Which other colleges & universities are likely to drop legacy preference in upcoming 1-2 years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if schools with presidents and/or admissions deans who are alumni of the institutions will be more reluctant to drop legacy preference as well.

Is a change like that something that would go through the board or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Met an alum of a T25 this week. He said boosters were getting annoyed bc they just wanted to know how much - is it 5 or 10 million (to get their kids in)? It was surreal as the lead into I was saying I don’t know how you can dismantle AA and leave legacy in place…. He told me AA was racist, but went on to say legacy is poorly managed bc there is no price list. Elites really out of touch with reality…

What's crazy is that the schools can basically name their price. All this SC does is increase the minimum amount of spend required to get on the development list.

For a T25 I bet you need to have 8 figures committed to the school for each generation of entrants.

A price list? So déclassé. This isn't a trading floor.

+1
The links between the development offices and admissions offices are strong so don't worry too much. These "boosters" are not giving that kind of $$ or they'd know their kid was likely to be admitted. They don't give you some minimum amount and the donors have usually been giving over time, especially recently since the schools and families don't want the optics of a $10 million gift the year before a kid is admitted.

Don't forget the next lawsuit winding it's way through the courts

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/top-schools-face-backlash-over-financial-aid-misuse-allegations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Met an alum of a T25 this week. He said boosters were getting annoyed bc they just wanted to know how much - is it 5 or 10 million (to get their kids in)? It was surreal as the lead into I was saying I don’t know how you can dismantle AA and leave legacy in place…. He told me AA was racist, but went on to say legacy is poorly managed bc there is no price list. Elites really out of touch with reality…

What's crazy is that the schools can basically name their price. All this SC does is increase the minimum amount of spend required to get on the development list.

For a T25 I bet you need to have 8 figures committed to the school for each generation of entrants.

A price list? So déclassé. This isn't a trading floor.

+1
The links between the development offices and admissions offices are strong so don't worry too much. These "boosters" are not giving that kind of $$ or they'd know their kid was likely to be admitted. They don't give you some minimum amount and the donors have usually been giving over time, especially recently since the schools and families don't want the optics of a $10 million gift the year before a kid is admitted.

Don't forget the next lawsuit winding it's way through the courts

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/top-schools-face-backlash-over-financial-aid-misuse-allegations

That suit is about financial aid packages and isn't relevant to the development office and admissions office connection. I guess it is semi-relevant because the schools care even more about optics with additional negative press.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Met an alum of a T25 this week. He said boosters were getting annoyed bc they just wanted to know how much - is it 5 or 10 million (to get their kids in)? It was surreal as the lead into I was saying I don’t know how you can dismantle AA and leave legacy in place…. He told me AA was racist, but went on to say legacy is poorly managed bc there is no price list. Elites really out of touch with reality…

AA is discrimination based on race, which is certainly unconstitutional. Even the original SCOTUS acknowledged it and spoke of a 25 year limit (in the 1960s!). Legacy is not discrimination based on race and as such is not covered by the Constitution. That's it in a nutshell.

Harvard etc could keep AA but they'd have to give up federal funding in any form.

[Anonymous]

It is important to parse donor influence from legacy. There is overlap but these are two different groups in terms of admissions. Your $1,000/year contributions don't get you in the donor bucket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is important to parse donor influence from legacy. There is overlap but these are two different groups in terms of admissions. Your $1,000/year contributions don't get you in the donor bucket.

It would be interesting to see a detailed breakdown of legacy admits to see who exactly is getting in. At the Ivies it's been known for a long time that mere legacy alone isn't enough. It has to be legacy + something else, like major donor, famous parent, impressive accomplishments etc.

I do think legacy is a bit of a red herring. It's easy for people to attack it but behind the label is a much more varied story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Met an alum of a T25 this week. He said boosters were getting annoyed bc they just wanted to know how much - is it 5 or 10 million (to get their kids in)? It was surreal as the lead into I was saying I don’t know how you can dismantle AA and leave legacy in place…. He told me AA was racist, but went on to say legacy is poorly managed bc there is no price list. Elites really out of touch with reality…

AA is discrimination based on race, which is certainly unconstitutional. Even the original SCOTUS acknowledged it and spoke of a 25 year limit (in the 1960s!). Legacy is not discrimination based on race and as such is not covered by the Constitution. That's it in a nutshell.

Harvard etc could keep AA but they'd have to give up federal funding in any form.

Disparate Impact. Look it up. This why legacies will eventually get banned too.

The Mega Donors bucket is likely more diverse than the Legacy bucket because of wealthy foreign families giving outsized donations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is important to parse donor influence from legacy. There is overlap but these are two different groups in terms of admissions. Your $1,000/year contributions don't get you in the donor bucket.

It would be interesting to see a detailed breakdown of legacy admits to see who exactly is getting in. At the Ivies it's been known for a long time that mere legacy alone isn't enough. It has to be legacy + something else, like major donor, famous parent, impressive accomplishments etc.

I do think legacy is a bit of a red herring. It's easy for people to attack it but behind the label is a much more varied story.

If it’s legacy + something, then let that “+something “ be a category. Get rid of legacy. People talk from both ends of their bodies! Through their mouths they say legacy alone isn’t enough (like what you are saying). Then they say through their other end that legacy should continue (like you are saying through your other end). Surely you people are very stinky and for the obvious reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Met an alum of a T25 this week. He said boosters were getting annoyed bc they just wanted to know how much - is it 5 or 10 million (to get their kids in)? It was surreal as the lead into I was saying I don’t know how you can dismantle AA and leave legacy in place…. He told me AA was racist, but went on to say legacy is poorly managed bc there is no price list. Elites really out of touch with reality…

AA is discrimination based on race, which is certainly unconstitutional. Even the original SCOTUS acknowledged it and spoke of a 25 year limit (in the 1960s!). Legacy is not discrimination based on race and as such is not covered by the Constitution. That's it in a nutshell.

Harvard etc could keep AA but they'd have to give up federal funding in any form.

Disparate Impact. Look it up. This why legacies will eventually get banned too.

The Mega Donors bucket is likely more diverse than the Legacy bucket because of wealthy foreign families giving outsized donations.

I don’t think the current Court is going to go the Disparate Impact route.

[Anonymous]

Chicago will be last. Over Dartmouth. Dartmouth will be last of ivies. Chicago will never cave. They don’t give a hoot what anyone thinks. For real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Chicago will be last. Over Dartmouth. Dartmouth will be last of ivies. Chicago will never cave. They don’t give a hoot what anyone thinks. For real.

I think Notre Dame will be last.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harvard and Princeton will be most reluctant to end legacy.

Wesleyan and Carnegie Mellon just announced they are dropping legacy. Amherst just did and last year's class was the first one with no legacy spots. Penn quietly changed their policy starting with class of 2026 but didn't make a formal announcement. They may soon.

I predict Brown and Pomona/Claremont or Swarthmore will be next to announce they are dropping legacy.

------

Pomona gave up legacy admissions in 2017--one of the first elite schools to do so (and well before Amherst). Hasn't hurt Pomona's large endowment one bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard and Princeton will be most reluctant to end legacy.

Wesleyan and Carnegie Mellon just announced they are dropping legacy. Amherst just did and last year's class was the first one with no legacy spots. Penn quietly changed their policy starting with class of 2026 but didn't make a formal announcement. They may soon.

I predict Brown and Pomona/Claremont or Swarthmore will be next to announce they are dropping legacy.

------

Pomona gave up legacy admissions in 2017--one of the first elite schools to do so (and well before Amherst). Hasn't hurt Pomona's large endowment one bit.

Same for MIT, I think. They have a strong endowment and no legacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chicago will be last. Over Dartmouth. Dartmouth will be last of ivies. Chicago will never cave. They don’t give a hoot what anyone thinks. For real.

I think Notre Dame will be last.

This

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Met an alum of a T25 this week. He said boosters were getting annoyed bc they just wanted to know how much - is it 5 or 10 million (to get their kids in)? It was surreal as the lead into I was saying I don’t know how you can dismantle AA and leave legacy in place…. He told me AA was racist, but went on to say legacy is poorly managed bc there is no price list. Elites really out of touch with reality…

AA is discrimination based on race, which is certainly unconstitutional. Even the original SCOTUS acknowledged it and spoke of a 25 year limit (in the 1960s!). Legacy is not discrimination based on race and as such is not covered by the Constitution. That's it in a nutshell.

Harvard etc could keep AA but they'd have to give up federal funding in any form.

Disparate Impact. Look it up. This why legacies will eventually get banned too.

The Mega Donors bucket is likely more diverse than the Legacy bucket because of wealthy foreign families giving outsized donations.

I don’t think the current Court is going to go the Disparate Impact route.

Agree, even with liberal courts, very difficult for plaintiff to win a disparate impact case. In the age of holistic admissions, likely impossible.