most deserving of these spots: the top qualified applicants who can get the most out of such education but who happen to be white or Asian, non-legacy, and good at math and English but not at sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But that is a different system than we have ever had in the US. Academic achievment on its own shows nothing. Show me the kid that also has something else Geography, race, sports, legacy, music talents and I will show you a better person. Also on musical talents -- don't you think that is important to music majors?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did a degree at an Oxbridge school, and my classmates there thought my stories about my legacy undergrad roommate at my Ivy were funny. She went to an elite boarding school, and had a very rich family but had about a 2.7 GPA which is very difficult to do at an Ivy where most people get a 3.0 without trying just because of the ways grading curves are structured. My roommate was not the sharpest tool in the shed, but she was a legacy and she got in. These Oxbridge students who wore gowns and coattails regularly and bowed to the Queen and were part of a 1000 year old college thought it was ridiculously backwards that an American student might get into college with a big boost because their parents had attended the same college before them.

Sure, remember last year when teachers could just assess A levels and boarding school students where all qualified to attend schools they weren't remotely qualified to attend?

sh** happened during CoViD. It wasn’t perfect but it was a once in a century pandemic. What’s America’s excuse for giving people a leg up based on where their parents went to school. My spouse and I have 4 Ivy degrees between us (although I guess the graduate ones don’t count for legacy status for our kids) so we have a lot to lose if legacy preferences go away but I can’t defend my kids having a probability of getting admitted at 5x the rate of a comparable student in the applicant pool. It’s really unmeritocratic

But why does a kid who happened to have been born with a better capacity for doing well in high school than my learning disabled kid have a much better chance of getting in? He isn't a better person. He didn't work harder. He probably won't contribute more to making this world a better place. He was just lucky enough not to be born with a learning disability. Why does he have a better shot at a top school than my kid? Why is that fair?

colleges have no way of observing how hard a kid works to get a grade-they only see the grade. I also don’t know how you think colleges can assess how applicants will or won’t contribute more to making the world a better place. Maybe your kid is great but how would you assess that in an unbiased way beyond the essays, extracurricular and teacher references which they ask for already.

You can't. Which puts him a great disadvantage. Why is that fair? Why does a kid who can easily show it have more of a chance to get into a top school? According to this site, colleges have some sort of moral obligation to build their communities according to the highest GPAs, starting from the top and going down. Fortunately, the people who run those colleges aren't as stupid and narrow minded as the people who think this. They know they need diverse communities and a a strong foundation to stay relevant and solvent. People say "it's not fair" that legacies get an advantage. I say that it's not fair that neurotypical kids get an advantage. You see, fairness doesn't come into play and the stupid people on here complaining about it will never get it. They just think their neurotypical, above average, one-dimensional GPA chases is entitled to something more than others.

The debate about legacy is about a kid getting a substantial edge on admissions to an elite college over a kid with equivalent stats and extracurriculars simply because of who where their parents went to college. I don’t know why you’re complaining that college admissions officers can’t magically see that your special needs kid is better than a neurotypical applicant. Start your own thread if you want to complain about that.

Missing the point. There are many unfair aspects of college admissions. Ones that put some kids at advantages over others. Why does legacy get everybody so stirred up and not other things? The neurotypical kid has an edge on admissions over a kid born without that particular advantage simply because of who he was born to, just like the legacy kid. Why is that any more fair? And not, I really don't feel like starting my own thread. This is actually about the whiny babies who weren't smart enough to get into good colleges and are now mad that they can't get their kids into one either.

No you’re missing the point. The legacy kid will get admitted over the equivalent applicant or in many cases the superior applicant by virtue of being born to an alum. The kid born with special needs is presumably not performing as well as the neurotypical kid in the scenario you’re describing so it isn’t a case of a higher performing student being denied admissions. You may think that’s unfair because your child is a “better person” than the neurotypical applicant but colleges don’t admit applicants because their parents say they are better people than other applicants without any evidence to back up that assertion. And that is fair.

+1.
If the special needs kid has the same academic stats as the top achiever at their top high school, then by all means they should have the same shot at college. The point is that the bar is lowered for legacy kids over non-legacy ones. In fact, as far as I know the bar is lowered for many special needs kids too. Same for athletes. Same for URMs. At the expense of whom do you think?! At the expense of those who are the most deserving of these spots: the top qualified who can get the most out of such top education but who happen to be white or Asian, non-legacy, and good at math and English but not at sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

yes legacy; no affirmative action.

[Anonymous]

Legacy preference entrenches income inequality. We should still be fighting for the American dream, not giving people a leg up based on their last name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But that is a different system than we have ever had in the US. Academic achievment on its own shows nothing. Show me the kid that also has something else Geography, race, sports, legacy, music talents and I will show you a better person. Also on musical talents -- don't you think that is important to music majors?

Music and sports should have separate, vocational schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did a degree at an Oxbridge school, and my classmates there thought my stories about my legacy undergrad roommate at my Ivy were funny. She went to an elite boarding school, and had a very rich family but had about a 2.7 GPA which is very difficult to do at an Ivy where most people get a 3.0 without trying just because of the ways grading curves are structured. My roommate was not the sharpest tool in the shed, but she was a legacy and she got in. These Oxbridge students who wore gowns and coattails regularly and bowed to the Queen and were part of a 1000 year old college thought it was ridiculously backwards that an American student might get into college with a big boost because their parents had attended the same college before them.

Sure, remember last year when teachers could just assess A levels and boarding school students where all qualified to attend schools they weren't remotely qualified to attend?

sh** happened during CoViD. It wasn’t perfect but it was a once in a century pandemic. What’s America’s excuse for giving people a leg up based on where their parents went to school. My spouse and I have 4 Ivy degrees between us (although I guess the graduate ones don’t count for legacy status for our kids) so we have a lot to lose if legacy preferences go away but I can’t defend my kids having a probability of getting admitted at 5x the rate of a comparable student in the applicant pool. It’s really unmeritocratic

But why does a kid who happened to have been born with a better capacity for doing well in high school than my learning disabled kid have a much better chance of getting in? He isn't a better person. He didn't work harder. He probably won't contribute more to making this world a better place. He was just lucky enough not to be born with a learning disability. Why does he have a better shot at a top school than my kid? Why is that fair?

colleges have no way of observing how hard a kid works to get a grade-they only see the grade. I also don’t know how you think colleges can assess how applicants will or won’t contribute more to making the world a better place. Maybe your kid is great but how would you assess that in an unbiased way beyond the essays, extracurricular and teacher references which they ask for already.

You can't. Which puts him a great disadvantage. Why is that fair? Why does a kid who can easily show it have more of a chance to get into a top school? According to this site, colleges have some sort of moral obligation to build their communities according to the highest GPAs, starting from the top and going down. Fortunately, the people who run those colleges aren't as stupid and narrow minded as the people who think this. They know they need diverse communities and a a strong foundation to stay relevant and solvent. People say "it's not fair" that legacies get an advantage. I say that it's not fair that neurotypical kids get an advantage. You see, fairness doesn't come into play and the stupid people on here complaining about it will never get it. They just think their neurotypical, above average, one-dimensional GPA chases is entitled to something more than others.

The debate about legacy is about a kid getting a substantial edge on admissions to an elite college over a kid with equivalent stats and extracurriculars simply because of who where their parents went to college. I don’t know why you’re complaining that college admissions officers can’t magically see that your special needs kid is better than a neurotypical applicant. Start your own thread if you want to complain about that.

Missing the point. There are many unfair aspects of college admissions. Ones that put some kids at advantages over others. Why does legacy get everybody so stirred up and not other things? The neurotypical kid has an edge on admissions over a kid born without that particular advantage simply because of who he was born to, just like the legacy kid. Why is that any more fair? And not, I really don't feel like starting my own thread. This is actually about the whiny babies who weren't smart enough to get into good colleges and are now mad that they can't get their kids into one either.

No you’re missing the point. The legacy kid will get admitted over the equivalent applicant or in many cases the superior applicant by virtue of being born to an alum. The kid born with special needs is presumably not performing as well as the neurotypical kid in the scenario you’re describing so it isn’t a case of a higher performing student being denied admissions. You may think that’s unfair because your child is a “better person” than the neurotypical applicant but colleges don’t admit applicants because their parents say they are better people than other applicants without any evidence to back up that assertion. And that is fair.

+1.
If the special needs kid has the same academic stats as the top achiever at their top high school, then by all means they should have the same shot at college. The point is that the bar is lowered for legacy kids over non-legacy ones. In fact, as far as I know the bar is lowered for many special needs kids too. Same for athletes. Same for URMs. At the expense of whom do you think?! At the expense of those who are the most deserving of these spots: the top qualified who can get the most out of such top education but who happen to be white or Asian, non-legacy, and good at math and English but not at sports.

-1 Creating a lackluster college experience leading to a decline in selectivity. Nothing more fun and intellectually stimulating than a school white/Asian students that scored 50 points higher than yours. Diversity is happening whether you accept it or not. As much as you think you’re a fly on the wall, you know nothing about admitted students.

[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.

Hopkins alum here and I see no reason to donate without a legacy preference. Of course, Hopkins probably accounted for this.

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:

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?

It isn’t a bad outcome. My point is that it’s complete and total nonsense to suggest that the percentage of legacies at JHU decreased because most of them were unqualified and couldn’t get in once the legacy hook was removed. The reason why the percentage of legacies at JHU dropped was because fewer applied once the hook was removed. Those legacy applicants took their ED elsewhere.

[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.

But the admission is already merit based. You seem to equate merit with grades and scores. Merit to schools means special. Your child needs to be special. Having a perfect SAT score, like thousands of others in the country, is not special and will not get them admitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not at all. My JEESUS practices Christian identity politics. He condemns even decent moral non Ka-rish-tians to eternal hell fire and prefers his own kind, good White Christians to other Christians, because as we all know, even though he was born in the Middle East, he had nice blonde hair, blue eyes and pasty white skin, because that's how the heavenly father looks like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you want your kid to go to school with a homogenous group of kids? These top schools have so many highly qualified students to pick from, I for one, want them to look more than test scores and gpa. I firmly believe that most of us on DCUM's kids have huge advantages---my kid doesn't wonder where there next meal comes from, or have to work 20/hr/wk to help me pay the bills, or have to take the bus to the CC in order to take Dual Entry courses (my kid has their own car to drive). My kid got $1K of individualized SAT prep (8 hours) over 5 weeks that raise their score from 1300 to 1500; if needed we could have paid for more. Sure, I bet my kid could have done 120-150 of those points by self prepping, but this was targeted and way easier) My kid had the time and $$ for this; but I'm smart enough to realize that many out there cannot. They will take the SAT once, have to hope they get the right bus 1 hours before the test to get to the test center onetime.

So I'm ok with colleges looking at the whole picture for admissions. If the reason my kid didn't get into their T10 ED choice is because the spot went to someone with slightly lower scores but who had a reason why (first gen, low income, bad home life, were seriously ill in HS or had a parent who was, etc), then I'm 100% fine with that. Because I know that ultimately my kid will succeed in life because of their drive, smarts, dedication and the support of their parents (financially and in general).

And once again, life isn't fair. In the "real world", you might not get a job you think you are most qualified for because someone else knows the manager or the managers manager, etc. People get things in real life because of connections all the time. Instead of complaining, the better solution is to work hard, persevere and start figuring out how you can build those connections/network. And remembering that most likely, you too have advantages in life over someone else (most that have time to be on a DCUM do have many advantages over most in life)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did a degree at an Oxbridge school, and my classmates there thought my stories about my legacy undergrad roommate at my Ivy were funny. She went to an elite boarding school, and had a very rich family but had about a 2.7 GPA which is very difficult to do at an Ivy where most people get a 3.0 without trying just because of the ways grading curves are structured. My roommate was not the sharpest tool in the shed, but she was a legacy and she got in. These Oxbridge students who wore gowns and coattails regularly and bowed to the Queen and were part of a 1000 year old college thought it was ridiculously backwards that an American student might get into college with a big boost because their parents had attended the same college before them.

Sure, remember last year when teachers could just assess A levels and boarding school students where all qualified to attend schools they weren't remotely qualified to attend?

sh** happened during CoViD. It wasn’t perfect but it was a once in a century pandemic. What’s America’s excuse for giving people a leg up based on where their parents went to school. My spouse and I have 4 Ivy degrees between us (although I guess the graduate ones don’t count for legacy status for our kids) so we have a lot to lose if legacy preferences go away but I can’t defend my kids having a probability of getting admitted at 5x the rate of a comparable student in the applicant pool. It’s really unmeritocratic

But why does a kid who happened to have been born with a better capacity for doing well in high school than my learning disabled kid have a much better chance of getting in? He isn't a better person. He didn't work harder. He probably won't contribute more to making this world a better place. He was just lucky enough not to be born with a learning disability. Why does he have a better shot at a top school than my kid? Why is that fair?

colleges have no way of observing how hard a kid works to get a grade-they only see the grade. I also don’t know how you think colleges can assess how applicants will or won’t contribute more to making the world a better place. Maybe your kid is great but how would you assess that in an unbiased way beyond the essays, extracurricular and teacher references which they ask for already.

You can't. Which puts him a great disadvantage. Why is that fair? Why does a kid who can easily show it have more of a chance to get into a top school? According to this site, colleges have some sort of moral obligation to build their communities according to the highest GPAs, starting from the top and going down. Fortunately, the people who run those colleges aren't as stupid and narrow minded as the people who think this. They know they need diverse communities and a a strong foundation to stay relevant and solvent. People say "it's not fair" that legacies get an advantage. I say that it's not fair that neurotypical kids get an advantage. You see, fairness doesn't come into play and the stupid people on here complaining about it will never get it. They just think their neurotypical, above average, one-dimensional GPA chases is entitled to something more than others.

The debate about legacy is about a kid getting a substantial edge on admissions to an elite college over a kid with equivalent stats and extracurriculars simply because of who where their parents went to college. I don’t know why you’re complaining that college admissions officers can’t magically see that your special needs kid is better than a neurotypical applicant. Start your own thread if you want to complain about that.

Missing the point. There are many unfair aspects of college admissions. Ones that put some kids at advantages over others. Why does legacy get everybody so stirred up and not other things? The neurotypical kid has an edge on admissions over a kid born without that particular advantage simply because of who he was born to, just like the legacy kid. Why is that any more fair? And not, I really don't feel like starting my own thread. This is actually about the whiny babies who weren't smart enough to get into good colleges and are now mad that they can't get their kids into one either.

No you’re missing the point. The legacy kid will get admitted over the equivalent applicant or in many cases the superior applicant by virtue of being born to an alum. The kid born with special needs is presumably not performing as well as the neurotypical kid in the scenario you’re describing so it isn’t a case of a higher performing student being denied admissions. You may think that’s unfair because your child is a “better person” than the neurotypical applicant but colleges don’t admit applicants because their parents say they are better people than other applicants without any evidence to back up that assertion. And that is fair.

+1.
If the special needs kid has the same academic stats as the top achiever at their top high school, then by all means they should have the same shot at college. The point is that the bar is lowered for legacy kids over non-legacy ones. In fact, as far as I know the bar is lowered for many special needs kids too. Same for athletes. Same for URMs. At the expense of whom do you think?! At the expense of those who are the most deserving of these spots: the top qualified who can get the most out of such top education but who happen to be white or Asian, non-legacy, and good at math and English but not at sports.

Perhaps you and your kids would be happier if you ditch the attitude that you "deserve" something. you are complaining about not getting in at the expense of "lesser others", when the admission rate is less than 10%. There are 90% of applicants who aren't getting in either and I'd argue 95% of them are "highly qualified" and could be a student at school X. If your kid truly has a 1500+ and 4.4 gpa, then they should be smart enough to succeed anywhere.
And also smart enough to recognized that where you go to school does not matter nearly as much as who you are as a persona and what you do with your education---they should be able to succeed anywhere.
The difference of attending Harvard vs attending University #20-50 will not matter in their life. However, their attitude towards life and feeling they "deserve things" might hinder their future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Legacy preference entrenches income inequality. We should still be fighting for the American dream, not giving people a leg up based on their last name.

Legacy is the American Dream.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you want your kid to go to school with a homogenous group of kids? These top schools have so many highly qualified students to pick from, I for one, want them to look more than test scores and gpa. I firmly believe that most of us on DCUM's kids have huge advantages---my kid doesn't wonder where there next meal comes from, or have to work 20/hr/wk to help me pay the bills, or have to take the bus to the CC in order to take Dual Entry courses (my kid has their own car to drive). My kid got $1K of individualized SAT prep (8 hours) over 5 weeks that raise their score from 1300 to 1500; if needed we could have paid for more. Sure, I bet my kid could have done 120-150 of those points by self prepping, but this was targeted and way easier) My kid had the time and $$ for this; but I'm smart enough to realize that many out there cannot. They will take the SAT once, have to hope they get the right bus 1 hours before the test to get to the test center onetime.

So I'm ok with colleges looking at the whole picture for admissions. If the reason my kid didn't get into their T10 ED choice is because the spot went to someone with slightly lower scores but who had a reason why (first gen, low income, bad home life, were seriously ill in HS or had a parent who was, etc), then I'm 100% fine with that. Because I know that ultimately my kid will succeed in life because of their drive, smarts, dedication and the support of their parents (financially and in general).

And once again, life isn't fair. In the "real world", you might not get a job you think you are most qualified for because someone else knows the manager or the managers manager, etc. People get things in real life because of connections all the time. Instead of complaining, the better solution is to work hard, persevere and start figuring out how you can build those connections/network. And remembering that most likely, you too have advantages in life over someone else (most that have time to be on a DCUM do have many advantages over most in life)

It’s up to the school to determine what they deem meritorious but you seem to be laboring under the misperception that college campuses are integrated communities. Colleges are amongst the most segregated communities on this planet. If you are a black student at a selective school then you will join a black fraternity, be a member of the black student union, live in the black special interest house, eat and socialize almost exclusively with other blacks students and of course celebrate black-only graduation. The idea that students learn others lived experience is farcical……you’re utterly delusional.