Conservatives are now targeting legacy admission preference

[Anonymous]

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

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.

Agreed! But Stanford/Northwestern produce athletes that actually go onto play professionally (NFL and NBA). So to do that and have high standards is unusual.

[Anonymous]

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

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.

Agreed! But Stanford/Northwestern produce athletes that actually go onto play professionally (NFL and NBA). So to do that and have high standards is unusual.

The standards are only high relative to their ACC and big 10 peers. They aren’t high relative to the applicant pool.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Conservatives are targeting legacy now because minorities and women are now in a position to benefit from legacy preference. It isn't just a white guy perk anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Conservatives are targeting legacy now because minorities and women are now in a position to benefit from legacy preference. It isn't just a white guy perk anymore.

Wow. Conspiracy-theory much?

[Anonymous]

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

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.

Agreed! But Stanford/Northwestern produce athletes that actually go onto play professionally (NFL and NBA). So to do that and have high standards is unusual.

The standards are only high relative to their ACC and big 10 peers. They aren’t high relative to the applicant pool.

Northwestern's scores are higher than most schools except Ivy. Given the quality of their Football and BB teams and competition on the national level, they are routinely at the top for academics. They have kids getting real degrees and their MS (due to redshirting) and maintaining 3.8+ GPAs, some going to medical school from the football team. Where else does that happen. Their players going pro do not have 1100 on their SATs, it's much much higher

[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.

lol. Love the Sheeple here.

woosh - that went over your head

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conservatives are targeting legacy now because minorities and women are now in a position to benefit from legacy preference. It isn't just a white guy perk anymore.

Wow. Conspiracy-theory much?

+1. lol. Truth is that everyone is targeting legacies now.