Is there anything positive about legacy admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another benefit of legacies: they know what they’re getting. People have inflated ideas of what Harvard is as an institution or what Harvard can do for them. Legacies know it’s a school. It’s not even the best school available for every kid or future. Legacies are satisfied with the product and the price they’re paying for it.

This is true of private schools too. Legacies at St Albans know what they’re getting. They’re not disappointed that it’s not a utopia.

It is not about utopia. I suppose this whole selection process promise some social ordering will be kept. After all, the elite education isn't just for educating but for keeping up social orders.

On the practical side, even these hypocritical schools need some real meat, no? I understand if the parents are super successful or have huge societal impact then it is possible their children will be high achievers. But what about a stayed at home parent who once went to Ivies? What do they bring to the table? Why do we have to assume their children are going to do great things?

What does being a SAHP have to do with it? How about your average lawyer or mid-level consultant? What does being they bring the SAHP does not?

[Anonymous]

MIT, John Hopkins, and Caltech. All private and well-funded without legacy admissions. Interesting don’t you agree?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point of legacy admissions is to support fundraising. It doesn’t have anything to do with keeping privilege for the few or damaging any kind of meritocracy, which was never promised anyway. It just helps the school raise the money it needs to raise to stay in business, because it helps keeps families invested in the school and in its development efforts. It’s about the bottom line.

How colleges or schools without legacy admission manage perfectly well to do fundraising ? I don’t think this is a good argument.

Name 3.

MIT, John Hopkins, and Caltech. All private and well-funded without legacy admissions. Interesting don’t you agree?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've seen college admissions play out the last 2 years at two different Big3 schools as I've had kids in both years.

Legacy admissions to top20 schools were entirely qualified kids. In many cases, the legacies were the most qualified kids who applied. In many others they were just as qualified as kids who did not get the spots. Many under qualified legacies applied (there were many who shot their shot) but they did not get in.

I get that it's easy to think that a bunch of mediocre rich legacies are getting in but at least in these small pools of local private school kids, I did not finf this to be the case at all. Maybe it's different in NYC privates where there are gazillion dollar donations involved. But I would guess that those kids are also qualified. Successful people tend to be smart and smart adults tend to have smart kids.

My own kids each got into Ivy league schools and my husband and I each went to schools ranked over 100.

You say yourself that the legacy hook worked for kids who were equally qualified and the legacy got it. At most Ivies it is still a hook. A non-legacy student has to be better on their own merits than a legacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point of legacy admissions is to support fundraising. It doesn’t have anything to do with keeping privilege for the few or damaging any kind of meritocracy, which was never promised anyway. It just helps the school raise the money it needs to raise to stay in business, because it helps keeps families invested in the school and in its development efforts. It’s about the bottom line.

How colleges or schools without legacy admission manage perfectly well to do fundraising ? I don’t think this is a good argument.

Name 3.

MIT, John Hopkins, and Caltech. All private and well-funded without legacy admissions. Interesting don’t you agree?

Not really. What I find interesting is that the Empress Masako lives like a prisoner but is supposed to be an empress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point of legacy admissions is to support fundraising. It doesn’t have anything to do with keeping privilege for the few or damaging any kind of meritocracy, which was never promised anyway. It just helps the school raise the money it needs to raise to stay in business, because it helps keeps families invested in the school and in its development efforts. It’s about the bottom line.

How colleges or schools without legacy admission manage perfectly well to do fundraising ? I don’t think this is a good argument.

Name 3.

MIT, John Hopkins, and Caltech. All private and well-funded without legacy admissions. Interesting don’t you agree?

DP, but interesting that they’re all 3 STEM-y universities. Probably more reliant on gov grants than the legacy-admitting schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point of legacy admissions is to support fundraising. It doesn’t have anything to do with keeping privilege for the few or damaging any kind of meritocracy, which was never promised anyway. It just helps the school raise the money it needs to raise to stay in business, because it helps keeps families invested in the school and in its development efforts. It’s about the bottom line.

How colleges or schools without legacy admission manage perfectly well to do fundraising ? I don’t think this is a good argument.

Name 3.

MIT, John Hopkins, and Caltech. All private and well-funded without legacy admissions. Interesting don’t you agree?

DP, but interesting that they’re all 3 STEM-y universities. Probably more reliant on gov grants than the legacy-admitting schools.

Judging by the problems faced by Columbia Harvard or UPenn, elite universities are also highly dependent on government grants. So not sure there is still hard evidence that legacy admissions is good for the society. Good private universities can perfectly survive without it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, a a LMC to MC girl from a small town, first generation college attendee at a then need blind top university, I found having classmates n the dorm who were socioeconomic elites and whose families had gone there for generations to be culturally enriching. I saw how to dress, how to buy wine, what kinds of accessories worked. These were multigeneational alumni families but they got in on their merit, not lower standards. MIT.

+1

But they weren’t legacy admits.

MIT is a beautiful example that legacy admission are not really needed to get fundraising or have a well-funded private institution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point of legacy admissions is to support fundraising. It doesn’t have anything to do with keeping privilege for the few or damaging any kind of meritocracy, which was never promised anyway. It just helps the school raise the money it needs to raise to stay in business, because it helps keeps families invested in the school and in its development efforts. It’s about the bottom line.

How colleges or schools without legacy admission manage perfectly well to do fundraising ? I don’t think this is a good argument.

Name 3.

MIT, John Hopkins, and Caltech. All private and well-funded without legacy admissions. Interesting don’t you agree?

Not really. What I find interesting is that the Empress Masako lives like a prisoner but is supposed to be an empress.

I enjoyed this segue. I also have wondered that, but it wouldn't be top of mind during this discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MIT, John Hopkins, and Caltech. All private and well-funded without legacy admissions. Interesting don’t you agree?

And all recruit athletes. College admissions is not about merit. It’s about establishing an academic line that students need to pass and the choosing a class from there. You’re deluded if you think admissions should rank all applicants from 1-55000 and take the top x.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point of legacy admissions is to support fundraising. It doesn’t have anything to do with keeping privilege for the few or damaging any kind of meritocracy, which was never promised anyway. It just helps the school raise the money it needs to raise to stay in business, because it helps keeps families invested in the school and in its development efforts. It’s about the bottom line.

How colleges or schools without legacy admission manage perfectly well to do fundraising ? I don’t think this is a good argument.

Name 3.

MIT, John Hopkins, and Caltech. All private and well-funded without legacy admissions. Interesting don’t you agree?

I bet Bloomberg can get anyone he wants into JHU

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT, John Hopkins, and Caltech. All private and well-funded without legacy admissions. Interesting don’t you agree?

And all recruit athletes. College admissions is not about merit. It’s about establishing an academic line that students need to pass and the choosing a class from there. You’re deluded if you think admissions should rank all applicants from 1-55000 and take the top x.

I guess we can debate what is merit. Is born into a family of generational wealth merit on its own?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT, John Hopkins, and Caltech. All private and well-funded without legacy admissions. Interesting don’t you agree?

And all recruit athletes. College admissions is not about merit. It’s about establishing an academic line that students need to pass and the choosing a class from there. You’re deluded if you think admissions should rank all applicants from 1-55000 and take the top x.

I guess we can debate what is merit. Is born into a family of generational wealth merit on its own?

No. But how is being able to kick a ball meritorious in the context of college? Remember all those schools in Asia with their test everyone loves? No athletics there and no music, theater, etc. either.

[Anonymous]

And college in Asia is considerably less enjoyable for most people precisely because it lacks athletics, music, and theater.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And college in Asia is considerably less enjoyable for most people precisely because it lacks athletics, music, and theater.

Ok well then if colleges get to make these choices, then it isn’t solely about merit and this is nothing more than an exercise in deciding who gets to set the criteria - you or the college. So let’s stop pretending that “merit” has anything to do with it, it’s purely subjective.