Conservatives are now targeting legacy admission preference

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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.

Sure there are some who do, but take Div 1 football and basketball. At most schools, fact remains the "student athletes" are well below the average student at the school. It's only the Stanford/Northwestern's of the world where that isn't the case.

[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?!

Did you not read the title of the thread? “Conservatives are now targeting legacy admissions”

[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.

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.

Sure there are some who do, but take Div 1 football and basketball. At most schools, fact remains the "student athletes" are well below the average student at the school. It's only the Stanford/Northwestern's of the world where that isn't the case.

The fundamental problem that you are pointing too is major Power 4 sports. Those sports are an unrealistic microcosm of College athletics but because it is what people see on TV it is what they equate as college athletics. That is a world of "pre-professional" training for a few sports and not at all representative of Ivy League, Patriot League, NESCAC, UAA, etc. athletes and recruiting standards. But that view does make recruited athletes easy targets for people desperate to get into those schools.

[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.

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.

Sure there are some who do, but take Div 1 football and basketball. At most schools, fact remains the "student athletes" are well below the average student at the school. It's only the Stanford/Northwestern's of the world where that isn't the case.

The fundamental problem that you are pointing too is major Power 4 sports. Those sports are an unrealistic microcosm of College athletics but because it is what people see on TV it is what they equate as college athletics. That is a world of "pre-professional" training for a few sports and not at all representative of Ivy League, Patriot League, NESCAC, UAA, etc. athletes and recruiting standards. But that view does make recruited athletes easy targets for people desperate to get into those schools.

And while recruiting standards exist at Stanford and Northwestern they are not nearly as strict as the Ivy League or even the Patriot League.

[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?!

Did you not read the title of the thread? “Conservatives are now targeting legacy admissions”

Exactly. If conservatives are against it, we should support it.

[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?!

Did you not read the title of the thread? “Conservatives are now targeting legacy admissions”

Exactly. If conservatives are against it, we should support it.

lol. Love the Sheeple here.

[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?!

Did you not read the title of the thread? “Conservatives are now targeting legacy admissions”

Exactly. If conservatives are against it, we should support it.

.

Liberals are also against affirmative action

[Anonymous]

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 legacy and ED go away, and athletic/fake “non profit founder”/bird watching are reduced, our colleges would be incredible. One can hope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?!

Did you not read the title of the thread? “Conservatives are now targeting legacy admissions”

Exactly. If conservatives are against it, we should support it.

.

Liberals are also against affirmative action

Of course they are. But go back and look at OP’s alarmist thread post. People here don’t think. Liberals think they must attack anything this administration does without thinking first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s almost like they actually believe that merit matters. The gall.

They want to reinstitute the white boy network. This isn't hard to understand. If there are legacies of color, that cannot be tolerated.

Legacies are still predominantly white. Why would you think otherwise? Because there are a handful of Asians and a sprinkling of blacks and Hispanics?

The Harvard class of '95 was 35% minority so it's not as simple as some would like to make it. Eliminating Legacy at time when minority Legacies are achieving critical mass raises some interesting discussion points.

Yes, this is a good point. My kids are future minority legacy applicants. My family is not rich and I was the first person from my family to go to an elite university. I think it’s unfortunate that this is being yanked away from people now that it actually will benefit a substantial number of minorities. I benefited substantially from my connections with these multigenerational legacy families. They have helped me get jobs and interviews. My friend started a very successful business and he was able to get a funding from the other cofounders father who unsurprisingly was part of a multigenerational university “development” families. The current system works very well at helping people develop social capital regardless of background in large part because of the concentration of elite members of society. If you take that system away it disproportionately harms the people MC and Low income students who don’t have their connections or family wealth. An elite degree is not very useful without elite connections.

[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.

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.

Sure there are some who do, but take Div 1 football and basketball. At most schools, fact remains the "student athletes" are well below the average student at the school. It's only the Stanford/Northwestern's of the world where that isn't the case.

You are joking, right? You are so wrong. You have no clue how Stanford operates its bb and fb program...no clue whatsoever...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s almost like they actually believe that merit matters. The gall.

They want to reinstitute the white boy network. This isn't hard to understand. If there are legacies of color, that cannot be tolerated.

Legacies are still predominantly white. Why would you think otherwise? Because there are a handful of Asians and a sprinkling of blacks and Hispanics?

The Harvard class of '95 was 35% minority so it's not as simple as some would like to make it. Eliminating Legacy at time when minority Legacies are achieving critical mass raises some interesting discussion points.

The Harvard class of '95 was 35% minority so it's not as simple as some would like to make it. Eliminating Legacy at time when minority Legacies are achieving critical mass raises some interesting discussion points.

Most of the 35% minority in class '95 are over-represented miniority anyway. Eliminating legacy would hardly hurt anything at all because ORM will continue to be over-represented. This is not a concern for liberals or conservatives. No, not interesting discussion points.

[Anonymous]

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

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

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

Trump is just so evil! How can he target these poor teens who are just trying to get a college education? Trump’s attack on legacy is so unfair. He’s really acting like a king.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s almost like they actually believe that merit matters. The gall.

They want to reinstitute the white boy network. This isn't hard to understand. If there are legacies of color, that cannot be tolerated.

Legacies are still predominantly white. Why would you think otherwise? Because there are a handful of Asians and a sprinkling of blacks and Hispanics?

The Harvard class of '95 was 35% minority so it's not as simple as some would like to make it. Eliminating Legacy at time when minority Legacies are achieving critical mass raises some interesting discussion points.

Yes, this is a good point. My kids are future minority legacy applicants. My family is not rich and I was the first person from my family to go to an elite university. I think it’s unfortunate that this is being yanked away from people now that it actually will benefit a substantial number of minorities. I benefited substantially from my connections with these multigenerational legacy families. They have helped me get jobs and interviews. My friend started a very successful business and he was able to get a funding from the other cofounders father who unsurprisingly was part of a multigenerational university “development” families. The current system works very well at helping people develop social capital regardless of background in large part because of the concentration of elite members of society. If you take that system away it disproportionately harms the people MC and Low income students who don’t have their connections or family wealth. An elite degree is not very useful without elite connections.

This is just opportunity hording, no matter your background. You were given an elite education. Shouldn't another first gen/LMC student be given the same opportunity?

I don't agree with affirmative action, but I'd much prefer that than legacies, which still benefits the wealthy white class more than any other group.

[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.

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.

Sure there are some who do, but take Div 1 football and basketball. At most schools, fact remains the "student athletes" are well below the average student at the school. It's only the Stanford/Northwestern's of the world where that isn't the case.

I know for a fact, Northwestern athletes are WAY below.