Kudos to NY Times - Call to end legacy Admissions

[Anonymous]

So we’ll be left with no legacy admissions, race-based affirmative action for all time coming, strong preferences for athletes, and a lottery system for others at some schools. Given how college credentialism is running rampant out in the wealthy suburbs, this is really going to shock the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of legacy preferences would annoy oh, say, 95 percent of white privileged people,e here. Reform of higher education is in the air, says the article. Great. Let’s include a discussion of absurd prices too. Lots of political benefits to a candidate who takes on Big Colleges that way.

You are smoking crack if you think that most posters here were born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Didn't have a chance to read the article, but getting rid of race based affirmative action would be a great step in the right direction as well. The whole legacy thing is just so absurd that I can't imagine even being around someone who wants their kids to go to their alma mater. It's just weird and I don't get the importance.

No one is getting rid of race based affirmative action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/opinion/sunday/end-legacy-college-admissions.amp.html

They make a strong case to end legacy admission and call it a shameless way of preserving the elite.

Very funny.

The New York Times, run by the same family generation after generation, attacks legacy

Time to walk the cheap talk, hypocrites?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/opinion/sunday/end-legacy-college-admissions.amp.html

They make a strong case to end legacy admission and call it a shameless way of preserving the elite.

Very funny.

The New York Times, run by the same family generation after generation, attacks legacy

Time to walk the cheap talk, hypocrites?

That’s a good point, actually. They should lead the way with the wealth transfers they seem to want others to engage in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of legacy preferences would annoy oh, say, 95 percent of white privileged people,e here. Reform of higher education is in the air, says the article. Great. Let’s include a discussion of absurd prices too. Lots of political benefits to a candidate who takes on Big Colleges that way.

You are smoking crack if you think that most posters here were born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Didn't have a chance to read the article, but getting rid of race based affirmative action would be a great step in the right direction as well. The whole legacy thing is just so absurd that I can't imagine even being around someone who wants their kids to go to their alma mater. It's just weird and I don't get the importance.

No one is getting rid of race based affirmative action.

Oh yeah.

Many states have already outlawed racist discrimination in public schools, 60% Americans oppose it per a survey shared in another thread, and the Harvard case has plenty of damning evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of legacy preferences would annoy oh, say, 95 percent of white privileged people,e here. Reform of higher education is in the air, says the article. Great. Let’s include a discussion of absurd prices too. Lots of political benefits to a candidate who takes on Big Colleges that way.

You are smoking crack if you think that most posters here were born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Didn't have a chance to read the article, but getting rid of race based affirmative action would be a great step in the right direction as well. The whole legacy thing is just so absurd that I can't imagine even being around someone who wants their kids to go to their alma mater. It's just weird and I don't get the importance.

No one is getting rid of race based affirmative action.

Oh yeah.

Many states have already outlawed racist discrimination in public schools, 60% Americans oppose it per a survey shared in another thread, and the Harvard case has plenty of damning evidence.

Very few politicians have the stomach for criticizing it. The only real hope opponents have is the Supreme Court. Not gonna happen. By the time a case gets there, Dems will control the Court 6-3,

[Anonymous]

Privileged whites and some Asians, I suppose, at this point, will always need something educationally ‘elite” to grab onto—some sort of credential that maintains access to a lifetime of privilege. If the perceived elite status of certain schools diminishes, people will pick up theirs marbles and go elsewhere. Same for the elites at The NY Times. I doubt they see themselves suffering from the policies they espouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/opinion/sunday/end-legacy-college-admissions.amp.html

They make a strong case to end legacy admission and call it a shameless way of preserving the elite.

Very funny.

The New York Times, run by the same family generation after generation, attacks legacy

Time to walk the cheap talk, hypocrites?

That’s a good point, actually. They should lead the way with the wealth transfers they seem to want others to engage in.

I can see the Onion headline:

"The paper of record, thriving on nepotism, attacks Harvard legacies in order to promote own legacy"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The irony of railing against anti-meritocratic legacy admits whilst casually explaining away affirmative action. The article’s focus on admit rates whist ignoring the qualifications of the legacy cohort is intellectually dishonest. As one might suspect given their privileged upbringing, legacy applicants are highly qualified candidates and it should be no surprise that their admit rate is higher than average. The difference in quant metrics of legacy vs. average admit is minimal and is dwarfed by the negative differential of affirmative action applicants.

Your argument makes no sense. If legacy students are already so qualified, why exactly do they need an advantage. Why should they be given special consideration. There is no need for concern if legacy is eliminated because these kids will most likely hold their own in the general pool of applicants

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony of railing against anti-meritocratic legacy admits whilst casually explaining away affirmative action. The article’s focus on admit rates whist ignoring the qualifications of the legacy cohort is intellectually dishonest. As one might suspect given their privileged upbringing, legacy applicants are highly qualified candidates and it should be no surprise that their admit rate is higher than average. The difference in quant metrics of legacy vs. average admit is minimal and is dwarfed by the negative differential of affirmative action applicants.

Your argument makes no sense. If legacy students are already so qualified, why exactly do they need an advantage. Why should they be given special consideration. There is no need for concern if legacy is eliminated because these kids will most likely hold their own in the general pool of applicants

You don’t understand how legacy works. Admissions at highly selective schools is almost a lottery.....they could fill their entire freshman class with 99% applicants. Legacy allows applicants to distinguish themselves from the droves of other qualified students. AA grants significant handicaps to URM applicants....that’s a different game whether you agree with it or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony of railing against anti-meritocratic legacy admits whilst casually explaining away affirmative action. The article’s focus on admit rates whist ignoring the qualifications of the legacy cohort is intellectually dishonest. As one might suspect given their privileged upbringing, legacy applicants are highly qualified candidates and it should be no surprise that their admit rate is higher than average. The difference in quant metrics of legacy vs. average admit is minimal and is dwarfed by the negative differential of affirmative action applicants.

Your argument makes no sense. If legacy students are already so qualified, why exactly do they need an advantage. Why should they be given special consideration. There is no need for concern if legacy is eliminated because these kids will most likely hold their own in the general pool of applicants

You don’t understand how legacy works. Admissions at highly selective schools is almost a lottery.....they could fill their entire freshman class with 99% applicants. Legacy allows applicants to distinguish themselves from the droves of other qualified students. AA grants significant handicaps to URM applicants....that’s a different game whether you agree with it or not.

I think schools should get rid of both legacy and affirmative action, but the former at least makes sense and is less pernicious than the latter.

[Anonymous]

Another mountain from a molehill, where people are only concerned about this at a small handful of giant-endowment colleges.

Notwithstanding the fact that legacy is used as a differentiator and not an advantage over more qualified in most cases, what I object to is that colleges have financial reasons for having this preference.

It's hard enough to run colleges today and anything that helps a college financially (like legacy preference) helps all students, especially underprivileged ones.

The idea that colleges do this as some kind of starchamber conspiracy to maintain a racial aristocracy is beyond ridiculous. The vast majority people making these decisions are full of the best intentions for their institution and its students.

[Anonymous]

+1 This is all window-dressing. That a college "has to" admit a legacy is a function of its own financial mismanagement rather than a deep source of unfairness. Attacking legacies is a distraction -- the man behind the curtain is really bloated administrations and a tuition bubble that won't last forever. But let's focus on a symptom so we can feel virtuous in the meantime.

[Anonymous]

I was shocked to read in the editorial that Harvard’s legacy admit rate is over 30% while its regular admit rate is only 5-6 %.
That is crazy. I never realized what a huge advantage legacy confers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was shocked to read in the editorial that Harvard’s legacy admit rate is over 30% while its regular admit rate is only 5-6 %.
That is crazy. I never realized what a huge advantage legacy confers.

If the legacy is AA, it's close to 100%.

Yes, it's crazy.

Who cares about non-legacy whites.