Wesleyan University drops Legacy Preferences in Admissions Decisions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More schools will be doing this because it is a relatively cosmetic change and good PR; it barely moves the needle. Athletes have a far greater impact: what about admission preferences for Wesleyan’s 900 or so athletes, the vast majority of whom are white? Reserve plaudits until Wesleyan, Amherst and their brethren do something about the real issue. This is a mere distraction from more fundamental change, so don’t fall for it.

What the heck? Where are you getting 900 recruited athletes at Wes? That’s nearly a third of the student body. I went to Wes and hardly knew any serious athletes. I serious doubt thirty percent of the student body is recruited athletes with admissions preference.

I do agree with doing away with athletic recruitment however.

[Anonymous]

I suspect this doesn’t impact development/Dean’s List legacies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More schools will be doing this because it is a relatively cosmetic change and good PR; it barely moves the needle. Athletes have a far greater impact: what about admission preferences for Wesleyan’s 900 or so athletes, the vast majority of whom are white? Reserve plaudits until Wesleyan, Amherst and their brethren do something about the real issue. This is a mere distraction from more fundamental change, so don’t fall for it.

What the heck? Where are you getting 900 recruited athletes at Wes? That’s nearly a third of the student body. I went to Wes and hardly knew any serious athletes. I serious doubt thirty percent of the student body is recruited athletes with admissions preference.

I do agree with doing away with athletic recruitment however.

You are right. It is closer to 25%. So almost 800. It is irrelevant whether you thought they were serious athletes: they have a huge fist pressed down on the admissions scale — and legacy was but a pinky.

[Anonymous]

It’s the athletics that kills me. Elite NESCAC schools 30-40% Seriously??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s the athletics that kills me. Elite NESCAC schools 30-40% Seriously??

Yeah. Wesleyan’s percentage is slightly lower because it is a bigger school, but we are talking 200 kids a class who don’t go through normal admissions procedures. It is laughable; Wes no longer giving a tiny preference to legacy admits is a diversion tactic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More schools will be doing this because it is a relatively cosmetic change and good PR; it barely moves the needle. Athletes have a far greater impact: what about admission preferences for Wesleyan’s 900 or so athletes, the vast majority of whom are white? Reserve plaudits until Wesleyan, Amherst and their brethren do something about the real issue. This is a mere distraction from more fundamental change, so don’t fall for it.

What the heck? Where are you getting 900 recruited athletes at Wes? That’s nearly a third of the student body. I went to Wes and hardly knew any serious athletes. I serious doubt thirty percent of the student body is recruited athletes with admissions preference.

I do agree with doing away with athletic recruitment however.

You are right. It is closer to 25%. So almost 800. It is irrelevant whether you thought they were serious athletes: they have a huge fist pressed down on the admissions scale — and legacy was but a pinky.

Where are you getting these stats from? Just because a kid is an athlete doesn’t mean he was recruited and given admissions preference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More schools will be doing this because it is a relatively cosmetic change and good PR; it barely moves the needle. Athletes have a far greater impact: what about admission preferences for Wesleyan’s 900 or so athletes, the vast majority of whom are white? Reserve plaudits until Wesleyan, Amherst and their brethren do something about the real issue. This is a mere distraction from more fundamental change, so don’t fall for it.

What the heck? Where are you getting 900 recruited athletes at Wes? That’s nearly a third of the student body. I went to Wes and hardly knew any serious athletes. I serious doubt thirty percent of the student body is recruited athletes with admissions preference.

I do agree with doing away with athletic recruitment however.

You are right. It is closer to 25%. So almost 800. It is irrelevant whether you thought they were serious athletes: they have a huge fist pressed down on the admissions scale — and legacy was but a pinky.

Where are you getting these stats from? Just because a kid is an athlete doesn’t mean he was recruited and given admissions preference.

This is NESCAC we are talking about, where the vast majority of athletes are recruited/given some sort of pre-read — regardless if it is officially a “slot.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More schools will be doing this because it is a relatively cosmetic change and good PR; it barely moves the needle. Athletes have a far greater impact: what about admission preferences for Wesleyan’s 900 or so athletes, the vast majority of whom are white? Reserve plaudits until Wesleyan, Amherst and their brethren do something about the real issue. This is a mere distraction from more fundamental change, so don’t fall for it.

What the heck? Where are you getting 900 recruited athletes at Wes? That’s nearly a third of the student body. I went to Wes and hardly knew any serious athletes. I serious doubt thirty percent of the student body is recruited athletes with admissions preference.

I do agree with doing away with athletic recruitment however.

You are right. It is closer to 25%. So almost 800. It is irrelevant whether you thought they were serious athletes: they have a huge fist pressed down on the admissions scale — and legacy was but a pinky.

Where are you getting these stats from? Just because a kid is an athlete doesn’t mean he was recruited and given admissions preference.

This is NESCAC we are talking about, where the vast majority of athletes are recruited/given some sort of pre-read — regardless if it is officially a “slot.”

First, I have been through this recently. Kids are NOT given an athletic preference. That is made very clear by the coaches during the recruiting process. Google AI index. That is what schools use and the index for athletes needs to be = or higher than the general student population. This is for high academic NESCAC and similar schools not for large state schools.

As far a legacy admission, I think the virtue signal is rich. They could change this any time they wished if they felt it was wrong. It will most likley change without any press coverage when donations slip.

[Anonymous]

Will American colleges drop the preferential treatment they tend to give US applicants?
Will state schools, especially now that less funding comes from state sources, stop giving preference to in-state applicants?
There are a lot of distinctions that could be dropped if schools just want the "best" academic profiles. With more international and out-of-state students, it would also increase overall diversity (though probably not particular types of racial diversity).

[Anonymous]

Wes says they never really counted legacy all that much in admissions which I’m guessing is true so this was easier for them than other schools.

The poster who said Notre Dame now requires 7 figure donations to legacy to matter, on the other hand, is wrong. The most recent entering class was 22 percent legacy and they’re not all donating that much. Schools like ND are in a real pickle here. I hope they do the right thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More schools will be doing this because it is a relatively cosmetic change and good PR; it barely moves the needle. Athletes have a far greater impact: what about admission preferences for Wesleyan’s 900 or so athletes, the vast majority of whom are white? Reserve plaudits until Wesleyan, Amherst and their brethren do something about the real issue. This is a mere distraction from more fundamental change, so don’t fall for it.

What the heck? Where are you getting 900 recruited athletes at Wes? That’s nearly a third of the student body. I went to Wes and hardly knew any serious athletes. I serious doubt thirty percent of the student body is recruited athletes with admissions preference.

I do agree with doing away with athletic recruitment however.

You are right. It is closer to 25%. So almost 800. It is irrelevant whether you thought they were serious athletes: they have a huge fist pressed down on the admissions scale — and legacy was but a pinky.

Where are you getting these stats from? Just because a kid is an athlete doesn’t mean he was recruited and given admissions preference.

This is NESCAC we are talking about, where the vast majority of athletes are recruited/given some sort of pre-read — regardless if it is officially a “slot.”

First, I have been through this recently. Kids are NOT given an athletic preference. That is made very clear by the coaches during the recruiting process. Google AI index. That is what schools use and the index for athletes needs to be = or higher than the general student population. This is for high academic NESCAC and similar schools not for large state schools.

As far a legacy admission, I think the virtue signal is rich. They could change this any time they wished if they felt it was wrong. It will most likley change without any press coverage when donations slip.

NESCAC athletes are just not "as good" as the student populations by GPA and test scores alone. I wouldn't say they are inferior as applicants since they've put time and energy into something the college values, have usually shown formal leadership and discipline, and often couldn't devote more time to other areas given constraints. I don't think you understand the academic index though. The Ivy's AI just sought to keep recruits within a minimum standard deviation of the rest of the university as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More schools will be doing this because it is a relatively cosmetic change and good PR; it barely moves the needle. Athletes have a far greater impact: what about admission preferences for Wesleyan’s 900 or so athletes, the vast majority of whom are white? Reserve plaudits until Wesleyan, Amherst and their brethren do something about the real issue. This is a mere distraction from more fundamental change, so don’t fall for it.

Agree. But schools will never do this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More schools will be doing this because it is a relatively cosmetic change and good PR; it barely moves the needle. Athletes have a far greater impact: what about admission preferences for Wesleyan’s 900 or so athletes, the vast majority of whom are white? Reserve plaudits until Wesleyan, Amherst and their brethren do something about the real issue. This is a mere distraction from more fundamental change, so don’t fall for it.

What the heck? Where are you getting 900 recruited athletes at Wes? That’s nearly a third of the student body. I went to Wes and hardly knew any serious athletes. I serious doubt thirty percent of the student body is recruited athletes with admissions preference.

I do agree with doing away with athletic recruitment however.

You are right. It is closer to 25%. So almost 800. It is irrelevant whether you thought they were serious athletes: they have a huge fist pressed down on the admissions scale — and legacy was but a pinky.

Where are you getting these stats from? Just because a kid is an athlete doesn’t mean he was recruited and given admissions preference.

This is NESCAC we are talking about, where the vast majority of athletes are recruited/given some sort of pre-read — regardless if it is officially a “slot.”

First, I have been through this recently. Kids are NOT given an athletic preference. That is made very clear by the coaches during the recruiting process. Google AI index. That is what schools use and the index for athletes needs to be = or higher than the general student population. This is for high academic NESCAC and similar schools not for large state schools.

As far a legacy admission, I think the virtue signal is rich. They could change this any time they wished if they felt it was wrong. It will most likley change without any press coverage when donations slip.

I’ve read the exact opposite. Here’s an excerpt from a 2018 Harvard Crimson article, per your Google recommendation:

“Arcidiacono noted that athletes with an academic rating of 1 or 2 on Harvard’s scale of 1 to 6—with 1 being the highest and 6 the lowest—had a markedly higher admit rate than non-athletes with the same academic scores. For example, Arcidiacono noted that recruited athletes with an academic rating of 4 had an acceptance rate of 70.46 percent, nearly a thousand times greater than the 0.076 percent admit rate for non-athletes with the same academic rating.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Will American colleges drop the preferential treatment they tend to give US applicants?
Will state schools, especially now that less funding comes from state sources, stop giving preference to in-state applicants?
There are a lot of distinctions that could be dropped if schools just want the "best" academic profiles. With more international and out-of-state students, it would also increase overall diversity (though probably not particular types of racial diversity).

Stupid questions. These institutions ARE taxpayer funded (in the case of Publics) and heavily taxpayer subsidized (in the case of Privates). Why the F would you want them to NOT take care of taxpayers first? At this point, we don't really need foreigners for diversity. You need a Chinese kid, admit a US born Chinese. They are lining up, begging you to take their $$. Not Chinese enough for your taste? Go do a 6-month study abroad in China. All this BS needs to stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great news! Hopefully more schools will follow suit.

I think my alma mater (Penn) will move in this direction soon based on how they've been rewording things on their website. And I think that's a good thing even though my child will lose that hook - it feels more fair.

I think a lot of elite schools have been quietly and gradually narrowing the legacy preference for awhile to the biggest donors, without advertising that explicitly. That keeps donations flowing and their biggest donors happy, is a rationale the middling and small donors can get even they don't like it (e.g., a legacy preference only for the "most committed" alums, which is a vague standard), and helps explain why a lot of schools not on the "no legacy preference" list nevertheless have been turning down many legacies lately.

That’s disgusting.