If Affirmative Action goes, legacy will fall.

[Anonymous]

Hopefully!

[Anonymous]

AA is a travesty in large part because of the significant disparity in the qualifications of URM applicants vs. the general applicant pool. I'd be all for putting a finger on the scale in favor of URMs everything else being more or less equal....that would be fair. I believe a saw a study that detailed the qualification gap for legacy admits and it was significantly less than URMs but still meaningful. I'd be fine with the finger on the scale here as well given the benefits to the university......alumni loyalty, giving, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AA is a travesty in large part because of the significant disparity in the qualifications of URM applicants vs. the general applicant pool. I'd be all for putting a finger on the scale in favor of URMs everything else being more or less equal....that would be fair. I believe a saw a study that detailed the qualification gap for legacy admits and it was significantly less than URMs but still meaningful. I'd be fine with the finger on the scale here as well given the benefits to the university......alumni loyalty, giving, etc.

Why do the URM applicants have lower qualifications?

[Anonymous]

Affirmative action is far less defensible; it is explicit and intentional racial discrimination, while legacy admissions at most have a disparate impact.

[Anonymous]

I don' think legacy will fall when affirmative action falls. It is much easier to conceal the affect of legacy admissions. Colleges are not required to report the admit rates, and application profile of legacies. It is also similar to ED, where some rich kids have an advantage. ED is not going away anytime soon. Legacy will be similar. Also it is not clear that legacy admits are under qualified than their non hooked peers. In fact given their higher SES, they may be more or at least equally qualified, so there is no way for somebody to prove that they got in only because of the legacy. Besides colleges can claim that they have a legitimate interest in admitting a certain percent of legacies for fostering a sense of generational continuity and for better fund raising purposes. Most of the data I have seen that argue that fund raising is not affected, is limited, old, based on colleges where alumni fund raising was not the most important way of raising funds or is from schools that were not hyper selective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AA is a travesty in large part because of the significant disparity in the qualifications of URM applicants vs. the general applicant pool. I'd be all for putting a finger on the scale in favor of URMs everything else being more or less equal....that would be fair. I believe a saw a study that detailed the qualification gap for legacy admits and it was significantly less than URMs but still meaningful. I'd be fine with the finger on the scale here as well given the benefits to the university......alumni loyalty, giving, etc.

Why do the URM applicants have lower qualifications?

They don't but people feel better if they say they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AA is a travesty in large part because of the significant disparity in the qualifications of URM applicants vs. the general applicant pool. I'd be all for putting a finger on the scale in favor of URMs everything else being more or less equal....that would be fair. I believe a saw a study that detailed the qualification gap for legacy admits and it was significantly less than URMs but still meaningful. I'd be fine with the finger on the scale here as well given the benefits to the university......alumni loyalty, giving, etc.

Why do the URM applicants have lower qualifications?

Because the universities handicap their scores, on balance, to recruit a sufficient number to meet their URM quotas. Of course that's not to say that there aren't URMs that are off the charts and wouldn't have needed any help but on balance, they do. Princeton did a study on the extent of the handicap a while back....just google it. I saw another study that I think was authored by a Harvard professor that analyzed the qualification gaps for legacies and athletes. Put the two of them together and you get a better picture of what is going on in admissions. I've always been curious about the quantifiable benefit of lesser hooks like geographic diversity or first-time college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to see accidents of birth removed from admissions consideration.

Like natural intelligence?

No like the Jared Kushners of the world

See cases like the Kushners are one of the reasons I approve of legacies. The donation that his father made to buy his way into Harvard paid enough for about 17 other kids to get full scholarship rides into Harvard or more to get partial rides into Harvard. Admitting one child of privilege for a large donation means that that many more deserving kids who are bright but can't afford the school, can actually attend the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AA is a travesty in large part because of the significant disparity in the qualifications of URM applicants vs. the general applicant pool. I'd be all for putting a finger on the scale in favor of URMs everything else being more or less equal....that would be fair. I believe a saw a study that detailed the qualification gap for legacy admits and it was significantly less than URMs but still meaningful. I'd be fine with the finger on the scale here as well given the benefits to the university......alumni loyalty, giving, etc.

Why do the URM applicants have lower qualifications?

Legacy admits are worse. They lead privileged and entitled lives and yet can't get in on their own. They need their parents to buy them admission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AA is a travesty in large part because of the significant disparity in the qualifications of URM applicants vs. the general applicant pool. I'd be all for putting a finger on the scale in favor of URMs everything else being more or less equal....that would be fair. I believe a saw a study that detailed the qualification gap for legacy admits and it was significantly less than URMs but still meaningful. I'd be fine with the finger on the scale here as well given the benefits to the university......alumni loyalty, giving, etc.

Why do the URM applicants have lower qualifications?

Because the universities handicap their scores, on balance, to recruit a sufficient number to meet their URM quotas. Of course that's not to say that there aren't URMs that are off the charts and wouldn't have needed any help but on balance, they do. Princeton did a study on the extent of the handicap a while back....just google it. I saw another study that I think was authored by a Harvard professor that analyzed the qualification gaps for legacies and athletes. Put the two of them together and you get a better picture of what is going on in admissions. I've always been curious about the quantifiable benefit of lesser hooks like geographic diversity or first-time college.

You did not answer the question. I asked why URMs have lower qualifications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.propublica.org/article/affirmative-action-how-the-fight-against-at-harvard-could-threaten-rich-whites

Many student groups across the ivy league have started groups asking for legacy admissions to be banned.

Great article here - i found this interesting.

Indeed, the best protection for affirmative action may be the threat that its elimination would pose to legacy preference. “Were this court to have the courage to forbid the use of racial discrimination in admissions, legacy preferences (and similar practices) might quickly become less popular — a possibility not lost, I am certain, on the elites” supporting affirmative action, Justice Clarence Thomas — not a fan of either race-based or legacy preferences — observed in 2003.

Admission based on merit -- *GASP*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to see accidents of birth removed from admissions consideration.

Like natural intelligence?

No like the Jared Kushners of the world

Or the Barack Obamas, who got into Harvard Law with a below 3.3 average from Columbia (having oddly transferred there from Occidental). Or George W Bushes, for that matter.

The difference is Obama is highly intelligent and W is as dumb as a rock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AA is a travesty in large part because of the significant disparity in the qualifications of URM applicants vs. the general applicant pool. I'd be all for putting a finger on the scale in favor of URMs everything else being more or less equal....that would be fair. I believe a saw a study that detailed the qualification gap for legacy admits and it was significantly less than URMs but still meaningful. I'd be fine with the finger on the scale here as well given the benefits to the university......alumni loyalty, giving, etc.

Why do the URM applicants have lower qualifications?

Because the universities handicap their scores, on balance, to recruit a sufficient number to meet their URM quotas. Of course that's not to say that there aren't URMs that are off the charts and wouldn't have needed any help but on balance, they do. Princeton did a study on the extent of the handicap a while back....just google it. I saw another study that I think was authored by a Harvard professor that analyzed the qualification gaps for legacies and athletes. Put the two of them together and you get a better picture of what is going on in admissions. I've always been curious about the quantifiable benefit of lesser hooks like geographic diversity or first-time college.

You did not answer the question. I asked why URMs have lower qualifications.

DP. The reason is that URM have lower qualifications in large part become of systemic inequalities in education that still linger today. URM frequently come from poorer communities and poorer families due to the historical inequalities. While there are some minorities that have risen to higher economic status and have moved into better school zones, the number of URM that have achieved such and are able to compete for higher education is still demographically below the collective representation in the collegiate pool. Add that those that have achieve better educational standards then distribute among the many schools out there and you end up with the number of highly qualified URM are proportionally significantly lower than their representation in the population.

In order to give the URM the educations that will allow them to rise above the segregation and educational inequalities, institutions will handicap the scores to get the demographics of the student population to more closely match the URM representations within the general population. This means more highly educated URM who will ideally go out, become employed at higher levels, raising the number of URM who have higher economic status and will move into better school zones and over generations, will even out the historical inequalities based on systemic issues, such as segregation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AA is a travesty in large part because of the significant disparity in the qualifications of URM applicants vs. the general applicant pool. I'd be all for putting a finger on the scale in favor of URMs everything else being more or less equal....that would be fair. I believe a saw a study that detailed the qualification gap for legacy admits and it was significantly less than URMs but still meaningful. I'd be fine with the finger on the scale here as well given the benefits to the university......alumni loyalty, giving, etc.

Why do the URM applicants have lower qualifications?

Because the universities handicap their scores, on balance, to recruit a sufficient number to meet their URM quotas. Of course that's not to say that there aren't URMs that are off the charts and wouldn't have needed any help but on balance, they do. Princeton did a study on the extent of the handicap a while back....just google it. I saw another study that I think was authored by a Harvard professor that analyzed the qualification gaps for legacies and athletes. Put the two of them together and you get a better picture of what is going on in admissions. I've always been curious about the quantifiable benefit of lesser hooks like geographic diversity or first-time college.

You did not answer the question. I asked why URMs have lower qualifications.

NP - If you are such a dumb ass and incapable of doing your own research and figure out rational reasons why URMs, on average, have lower metrics than other groups, you will not understand if someone else on this forum gives you the reasons. Besides, your statement that URMs have lower qualifications without saying "on average" indicates that you are blinded by racism. FWIW I am not URM and nor am I a person of no color!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AA is a travesty in large part because of the significant disparity in the qualifications of URM applicants vs. the general applicant pool. I'd be all for putting a finger on the scale in favor of URMs everything else being more or less equal....that would be fair. I believe a saw a study that detailed the qualification gap for legacy admits and it was significantly less than URMs but still meaningful. I'd be fine with the finger on the scale here as well given the benefits to the university......alumni loyalty, giving, etc.

Why do the URM applicants have lower qualifications?

Because the universities handicap their scores, on balance, to recruit a sufficient number to meet their URM quotas. Of course that's not to say that there aren't URMs that are off the charts and wouldn't have needed any help but on balance, they do. Princeton did a study on the extent of the handicap a while back....just google it. I saw another study that I think was authored by a Harvard professor that analyzed the qualification gaps for legacies and athletes. Put the two of them together and you get a better picture of what is going on in admissions. I've always been curious about the quantifiable benefit of lesser hooks like geographic diversity or first-time college.

You did not answer the question. I asked why URMs have lower qualifications.

NP - If you are such a dumb ass and incapable of doing your own research and figure out rational reasons why URMs, on average, have lower metrics than other groups, you will not understand if someone else on this forum gives you the reasons. Besides, your statement that URMs have lower qualifications without saying "on average" indicates that you are blinded by racism. FWIW I am not URM and nor am I a person of no color!

I wanted to know why YOU thought it was (assuming you are the poster), and what you suggested be done about it.

Does that make me a "dumb ass"? If so, then so be it.

I am also not URM but strongly in favor of URM preferences in admissions as per "The Shape Of The River".

Would have been easy for me to point out your assumptive error with ad hominem also. That never helps though. I suggest you rethink that approach.