Conservatives are now targeting legacy admission preference

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a little surprised that Edward Blum is now going after legacy preference. What is he up to? Doesn't legacy preference mostly benefit whites?

“Legacy applicants have done nothing meritorious to earn this advantage,” wrote Edward Blum, joined by economist Peter Arcidiacono and policy analyst Richard Kahlenberg

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/legacy-college-admissions-preferences-backlash-772c88be?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqelU63wJGabsIFG9rGpGkpH_vcIyXP2BkpJL5ibvFYyVRgAgEymUCcG&gaa_ts=68ff74fb&gaa_sig=e-oJQnF9yQIwpJCQOYUbPw12oYuxaKE-9sEslu4tQFgS-_H-rhbMRd9dgsa7wx88BW2n_kOxOCDLMjCbcFRv-g%3D%3D

Here's an alternative hypothesis. Every major admissions policy change has basically been to either: 1) gatekeep more qualified Asians from taking white seats; or 2) displace Asian seats with lower stats DEI applicants. Getting rid of legacy preference is another way to do this because, who stands to have the most disproportionate benefit from future legacy admissions? The 2nd gen Asian kids whose parents were lucky enough to not be quota'ed from earlier cycles of racist admissions policies and who now have the backing from the SFA v. Harvard decision. I'm guessing that a whole population of these ms/hs kids are starting to peak from all those Asian parents who went to Ivy+ colleges in the '90s.

100%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe merit matters too. My problem is the government having a hand in how the schools determine what merit is.

Race is not merit.
Donation/Legacy/cerebritis admissions is not merit.

We the people, tax payers, can determine that.

“We the people” elected a buffoon for a president. What’s his SAT score? So no, I do not have a lot of faith in the masses determining what merit should mean for others either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They don’t like the educated intellectual elites, so they are trying to break down the whole system of higher education. This is just part of that.

Whatever the reason, you have to agree that legacy has to go. Get rid of ED next. Have a majority, democratic and republican (not politicians, but certainly voters) on both fronts.

If you are getting rid of ED, then schools also need to get rid of preferences for athletes and their alternative admissions path

Athletes are getting in based on merit. It may not be the “merit” that a lot of people here believe that it should be prioritized, but there is achievement required there that isn’t solely based on a characteristic from birth that cannot ever be changed. (If you want to argue that athletics are disproportionately going to favor wealthier families, you can also argue that for every single part of the entire American education system from disparities between public school systems to test scores to other non-athletic extracurricular activities.)

“Merit” at least for most people means a combo of GPA, test scores, and extracurricular activities (not just GPA and test scores alone) and athletics will fit into that last category.

For most people merit probably means GPA and test scores alone. That's how most of the countries of the world do it. Universities are, after all, supposedly academic institutions.

This isn't India or China. It won't be by stats. They want more white males. That's what this is about.

You forgot "Christian." Which most definitely goes in quotes.

[Anonymous]

Legacy alone, no. But legacy as one factor in a decision should be allowed to be considered. If you have two students with the exact same stats, say 1550+ SAT and high GPA, strong ECs, etc., and one of them is legacy status, let them pick the legacy. It helps with yield and fundraising.

My kid is applying as a legacy this year to a top school that values legacy status . I am just grateful that he's applying this year before any of this comes to fruition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They don’t like the educated intellectual elites, so they are trying to break down the whole system of higher education. This is just part of that.

Whatever the reason, you have to agree that legacy has to go. Get rid of ED next. Have a majority, democratic and republican (not politicians, but certainly voters) on both fronts.

If you are getting rid of ED, then schools also need to get rid of preferences for athletes and their alternative admissions path

Athletes are getting in based on merit. It may not be the “merit” that a lot of people here believe that it should be prioritized, but there is achievement required there that isn’t solely based on a characteristic from birth that cannot ever be changed. (If you want to argue that athletics are disproportionately going to favor wealthier families, you can also argue that for every single part of the entire American education system from disparities between public school systems to test scores to other non-athletic extracurricular activities.)

“Merit” at least for most people means a combo of GPA, test scores, and extracurricular activities (not just GPA and test scores alone) and athletics will fit into that last category.

For most people merit probably means GPA and test scores alone. That's how most of the countries of the world do it. Universities are, after all, supposedly academic institutions.

Understood that how most countries of the world use solely GPA and test scores or often only test scores alone.

However, from an American viewpoint, we do care about extracurriculars because most schools aren’t simply STEM factories. Schools want elite musicians, debate champions, national science contest winners, etc. Those are still merit-based achievements and very much distinguished from raced-based or legacy admissions that are solely based on birth and out of the control of the applicable student.

I think this is a massive problem with a lot of the debates on all of these issues. A lot of both sides seem to revert to definitions of “merit” being solely about GPA and test scores (either as a critique about how “schools that just look at numbers are just producing robots and not producing leaders” or as a panacea pointing to other countries), but I don’t think even Blum (someone I have a lot of personal critiques about) is trying to argue. Taking into account whether someone is an elite athlete or musician or debater or anything else IS about merit in a way that a race-based or legacy preference isn’t and I think people on both sides of the debate are doing themselves a disservice arguing otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe merit matters too. My problem is the government having a hand in how the schools determine what merit is.

Race is not merit.
Donation/Legacy/cerebritis admissions is not merit.

We the people, tax payers, can determine that.

“We the people” elected a buffoon for a president. What’s his SAT score? So no, I do not have a lot of faith in the masses determining what merit should mean for others either.

He’s smarter than you, and he’s president. Cope and seethe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They don’t like the educated intellectual elites, so they are trying to break down the whole system of higher education. This is just part of that.

Whatever the reason, you have to agree that legacy has to go. Get rid of ED next. Have a majority, democratic and republican (not politicians, but certainly voters) on both fronts.

If you are getting rid of ED, then schools also need to get rid of preferences for athletes and their alternative admissions path

Athletes are getting in based on merit. It may not be the “merit” that a lot of people here believe that it should be prioritized, but there is achievement required there that isn’t solely based on a characteristic from birth that cannot ever be changed. (If you want to argue that athletics are disproportionately going to favor wealthier families, you can also argue that for every single part of the entire American education system from disparities between public school systems to test scores to other non-athletic extracurricular activities.)

“Merit” at least for most people means a combo of GPA, test scores, and extracurricular activities (not just GPA and test scores alone) and athletics will fit into that last category.

For most people merit probably means GPA and test scores alone. That's how most of the countries of the world do it. Universities are, after all, supposedly academic institutions.

Understood that how most countries of the world use solely GPA and test scores or often only test scores alone.

However, from an American viewpoint, we do care about extracurriculars because most schools aren’t simply STEM factories. Schools want elite musicians, debate champions, national science contest winners, etc. Those are still merit-based achievements and very much distinguished from raced-based or legacy admissions that are solely based on birth and out of the control of the applicable student.

I think this is a massive problem with a lot of the debates on all of these issues. A lot of both sides seem to revert to definitions of “merit” being solely about GPA and test scores (either as a critique about how “schools that just look at numbers are just producing robots and not producing leaders” or as a panacea pointing to other countries), but I don’t think even Blum (someone I have a lot of personal critiques about) is trying to argue. Taking into account whether someone is an elite athlete or musician or debater or anything else IS about merit in a way that a race-based or legacy preference isn’t and I think people on both sides of the debate are doing themselves a disservice arguing otherwise.

The problem is that it takes money to become an elite athlete, debater, musician, etc. Giving preference based on extracurriculars almost certainly will create a wealth preference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a little surprised that Edward Blum is now going after legacy preference. What is he up to? Doesn't legacy preference mostly benefit whites?

“Legacy applicants have done nothing meritorious to earn this advantage,” wrote Edward Blum, joined by economist Peter Arcidiacono and policy analyst Richard Kahlenberg

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/legacy-college-admissions-preferences-backlash-772c88be?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqelU63wJGabsIFG9rGpGkpH_vcIyXP2BkpJL5ibvFYyVRgAgEymUCcG&gaa_ts=68ff74fb&gaa_sig=e-oJQnF9yQIwpJCQOYUbPw12oYuxaKE-9sEslu4tQFgS-_H-rhbMRd9dgsa7wx88BW2n_kOxOCDLMjCbcFRv-g%3D%3D

When his group funded the challenge against affirmative action and recruited Asian plaintiffs, it was widely criticized to not go after legacy at the same time. If his group's concern was against "fairness" a fight against legacy was necessary. Let's see if the anti-legacy fight has the same energy as his fight against affirmative action for Black and Latino students.

I do think legacy is an unpopular policy and Blum & co would be able to generate support from both sides of the aisle.

We are a family with legacy at several top schools - UPenn, Harvard, Georgetown - and I think it needs to go even if it would help my DD somewhat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a little surprised that Edward Blum is now going after legacy preference. What is he up to? Doesn't legacy preference mostly benefit whites?

“Legacy applicants have done nothing meritorious to earn this advantage,” wrote Edward Blum, joined by economist Peter Arcidiacono and policy analyst Richard Kahlenberg

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/legacy-college-admissions-preferences-backlash-772c88be?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqelU63wJGabsIFG9rGpGkpH_vcIyXP2BkpJL5ibvFYyVRgAgEymUCcG&gaa_ts=68ff74fb&gaa_sig=e-oJQnF9yQIwpJCQOYUbPw12oYuxaKE-9sEslu4tQFgS-_H-rhbMRd9dgsa7wx88BW2n_kOxOCDLMjCbcFRv-g%3D%3D

When his group funded the challenge against affirmative action and recruited Asian plaintiffs, it was widely criticized to not go after legacy at the same time. If his group's concern was against "fairness" a fight against legacy was necessary. Let's see if the anti-legacy fight has the same energy as his fight against affirmative action for Black and Latino students.

I do think legacy is an unpopular policy and Blum & co would be able to generate support from both sides of the aisle.

We are a family with legacy at several top schools - UPenn, Harvard, Georgetown - and I think it needs to go even if it would help my DD somewhat.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They don’t like the educated intellectual elites, so they are trying to break down the whole system of higher education. This is just part of that.

Whatever the reason, you have to agree that legacy has to go. Get rid of ED next. Have a majority, democratic and republican (not politicians, but certainly voters) on both fronts.

If you are getting rid of ED, then schools also need to get rid of preferences for athletes and their alternative admissions path

Athletes are getting in based on merit. It may not be the “merit” that a lot of people here believe that it should be prioritized, but there is achievement required there that isn’t solely based on a characteristic from birth that cannot ever be changed. (If you want to argue that athletics are disproportionately going to favor wealthier families, you can also argue that for every single part of the entire American education system from disparities between public school systems to test scores to other non-athletic extracurricular activities.)

“Merit” at least for most people means a combo of GPA, test scores, and extracurricular activities (not just GPA and test scores alone) and athletics will fit into that last category.

For most people merit probably means GPA and test scores alone. That's how most of the countries of the world do it. Universities are, after all, supposedly academic institutions.

Understood that how most countries of the world use solely GPA and test scores or often only test scores alone.

However, from an American viewpoint, we do care about extracurriculars because most schools aren’t simply STEM factories. Schools want elite musicians, debate champions, national science contest winners, etc. Those are still merit-based achievements and very much distinguished from raced-based or legacy admissions that are solely based on birth and out of the control of the applicable student.

I think this is a massive problem with a lot of the debates on all of these issues. A lot of both sides seem to revert to definitions of “merit” being solely about GPA and test scores (either as a critique about how “schools that just look at numbers are just producing robots and not producing leaders” or as a panacea pointing to other countries), but I don’t think even Blum (someone I have a lot of personal critiques about) is trying to argue. Taking into account whether someone is an elite athlete or musician or debater or anything else IS about merit in a way that a race-based or legacy preference isn’t and I think people on both sides of the debate are doing themselves a disservice arguing otherwise.

The problem is that it takes money to become an elite athlete, debater, musician, etc. Giving preference based on extracurriculars almost certainly will create a wealth preference.

PP here.

I don’t disagree.

However, test scores also have a clear wealth preference.

The fact that wealthier families send disproportionately their kids to higher achieving public schools or private schools that is more likely to result in higher academic achievement (even starting in preschool) is a very direct wealth preference.

*Everything* in our educational system is tiled toward wealthier families. It’s only a question of the degree of that preference. If you want to say that someone can be trained in, say, fencing or equestrian with a lot of wealth to the point that it gets you into an Ivy based on that preference, then that’s fair point. However, no amount of money can make you into a Power 4 level basketball or football player or track athlete or swimmer without an elite combo of talent and ability. Money for training of course helps, but that talent and ability still has to be there regardless of resources.

[Anonymous]

Legacy admissions is anachronistic and should be banned. It primarily benefits rich white folks. It’s shameful that so many elite rich schools such as the Ivy League still cling to it. Only a very few elite colleges have banned it and they should be commended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe merit matters too. My problem is the government having a hand in how the schools determine what merit is.

Race is not merit.
Donation/Legacy/cerebritis admissions is not merit.

We the people, tax payers, can determine that.

“We the people” elected a buffoon for a president. What’s his SAT score? So no, I do not have a lot of faith in the masses determining what merit should mean for others either.

The buffoon is smarter than the Democrats, so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They don’t like the educated intellectual elites, so they are trying to break down the whole system of higher education. This is just part of that.

Whatever the reason, you have to agree that legacy has to go. Get rid of ED next. Have a majority, democratic and republican (not politicians, but certainly voters) on both fronts.

If you are getting rid of ED, then schools also need to get rid of preferences for athletes and their alternative admissions path

Athletes are getting in based on merit. It may not be the “merit” that a lot of people here believe that it should be prioritized, but there is achievement required there that isn’t solely based on a characteristic from birth that cannot ever be changed. (If you want to argue that athletics are disproportionately going to favor wealthier families, you can also argue that for every single part of the entire American education system from disparities between public school systems to test scores to other non-athletic extracurricular activities.)

“Merit” at least for most people means a combo of GPA, test scores, and extracurricular activities (not just GPA and test scores alone) and athletics will fit into that last category.

For most people merit probably means GPA and test scores alone. That's how most of the countries of the world do it. Universities are, after all, supposedly academic institutions.

Understood that how most countries of the world use solely GPA and test scores or often only test scores alone.

However, from an American viewpoint, we do care about extracurriculars because most schools aren’t simply STEM factories. Schools want elite musicians, debate champions, national science contest winners, etc. Those are still merit-based achievements and very much distinguished from raced-based or legacy admissions that are solely based on birth and out of the control of the applicable student.

I think this is a massive problem with a lot of the debates on all of these issues. A lot of both sides seem to revert to definitions of “merit” being solely about GPA and test scores (either as a critique about how “schools that just look at numbers are just producing robots and not producing leaders” or as a panacea pointing to other countries), but I don’t think even Blum (someone I have a lot of personal critiques about) is trying to argue. Taking into account whether someone is an elite athlete or musician or debater or anything else IS about merit in a way that a race-based or legacy preference isn’t and I think people on both sides of the debate are doing themselves a disservice arguing otherwise.

This sad tale is exactly why we need more than stats. We need people skills.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/comments/1ohc8n9/regrets_from_a_t10_cs_major/

[Anonymous]

Legacy admissions originated in the early 1900s to limit minority admissions and serves to perpetuate privilege and equality so yes, they should definitely been banned. This is not simply a conservative or liberal idea. It’s a fairness idea.

[Anonymous]

Only heritage Americans should be given admissions preference, full stop!