Conservatives are now targeting legacy admission preference

[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

Disagree about the Athletes - coordination is valuable to society and tells a lot about your brain - valuing a combination of smarts and athleticism is the best for society, and people realized this centuries ago.

Parents of athletes and athletes themselves defend the preferences that athletes get. Almost no one else does.

It is tough for people to step back and accept that there are kids who truly excel down both paths. Accepting that there are kids who do as well academically with far less effort because they are devoting 30 hours a week to perfecting an alternate craft totally shatters their worldview regarding actual merit.

[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

Disagree about the Athletes - coordination is valuable to society and tells a lot about your brain - valuing a combination of smarts and athleticism is the best for society, and people realized this centuries ago.

Parents of athletes and athletes themselves defend the preferences that athletes get. Almost no one else does.

Turns out most DCUM parents justify whatever preference benefits their kid, First Gen, Legacy, Athletics, a SAT score determination or previously affirmative action . . .

I don't think most DCUM top 25 grads defend legacy preference in admissions.

I'm ok getting rid of legacy and keeping first gen even though my kids are legacy and not first gen.

Overall, I think unless there is some kind of legit discrimination, schools should be able to pick their own classes. The gov't overreach here is huge.

I went to a non selective public but I'll defend legacy all day because I also believe that institutions should craft their classes as they see fit within the bounds of the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“If they need to fund research (newsflash they do or their Phds. will go to the private sector)”

Research should be done in the private sector so that would be good.

Corporate welfare would be necessary because companies do not do basic research anymore. Universities are the best place for this public good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The least wealth sensitive metric is standardized test scores.

No, it's not. Wealth affects everything (school quality, parental involvement, quality nutrition, all which impact test scores)

Wealth does not affect test scores, it affects the things that standardized test scores measure...cognitive ability.

Wealthy kids end up being better educaated and better prepared for college than poor kids.

How do we know this?

We know this because researchers from harvard brown and MIT did a study and it turns out that a poor kid does almost exactly as well as a rich kid with the same SAT score. If SAT scores measured wealth in some way, you would expect rich kids to underperform their SAT score and poor kids to overperform their SAt score and that doesn't happen.

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

You are proving PP's point:
"Wealth affects everything (school quality, parental involvement, quality nutrition, all which impact test scores)"

SAT scores above a certain level aren't that important. Once you get above a certain threshold of a "college readiness" score, differentiating between scores becomes less valuable. The work at a top college isn't inherently any more difficult than a lower-ranked school. That's more dependent on major. The kid with the 1560 and the kid with the 1390 will both be successfully complete the same work. They will both graduate and get jobs.

Beyond some threshold of college readiness, SAT scores aren't as meaningful for understanding the applicant. Other factors become more relevant for admissions -- schoolwork, leadership, essays, interests/hobbies, etc. Metrics are a factor, but not the only one.

"Merit" (via test scores) gets you in the door, but it's far from the deciding factor. They are tons of qualified students who can do the work.

Some work yes. And in terms of making money and being successful in life definitely. But intelligence not so much. Life has proven to me that the kids who do exceptional in school are actually exceptional thinkers compared to others, even the ones who do well in college. Its not all equal even 30 years later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The least wealth sensitive metric is standardized test scores.

No, it's not. Wealth affects everything (school quality, parental involvement, quality nutrition, all which impact test scores)

Wealth does not affect test scores, it affects the things that standardized test scores measure...cognitive ability.

Wealthy kids end up being better educaated and better prepared for college than poor kids.

How do we know this?

We know this because researchers from harvard brown and MIT did a study and it turns out that a poor kid does almost exactly as well as a rich kid with the same SAT score. If SAT scores measured wealth in some way, you would expect rich kids to underperform their SAT score and poor kids to overperform their SAt score and that doesn't happen.

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

You are proving PP's point:
"Wealth affects everything (school quality, parental involvement, quality nutrition, all which impact test scores)"

SAT scores above a certain level aren't that important. Once you get above a certain threshold of a "college readiness" score, differentiating between scores becomes less valuable. The work at a top college isn't inherently any more difficult than a lower-ranked school. That's more dependent on major. The kid with the 1560 and the kid with the 1390 will both be successfully complete the same work. They will both graduate and get jobs.

Beyond some threshold of college readiness, SAT scores aren't as meaningful for understanding the applicant. Other factors become more relevant for admissions -- schoolwork, leadership, essays, interests/hobbies, etc. Metrics are a factor, but not the only one.

"Merit" (via test scores) gets you in the door, but it's far from the deciding factor. They are tons of qualified students who can do the work.

What about 1390 and 1270

1270 and 1180

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This why we need government funding out of all schools. These universities have sticker prices above $50k a year and most have massive endowments. Let’s then stand, and make decisions, on their own.

The government isn't "funding" the schools. The schools compete for research grants. If you are suggesting the government has no role in asking top academic institutions to conduct research, that is an entirely different discussion.

Anything that gives governments a say over what colleges do isn’t good. Doesn’t matter if it funding or grants they can hold over their heads. Colleges need to be independent. Everybody understood the system of full pay kids subsidizing grants for non full pay kids. When a legacy with a 3.9 and 1400 got into Harvard we all accepted it, because we knew it helped the kid from a less privileged background with a 4.8 and 1590.

I think the opposite is true.

Eliminate tax exempt status and federal funding of private colleges.

well then it wont matter to most of you complaining. Because that $90K yearly costs will skyrocket rapidly and you wont be able to afford to attend even if by some miracle your kid still gets admission

False, because it does not cost $90K+ to educate your kid. That fee covers financial aid (for others), merit scholarships (for others), bloated admin staff; bloated DEI staff and so on. Schools need to start cutting expenses.

Love how MAGAs want to tell private businesses what to do.

No it's the schools that want business with the government. If they don't want any business. They can be free and do whatever they want to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This why we need government funding out of all schools. These universities have sticker prices above $50k a year and most have massive endowments. Let’s then stand, and make decisions, on their own.

The government isn't "funding" the schools. The schools compete for research grants. If you are suggesting the government has no role in asking top academic institutions to conduct research, that is an entirely different discussion.

Anything that gives governments a say over what colleges do isn’t good. Doesn’t matter if it funding or grants they can hold over their heads. Colleges need to be independent. Everybody understood the system of full pay kids subsidizing grants for non full pay kids. When a legacy with a 3.9 and 1400 got into Harvard we all accepted it, because we knew it helped the kid from a less privileged background with a 4.8 and 1590.

I think the opposite is true.

Eliminate tax exempt status and federal funding of private colleges.

well then it wont matter to most of you complaining. Because that $90K yearly costs will skyrocket rapidly and you wont be able to afford to attend even if by some miracle your kid still gets admission

False, because it does not cost $90K+ to educate your kid. That fee covers financial aid (for others), merit scholarships (for others), bloated admin staff; bloated DEI staff and so on. Schools need to start cutting expenses.

Love how MAGAs want to tell private businesses what to do.

No it's the schools that want business with the government. If they don't want any business. They can be free and do whatever they want to do.

In fact, as long as colleges cut any government ties (funding, contract, etc.), they are free to reinstate affirmative action, improve their DEI. This is particularly easy for SLACs because they get a small amount of federal funding. But no college has chosen to do that.

[Anonymous]

I think it's ironic that progressive minded folk want to discontinue legacy preference just as it is starting to benefit minorities and women.

I am one of the first women in my family to go to college and I'm thrilled that my daughter is going to my alma mater.

It feels like a win for women who had to scrap and fight to get a seat at the table.

Why discontinue the "old boys club" just as it is becoming a non-old-non-boys-non-white club?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's ironic that progressive minded folk want to discontinue legacy preference just as it is starting to benefit minorities and women.

I am one of the first women in my family to go to college and I'm thrilled that my daughter is going to my alma mater.

It feels like a win for women who had to scrap and fight to get a seat at the table.

Why discontinue the "old boys club" just as it is becoming a non-old-non-boys-non-white club?!

Still more advantage to White boys.

Better to eliminate it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's ironic that progressive minded folk want to discontinue legacy preference just as it is starting to benefit minorities and women.

I am one of the first women in my family to go to college and I'm thrilled that my daughter is going to my alma mater.

It feels like a win for women who had to scrap and fight to get a seat at the table.

Why discontinue the "old boys club" just as it is becoming a non-old-non-boys-non-white club?!

A lot more qualified girls than boys nowadays, and the trend is not reversing.

Legacy and athlete preferences serve as affirmative action for white boys who are less qualified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's ironic that progressive minded folk want to discontinue legacy preference just as it is starting to benefit minorities and women.

I am one of the first women in my family to go to college and I'm thrilled that my daughter is going to my alma mater.

It feels like a win for women who had to scrap and fight to get a seat at the table.

Why discontinue the "old boys club" just as it is becoming a non-old-non-boys-non-white club?!

A lot more qualified girls than boys nowadays, and the trend is not reversing.

Legacy and athlete preferences serve as affirmative action for white boys who are less qualified.

Any athletic preference for a boy results in one for a girl....thank Title IX

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's ironic that progressive minded folk want to discontinue legacy preference just as it is starting to benefit minorities and women.

I am one of the first women in my family to go to college and I'm thrilled that my daughter is going to my alma mater.

It feels like a win for women who had to scrap and fight to get a seat at the table.

Why discontinue the "old boys club" just as it is becoming a non-old-non-boys-non-white club?!

A lot more qualified girls than boys nowadays, and the trend is not reversing.

Legacy and athlete preferences serve as affirmative action for white boys who are less qualified.

Any athletic preference for a boy results in one for a girl....thank Title IX

Yes, but college recruits are predominantly white and rich, boy or girl. There is no diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Legacy and athlete preferences serve as affirmative action for white boys who are less qualified.

Exactly. You don't get admitted because you are white. You get admitted because your parents are alums, and they were admitted because they were white.

Then you have "athletes" in golf, tennis, equestrian, yachting, fencing, and squash. Those sports are chosen to promote prep schools. You could surely find ghetto kids who run faster than almost any of those prep school athletes.

Colleges are finally paying athletes. Men's football and basketball are revenue sports. Men's football has 50-100 players, mostly on scholarship. The problem is that the NCAA monopoly requires Division I schools to have around 20 teams and Title IX requires equal participation of women. So colleges count women on cross-country, indoor track, and outdoor track 3 times. They even count the men who practice against women! Then they cut men's wrestling, gymnastics, swimming.

[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

Disagree about the Athletes - coordination is valuable to society and tells a lot about your brain - valuing a combination of smarts and athleticism is the best for society, and people realized this centuries ago.

Parents of athletes and athletes themselves defend the preferences that athletes get. Almost no one else does.

Turns out most DCUM parents justify whatever preference benefits their kid, First Gen, Legacy, Athletics, a SAT score determination or previously affirmative action . . .

I don't think most DCUM top 25 grads defend legacy preference in admissions.

I'm ok getting rid of legacy and keeping first gen even though my kids are legacy and not first gen.

Overall, I think unless there is some kind of legit discrimination, schools should be able to pick their own classes. The gov't overreach here is huge.

+1

I'm definately for first gen, as I fully recognize the benefits we as a society will have if we focus on getting kids into and graduating from college who might not due to their home circumstances. Them graduating can change the lives of their family and mean many other siblings and/or cousins find a way to advance their lives with college. It can be life changing.

I'm also still a fan of legacy and ED, despite it not helping my own kids. I believe everyone can do ED, it's a choice after running the NPC. I also believe universities get to pick their own classes and that there is more to merit than SAT scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“If they need to fund research (newsflash they do or their Phds. will go to the private sector)”

Research should be done in the private sector so that would be good.

It will cost so much more that way.