Elite Colleges’ Quiet Fight to Favor Alumni Children

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look -- college is not a government program where the "most deserving" whatever that means gets the slot. Getting federal money to do things for the common good does not change that. Colleges get to pick what they want. I get legacy. It grounds the college and helps give it a history that can be shared. But the college gets to decide what it wants. Hey we need more music majors let's lower the scores for them or any other majors.

And this is the exact time that URMs admitted in an earlier time in great numbers have the legacy option. Seems a bit harsh to pull from them.

It will never be a "fair system". There is no way for that to happen. Just like life isn't fair. The fact that some people can afford tutoring and extras to help their kids isn't fair either. The fact that I can afford private schools (don't do that but I could) and can also afford to live in a top public district isn't fair. State schools should not use legacy, but private schools should get to pick what they want. Just like you stated, they do that when they don't admit 90% of their class as engineering, unless it's solely an engineering school. They do that with athletics, and many other admits.
Most of these on DCUM complaining that it isn't fair don't really appreciate all of the advantages they already have over most of the kids in the USA/world.

I think legacy should be abolished and it’s not because of fairness. I don’t think fairness is a reasonable objection to legacy. It’s because legacy are the only group that get admissions advantages without accompanying accomplishments or benefits to the school. I honestly don’t understand how parents can even put their kids through admission as a legacy — it’s like flat-out telling them they are mediocre — but my real objection is that legacy admissions bring a lot of extremely entitled kids to campuses and I think it harms the environment of schools.

Well the school does get a benefit. legacies, especially if it's multiple generations are much more likely to donate after graduation. Really legacy is all about financial issues for the university. Similarly, a Rich legacy whose family actually donates is more likely to get admitted than someone whose parents have not. I agree it's not the best for the school environment, but dont kid yourself, the places that admit by legacy are expensive schools and typically 50%+ are full pay students anyhow, with many being rich kids so that would be there no matter what.

There are no kids getting into anywhere because of legacy that are mediocre. Just not a thing. They are in the group at each school that have the potential to be admitted. No people who make multi million donations may get mediocre kids in. But legacy is just not that.

I agree. Most who get in via legacy have the stats to be admitted or extremely close (and really someone who has a 1500 SAT and 4.2 W GPA are not that much different than a 1580 and 4.4). And that's to be expected because someone growing up in a wealthy family would have had the best educational opportunities available to them all the way thru life and expected to excel.

I've heard it said that people who come from privileged backgrounds have a leg up already in life compared to mere mortals. Hence, part of the reason for holistic admissions.

If you compare two students with the same stats: one from a MC family whose parents went to a B rated state univ and the other whose a child of an ivy league graduate, the MC student probably had to work harder for those stats than the legacy kid.

Isn't that what we are told about poor kids, first gen kids.. that they have to work harder? MC kids have to work harder than UMC.

So, yes, I would expect UMC kids whose parents are ivy league educated to have super high stats, but that kid most likely didn't have to work as hard, or at least had more opportunities than a MC, or LMC kid did with the same stats.

In that way, the MC or even UMC kid whose parents just managed to work hard an save seems to always be screwed - no hooks.

No that UMC kid had to work just as hard.

The unhooked UMC kid is the most disadvantaged. No hooks.

Legacy families have a network that their kids can tap into. Unhooked UMC family doesn't have that network.

Yes. Great for them. Work your butt off and you can have this too.

+1. Don't dream that getting your kids into Harvard will open doors for you. I married into an old money WASP family and they all know each other from Dalton and Deerfield, they smell desperation from miles away, and despise social climbers. Attending an elite college will not create a network for you. The most successful networks are those created by Penn and UM at Ann Harbor.

Being a NY Jew, I am not looking to hang out with WASPs, but a degree from a T10 school is already opening the doors for my kid. That's all I wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look -- college is not a government program where the "most deserving" whatever that means gets the slot. Getting federal money to do things for the common good does not change that. Colleges get to pick what they want. I get legacy. It grounds the college and helps give it a history that can be shared. But the college gets to decide what it wants. Hey we need more music majors let's lower the scores for them or any other majors.

And this is the exact time that URMs admitted in an earlier time in great numbers have the legacy option. Seems a bit harsh to pull from them.

It will never be a "fair system". There is no way for that to happen. Just like life isn't fair. The fact that some people can afford tutoring and extras to help their kids isn't fair either. The fact that I can afford private schools (don't do that but I could) and can also afford to live in a top public district isn't fair. State schools should not use legacy, but private schools should get to pick what they want. Just like you stated, they do that when they don't admit 90% of their class as engineering, unless it's solely an engineering school. They do that with athletics, and many other admits.
Most of these on DCUM complaining that it isn't fair don't really appreciate all of the advantages they already have over most of the kids in the USA/world.

I think legacy should be abolished and it’s not because of fairness. I don’t think fairness is a reasonable objection to legacy. It’s because legacy are the only group that get admissions advantages without accompanying accomplishments or benefits to the school. I honestly don’t understand how parents can even put their kids through admission as a legacy — it’s like flat-out telling them they are mediocre — but my real objection is that legacy admissions bring a lot of extremely entitled kids to campuses and I think it harms the environment of schools.

Well the school does get a benefit. legacies, especially if it's multiple generations are much more likely to donate after graduation. Really legacy is all about financial issues for the university. Similarly, a Rich legacy whose family actually donates is more likely to get admitted than someone whose parents have not. I agree it's not the best for the school environment, but dont kid yourself, the places that admit by legacy are expensive schools and typically 50%+ are full pay students anyhow, with many being rich kids so that would be there no matter what.

There are no kids getting into anywhere because of legacy that are mediocre. Just not a thing. They are in the group at each school that have the potential to be admitted. No people who make multi million donations may get mediocre kids in. But legacy is just not that.

I agree. Most who get in via legacy have the stats to be admitted or extremely close (and really someone who has a 1500 SAT and 4.2 W GPA are not that much different than a 1580 and 4.4). And that's to be expected because someone growing up in a wealthy family would have had the best educational opportunities available to them all the way thru life and expected to excel.

I've heard it said that people who come from privileged backgrounds have a leg up already in life compared to mere mortals. Hence, part of the reason for holistic admissions.

If you compare two students with the same stats: one from a MC family whose parents went to a B rated state univ and the other whose a child of an ivy league graduate, the MC student probably had to work harder for those stats than the legacy kid.

Isn't that what we are told about poor kids, first gen kids.. that they have to work harder? MC kids have to work harder than UMC.

So, yes, I would expect UMC kids whose parents are ivy league educated to have super high stats, but that kid most likely didn't have to work as hard, or at least had more opportunities than a MC, or LMC kid did with the same stats.

In that way, the MC or even UMC kid whose parents just managed to work hard an save seems to always be screwed - no hooks.

No that UMC kid had to work just as hard.

The unhooked UMC kid is the most disadvantaged. No hooks.

Legacy families have a network that their kids can tap into. Unhooked UMC family doesn't have that network.

Yes. Great for them. Work your butt off and you can have this too.

+1. Don't dream that getting your kids into Harvard will open doors for you. I married into an old money WASP family and they all know each other from Dalton and Deerfield, they smell desperation from miles away, and despise social climbers. Attending an elite college will not create a network for you. The most successful networks are those created by Penn and UM at Ann Harbor.

Being a NY Jew, I am not looking to hang out with WASPs, but a degree from a T10 school is already opening the doors for my kid. That's all I wanted.

My kids' private Jesuit HS has the biggest network and connections, more than private universities in the top 10 that 3 of my kids attended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband was a first gen, non-legacy at a selective private university. Very poor.

Now his son will be non-preferred over a non-legacy according to the school’s prez.

We are not a wealthy, privileged family, but he is a legacy. Not all legacies are rich and entitled.

The school wants no legacies. Seriously f’d up.

Why is this f-ed up? This is fair. Just like your huband got in on his own, your child should be able to do so too!

BUT HE won't because they won't take legacies. It's a downgrade to be one at Hopkins.

He has 35 ACT and a 4.5/4.0 un-weighted (most rigorous schedule), 3 sport athlete. We have already been told they want first generation, non-legacies. The President openly condemned legacies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband was a first gen, non-legacy at a selective private university. Very poor.

Now his son will be non-preferred over a non-legacy according to the school’s prez.

We are not a wealthy, privileged family, but he is a legacy. Not all legacies are rich and entitled.

The school wants no legacies. Seriously f’d up.

Why is this f-ed up? This is fair. Just like your huband got in on his own, your child should be able to do so too!

BUT HE won't because they won't take legacies. It's a downgrade to be one at Hopkins.

He has 35 ACT and a 4.5/4.0 un-weighted (most rigorous schedule), 3 sport athlete. We have already been told they want first generation, non-legacies. The President openly condemned legacies.

To further explain:

My husband is 51. He got in to Hopkins in 1990 when they PREFERRED legacy admits. He was not one. He got in on merit (non-minority or recruited athlete either).

My son is now of similar grades/scores, but because is dad (poor, not entitled) went there, he is now less likely to get in since the President has been broadcasting he wants no legacy and dropped such admits to -3%. He is further handicapped because of his race/ethnicity.

[Anonymous]

I avoid medical or any professional service by a provider that received their education and training because they were given priority because family had connections.
Nepotism will always happen. It doesn’t take a lot of effort to tease out a legacy.
As a side, I think it is sad that a person feels obligated to follow in someone else’s footsteps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband was a first gen, non-legacy at a selective private university. Very poor.

Now his son will be non-preferred over a non-legacy according to the school’s prez.

We are not a wealthy, privileged family, but he is a legacy. Not all legacies are rich and entitled.

The school wants no legacies. Seriously f’d up.

Why is this f-ed up? This is fair. Just like your huband got in on his own, your child should be able to do so too!

BUT HE won't because they won't take legacies. It's a downgrade to be one at Hopkins.

He has 35 ACT and a 4.5/4.0 un-weighted (most rigorous schedule), 3 sport athlete. We have already been told they want first generation, non-legacies. The President openly condemned legacies.

To further explain:

My husband is 51. He got in to Hopkins in 1990 when they PREFERRED legacy admits. He was not one. He got in on merit (non-minority or recruited athlete either).

My son is now of similar grades/scores, but because is dad (poor, not entitled) went there, he is now less likely to get in since the President has been broadcasting he wants no legacy and dropped such admits to -3%. He is further handicapped because of his race/ethnicity.

Show me where the president said that. Not considering legacy is not the same as being anti-legacy.

Both of my brothers went to Hopkins; one of them the same year as your husband. They pass on to me every issue of the alumni magazine and that other magazine that gets sent out, because they know my child is considering JHU and they feel the information is useful. We read those magazines from cover to cover and I have never seen anything saying the president is trying to keep out legacy students. Do you have a link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I avoid medical or any professional service by a provider that received their education and training because they were given priority because family had connections.
Nepotism will always happen. It doesn’t take a lot of effort to tease out a legacy.
As a side, I think it is sad that a person feels obligated to follow in someone else’s footsteps.

Another delusional one. Like you'd know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look -- college is not a government program where the "most deserving" whatever that means gets the slot. Getting federal money to do things for the common good does not change that. Colleges get to pick what they want. I get legacy. It grounds the college and helps give it a history that can be shared. But the college gets to decide what it wants. Hey we need more music majors let's lower the scores for them or any other majors.

And this is the exact time that URMs admitted in an earlier time in great numbers have the legacy option. Seems a bit harsh to pull from them.

It will never be a "fair system". There is no way for that to happen. Just like life isn't fair. The fact that some people can afford tutoring and extras to help their kids isn't fair either. The fact that I can afford private schools (don't do that but I could) and can also afford to live in a top public district isn't fair. State schools should not use legacy, but private schools should get to pick what they want. Just like you stated, they do that when they don't admit 90% of their class as engineering, unless it's solely an engineering school. They do that with athletics, and many other admits.
Most of these on DCUM complaining that it isn't fair don't really appreciate all of the advantages they already have over most of the kids in the USA/world.

I think legacy should be abolished and it’s not because of fairness. I don’t think fairness is a reasonable objection to legacy. It’s because legacy are the only group that get admissions advantages without accompanying accomplishments or benefits to the school. I honestly don’t understand how parents can even put their kids through admission as a legacy — it’s like flat-out telling them they are mediocre — but my real objection is that legacy admissions bring a lot of extremely entitled kids to campuses and I think it harms the environment of schools.

Well the school does get a benefit. legacies, especially if it's multiple generations are much more likely to donate after graduation. Really legacy is all about financial issues for the university. Similarly, a Rich legacy whose family actually donates is more likely to get admitted than someone whose parents have not. I agree it's not the best for the school environment, but dont kid yourself, the places that admit by legacy are expensive schools and typically 50%+ are full pay students anyhow, with many being rich kids so that would be there no matter what.

There are no kids getting into anywhere because of legacy that are mediocre. Just not a thing. They are in the group at each school that have the potential to be admitted. No people who make multi million donations may get mediocre kids in. But legacy is just not that.

I agree. Most who get in via legacy have the stats to be admitted or extremely close (and really someone who has a 1500 SAT and 4.2 W GPA are not that much different than a 1580 and 4.4). And that's to be expected because someone growing up in a wealthy family would have had the best educational opportunities available to them all the way thru life and expected to excel.

I've heard it said that people who come from privileged backgrounds have a leg up already in life compared to mere mortals. Hence, part of the reason for holistic admissions.

If you compare two students with the same stats: one from a MC family whose parents went to a B rated state univ and the other whose a child of an ivy league graduate, the MC student probably had to work harder for those stats than the legacy kid.

Isn't that what we are told about poor kids, first gen kids.. that they have to work harder? MC kids have to work harder than UMC.

So, yes, I would expect UMC kids whose parents are ivy league educated to have super high stats, but that kid most likely didn't have to work as hard, or at least had more opportunities than a MC, or LMC kid did with the same stats.

In that way, the MC or even UMC kid whose parents just managed to work hard an save seems to always be screwed - no hooks.

No that UMC kid had to work just as hard.

The unhooked UMC kid is the most disadvantaged. No hooks.

Legacy families have a network that their kids can tap into. Unhooked UMC family doesn't have that network.

Yes. Great for them. Work your butt off and you can have this too.

+1. Don't dream that getting your kids into Harvard will open doors for you. I married into an old money WASP family and they all know each other from Dalton and Deerfield, they smell desperation from miles away, and despise social climbers. Attending an elite college will not create a network for you. The most successful networks are those created by Penn and UM at Ann Harbor.

Being a NY Jew, I am not looking to hang out with WASPs, but a degree from a T10 school is already opening the doors for my kid. That's all I wanted.

My kids' private Jesuit HS has the biggest network and connections, more than private universities in the top 10 that 3 of my kids attended.

PP. Not sure your school will work out well for my kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband was a first gen, non-legacy at a selective private university. Very poor.

Now his son will be non-preferred over a non-legacy according to the school’s prez.

We are not a wealthy, privileged family, but he is a legacy. Not all legacies are rich and entitled.

The school wants no legacies. Seriously f’d up.

Why is this f-ed up? This is fair. Just like your huband got in on his own, your child should be able to do so too!

BUT HE won't because they won't take legacies. It's a downgrade to be one at Hopkins.

He has 35 ACT and a 4.5/4.0 un-weighted (most rigorous schedule), 3 sport athlete. We have already been told they want first generation, non-legacies. The President openly condemned legacies.

To further explain:

My husband is 51. He got in to Hopkins in 1990 when they PREFERRED legacy admits. He was not one. He got in on merit (non-minority or recruited athlete either).

My son is now of similar grades/scores, but because is dad (poor, not entitled) went there, he is now less likely to get in since the President has been broadcasting he wants no legacy and dropped such admits to -3%. He is further handicapped because of his race/ethnicity.

Show me where the president said that. Not considering legacy is not the same as being anti-legacy.

Both of my brothers went to Hopkins; one of them the same year as your husband. They pass on to me every issue of the alumni magazine and that other magazine that gets sent out, because they know my child is considering JHU and they feel the information is useful. We read those magazines from cover to cover and I have never seen anything saying the president is trying to keep out legacy students. Do you have a link?

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! You think he will say that in an ALUMNI magazine?!?!! There go the alum donations!! Their kids are screwed, why should they donate? My husband had donated every year, even when he could barely afford rent and had no car got get to work, resoled his shoes. After all that has been in the press about the move to bring down legacy numbers (legacies with creds to get in on their own, mind you, there is no incentive for an alum with kids to give. They would be better off donating to a school that doesn't outright say: we don't want your kids.

From the Prez:

The year I arrived, Hopkins had more legacy students in its freshman class (12.5 percent) than students who were eligible for Pell Grants (9 percent). Now those numbers are reversed—3.5 percent of students in this year’s freshman class have a legacy connection to the university, and 19.1 percent are Pell-eligible—and we expect that the number of Pell-eligible students will continue to rise in the coming years.

Ending legacy preferences is but one piece of our university’s work to make a Johns Hopkins education accessible to all talented students, to mitigate the burdens of debt, and to ensure that students receive the supports and services that will help them thrive.

The past two years it is a war on which University can have the least amount of white students, non-first generation students, and no legacies. They broadcast across every headline that minorities made up 68% of their incoming students and the majority first generation...and it's trickling in at our local state universities now too. Getting rid of standardized testing has allowed them to bypass quality and merit and justify admitting students of much lower credentials.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming years.

[Anonymous]

Schools Must Resist Destructive Anti-racist Demands
Contrary to what activists seem to believe, campuses are not bastions of social injustice.

By John McWhorter


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/when-antiracist-manifestos-become-antiracist-wrecking-balls/617841/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of legacy preference does absolutely nothing. The same pool of privileged applicants will just spread themselves across the range of selective schools instead of getting funneled into the ones their parents attended. It won't create additional opportunities for another else when viewed in the aggregate.

+1

This. You get it.

Wrong. This is true only if you want to craft a narrative that suits your belief that the status quo in society should hold. Legacy status primarily benefits wealthy white people. When Johns Hopkins removed legacy preferences, the percentage of enrolled legacies declined from 12.5 to 3.5 percent, while Pell grant student enrollment (a proxy for low-income status) climbed from 9 to 19 percent.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/amhersts-legacy-announcement-wont-end-inequity/620476/

Did you even read the link you posted? Removal of legacy status and increasing socioeconomic diversity are completely independent of one another.

“Hill’s absolutely accurate point is that increased institutional spending on grant aid—not loans—for students with economic need will do much more to increase the enrollment of working-class and low-income students at wealthy colleges than getting rid of legacy admissions will.”

Apparently you didn’t read it. Did you see how the share of Pell grant recipients increased by 10 pct in 2 years after legacy admissions were removed at John’s Hopkins while the share of legacy admin dropped? The point is they would increase even more if more grants were available for poor kids.

They are completely independent events.

Sure-the legacy admits just magically dropped when the policy not to give them preference changed.

Pell grants and legacy admit rates are completely independent.

Johns Hopkins got rid of legacy preferences and it’s share of legacy students dropped from 12.5 to 3.5 percent. Ergo, without said preferences a good chunk of legacy students were no longer competitive against the broader pool of admitted students. People may try to argue as people on this thread have that this doesn’t matter because that 10 percent that Johns Hopkins now rejects are all commendable qualified students, but the face is that they weren’t as good as the legacy students weren’t as good as the students admitted in their place.

And you may choose to interpret the fact that the share of Pell grant students increased dramatically has nothing to do with dropping legacy preferences is a completely independent trend but you would be completely wrong, at least according to people who know anything about education statistics. Admissions are not a win win situation. If rich legacy kids lose, other kids gain, and in the case of Johns Hopkins it was poorer but more talented kids than the legacy pool.

When JHU got rid of legacy, legacy students stopped applying ED! That’s why the numbers went down. It isn’t because they weren’t as competitive. It’s because they decided that if they weren’t going to have a hook, they would just assume apply ED somewhere they actually wanted to go. They probably ended up in other T20 schools.

So these JHU legacy kids didn't really want to go to JHU so they went elsewhere once they no longer had legacy preference. Um, ok. I don't agree with that interpretation, but if the kids didn't want to go to the same school as their parents, why is this a bad outcome?

It isn’t a bad outcome. My point is that it’s complete and total nonsense to suggest that the percentage of legacies at JHU decreased because most of them were unqualified and couldn’t get in once the legacy hook was removed. The reason why the percentage of legacies at JHU dropped was because fewer applied once the hook was removed. Those legacy applicants took their ED elsewhere.

Exactly!! JHU likely wasn't the kid's first choice, but they were applying ED when Legacy gave a benefit as they wanted to attend a T20. Once the legacy hook is gone, the kids pick their true top choice to ED. Not really that difficult to understand. Where to ED is part game, once you have determined where you want to go---most people pick a school where they might have an advantage, however slight it is.

Well that’s the point then. A lot of the JHU legacy kids couldn’t have gotten into a T20 school without the legacy boost so once it was gone they applied where they were actually able to get in on merit. Which is a good thing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband was a first gen, non-legacy at a selective private university. Very poor.

Now his son will be non-preferred over a non-legacy according to the school’s prez.

We are not a wealthy, privileged family, but he is a legacy. Not all legacies are rich and entitled.

The school wants no legacies. Seriously f’d up.

Why is this f-ed up? This is fair. Just like your huband got in on his own, your child should be able to do so too!

BUT HE won't because they won't take legacies. It's a downgrade to be one at Hopkins.

He has 35 ACT and a 4.5/4.0 un-weighted (most rigorous schedule), 3 sport athlete. We have already been told they want first generation, non-legacies. The President openly condemned legacies.

To further explain:

My husband is 51. He got in to Hopkins in 1990 when they PREFERRED legacy admits. He was not one. He got in on merit (non-minority or recruited athlete either).

My son is now of similar grades/scores, but because is dad (poor, not entitled) went there, he is now less likely to get in since the President has been broadcasting he wants no legacy and dropped such admits to -3%. He is further handicapped because of his race/ethnicity.

Show me where the president said that. Not considering legacy is not the same as being anti-legacy.

Both of my brothers went to Hopkins; one of them the same year as your husband. They pass on to me every issue of the alumni magazine and that other magazine that gets sent out, because they know my child is considering JHU and they feel the information is useful. We read those magazines from cover to cover and I have never seen anything saying the president is trying to keep out legacy students. Do you have a link?

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! You think he will say that in an ALUMNI magazine?!?!! There go the alum donations!! Their kids are screwed, why should they donate? My husband had donated every year, even when he could barely afford rent and had no car got get to work, resoled his shoes. After all that has been in the press about the move to bring down legacy numbers (legacies with creds to get in on their own, mind you, there is no incentive for an alum with kids to give. They would be better off donating to a school that doesn't outright say: we don't want your kids.

From the Prez:

The year I arrived, Hopkins had more legacy students in its freshman class (12.5 percent) than students who were eligible for Pell Grants (9 percent). Now those numbers are reversed—3.5 percent of students in this year’s freshman class have a legacy connection to the university, and 19.1 percent are Pell-eligible—and we expect that the number of Pell-eligible students will continue to rise in the coming years.

Ending legacy preferences is but one piece of our university’s work to make a Johns Hopkins education accessible to all talented students, to mitigate the burdens of debt, and to ensure that students receive the supports and services that will help them thrive.

The past two years it is a war on which University can have the least amount of white students, non-first generation students, and no legacies. They broadcast across every headline that minorities made up 68% of their incoming students and the majority first generation...and it's trickling in at our local state universities now too. Getting rid of standardized testing has allowed them to bypass quality and merit and justify admitting students of much lower credentials.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming years.

You sound a little nutty. There’s a big difference between a school deciding if wants to have more equitable admissions and being anti-alumni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of legacy preference does absolutely nothing. The same pool of privileged applicants will just spread themselves across the range of selective schools instead of getting funneled into the ones their parents attended. It won't create additional opportunities for another else when viewed in the aggregate.

+1

This. You get it.

Wrong. This is true only if you want to craft a narrative that suits your belief that the status quo in society should hold. Legacy status primarily benefits wealthy white people. When Johns Hopkins removed legacy preferences, the percentage of enrolled legacies declined from 12.5 to 3.5 percent, while Pell grant student enrollment (a proxy for low-income status) climbed from 9 to 19 percent.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/amhersts-legacy-announcement-wont-end-inequity/620476/

Did you even read the link you posted? Removal of legacy status and increasing socioeconomic diversity are completely independent of one another.

“Hill’s absolutely accurate point is that increased institutional spending on grant aid—not loans—for students with economic need will do much more to increase the enrollment of working-class and low-income students at wealthy colleges than getting rid of legacy admissions will.”

Apparently you didn’t read it. Did you see how the share of Pell grant recipients increased by 10 pct in 2 years after legacy admissions were removed at John’s Hopkins while the share of legacy admin dropped? The point is they would increase even more if more grants were available for poor kids.

They are completely independent events.

Sure-the legacy admits just magically dropped when the policy not to give them preference changed.

Pell grants and legacy admit rates are completely independent.

Johns Hopkins got rid of legacy preferences and it’s share of legacy students dropped from 12.5 to 3.5 percent. Ergo, without said preferences a good chunk of legacy students were no longer competitive against the broader pool of admitted students. People may try to argue as people on this thread have that this doesn’t matter because that 10 percent that Johns Hopkins now rejects are all commendable qualified students, but the face is that they weren’t as good as the legacy students weren’t as good as the students admitted in their place.

And you may choose to interpret the fact that the share of Pell grant students increased dramatically has nothing to do with dropping legacy preferences is a completely independent trend but you would be completely wrong, at least according to people who know anything about education statistics. Admissions are not a win win situation. If rich legacy kids lose, other kids gain, and in the case of Johns Hopkins it was poorer but more talented kids than the legacy pool.

When JHU got rid of legacy, legacy students stopped applying ED! That’s why the numbers went down. It isn’t because they weren’t as competitive. It’s because they decided that if they weren’t going to have a hook, they would just assume apply ED somewhere they actually wanted to go. They probably ended up in other T20 schools.

So these JHU legacy kids didn't really want to go to JHU so they went elsewhere once they no longer had legacy preference. Um, ok. I don't agree with that interpretation, but if the kids didn't want to go to the same school as their parents, why is this a bad outcome?

It isn’t a bad outcome. My point is that it’s complete and total nonsense to suggest that the percentage of legacies at JHU decreased because most of them were unqualified and couldn’t get in once the legacy hook was removed. The reason why the percentage of legacies at JHU dropped was because fewer applied once the hook was removed. Those legacy applicants took their ED elsewhere.

Exactly!! JHU likely wasn't the kid's first choice, but they were applying ED when Legacy gave a benefit as they wanted to attend a T20. Once the legacy hook is gone, the kids pick their true top choice to ED. Not really that difficult to understand. Where to ED is part game, once you have determined where you want to go---most people pick a school where they might have an advantage, however slight it is.

Well that’s the point then. A lot of the JHU legacy kids couldn’t have gotten into a T20 school without the legacy boost so once it was gone they applied where they were actually able to get in on merit. Which is a good thing

No, that’s not the point. The legacy kids previously chose to maximize the probability of getting in to a T20, which meant ED at JHU. Take away legacy and then JHU ED no longer represents the most probable path of getting in to a top 20. Other options in the T20 are now comparable in likelihood, so the JHU legacies put their chips on those numbers. Their decision to choose a different T20 doesn’t mean they didn’t have a good shot at JHU. It’s just that their shot at JHU was no better than the other T20 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband was a first gen, non-legacy at a selective private university. Very poor.

Now his son will be non-preferred over a non-legacy according to the school’s prez.

We are not a wealthy, privileged family, but he is a legacy. Not all legacies are rich and entitled.

The school wants no legacies. Seriously f’d up.

Why is this f-ed up? This is fair. Just like your huband got in on his own, your child should be able to do so too!

BUT HE won't because they won't take legacies. It's a downgrade to be one at Hopkins.

He has 35 ACT and a 4.5/4.0 un-weighted (most rigorous schedule), 3 sport athlete. We have already been told they want first generation, non-legacies. The President openly condemned legacies.

To further explain:

My husband is 51. He got in to Hopkins in 1990 when they PREFERRED legacy admits. He was not one. He got in on merit (non-minority or recruited athlete either).

My son is now of similar grades/scores, but because is dad (poor, not entitled) went there, he is now less likely to get in since the President has been broadcasting he wants no legacy and dropped such admits to -3%. He is further handicapped because of his race/ethnicity.

Show me where the president said that. Not considering legacy is not the same as being anti-legacy.

Both of my brothers went to Hopkins; one of them the same year as your husband. They pass on to me every issue of the alumni magazine and that other magazine that gets sent out, because they know my child is considering JHU and they feel the information is useful. We read those magazines from cover to cover and I have never seen anything saying the president is trying to keep out legacy students. Do you have a link?

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! You think he will say that in an ALUMNI magazine?!?!! There go the alum donations!! Their kids are screwed, why should they donate? My husband had donated every year, even when he could barely afford rent and had no car got get to work, resoled his shoes. After all that has been in the press about the move to bring down legacy numbers (legacies with creds to get in on their own, mind you, there is no incentive for an alum with kids to give. They would be better off donating to a school that doesn't outright say: we don't want your kids.

From the Prez:

The year I arrived, Hopkins had more legacy students in its freshman class (12.5 percent) than students who were eligible for Pell Grants (9 percent). Now those numbers are reversed—3.5 percent of students in this year’s freshman class have a legacy connection to the university, and 19.1 percent are Pell-eligible—and we expect that the number of Pell-eligible students will continue to rise in the coming years.

Ending legacy preferences is but one piece of our university’s work to make a Johns Hopkins education accessible to all talented students, to mitigate the burdens of debt, and to ensure that students receive the supports and services that will help them thrive.

The past two years it is a war on which University can have the least amount of white students, non-first generation students, and no legacies. They broadcast across every headline that minorities made up 68% of their incoming students and the majority first generation...and it's trickling in at our local state universities now too. Getting rid of standardized testing has allowed them to bypass quality and merit and justify admitting students of much lower credentials.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming years.

You sound a little nutty. There’s a big difference between a school deciding if wants to have more equitable admissions and being anti-alumni.

Seriously. And I still don't think the school is "outright say[ing]: we don't want your kids."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband was a first gen, non-legacy at a selective private university. Very poor.

Now his son will be non-preferred over a non-legacy according to the school’s prez.

We are not a wealthy, privileged family, but he is a legacy. Not all legacies are rich and entitled.

The school wants no legacies. Seriously f’d up.

Why is this f-ed up? This is fair. Just like your huband got in on his own, your child should be able to do so too!

BUT HE won't because they won't take legacies. It's a downgrade to be one at Hopkins.

He has 35 ACT and a 4.5/4.0 un-weighted (most rigorous schedule), 3 sport athlete. We have already been told they want first generation, non-legacies. The President openly condemned legacies.

To further explain:

My husband is 51. He got in to Hopkins in 1990 when they PREFERRED legacy admits. He was not one. He got in on merit (non-minority or recruited athlete either).

My son is now of similar grades/scores, but because is dad (poor, not entitled) went there, he is now less likely to get in since the President has been broadcasting he wants no legacy and dropped such admits to -3%. He is further handicapped because of his race/ethnicity.

Show me where the president said that. Not considering legacy is not the same as being anti-legacy.

Both of my brothers went to Hopkins; one of them the same year as your husband. They pass on to me every issue of the alumni magazine and that other magazine that gets sent out, because they know my child is considering JHU and they feel the information is useful. We read those magazines from cover to cover and I have never seen anything saying the president is trying to keep out legacy students. Do you have a link?

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! You think he will say that in an ALUMNI magazine?!?!! There go the alum donations!! Their kids are screwed, why should they donate? My husband had donated every year, even when he could barely afford rent and had no car got get to work, resoled his shoes. After all that has been in the press about the move to bring down legacy numbers (legacies with creds to get in on their own, mind you, there is no incentive for an alum with kids to give. They would be better off donating to a school that doesn't outright say: we don't want your kids.

From the Prez:

The year I arrived, Hopkins had more legacy students in its freshman class (12.5 percent) than students who were eligible for Pell Grants (9 percent). Now those numbers are reversed—3.5 percent of students in this year’s freshman class have a legacy connection to the university, and 19.1 percent are Pell-eligible—and we expect that the number of Pell-eligible students will continue to rise in the coming years.

Ending legacy preferences is but one piece of our university’s work to make a Johns Hopkins education accessible to all talented students, to mitigate the burdens of debt, and to ensure that students receive the supports and services that will help them thrive.

The past two years it is a war on which University can have the least amount of white students, non-first generation students, and no legacies. They broadcast across every headline that minorities made up 68% of their incoming students and the majority first generation...and it's trickling in at our local state universities now too. Getting rid of standardized testing has allowed them to bypass quality and merit and justify admitting students of much lower credentials.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming years.

Donating to universities does not matter at all until you start donating at least $1M+, likely even higher. So donate if that's what you want to do, but sending in $5K/year is not going to help your kid get admitted ANYWHERE.

Kids whose parents graduated from JHU already have such a leg up in life, they should be able to excel anywhere (yes, even at a non Elite university). I for one want my kids attending school with a wide variety of students---I don't want them at school with only high income, prep school students. I want diversity on all levels. If that means my own kid doesn't get into an elite university due to their privilege and that spot goes to a Pell grant student, I'm happy. That kid will gain much more from attending Elite U than my kid will. My kid will excel no matter what and the fact they go to a T30 instead of T10 school won't change their trajectory, but for that Pell grant kid, this will likely greatly advance their life, and help their family---it will likely be life changing for them.