Some of these schools have such a large endowment that they could let every student in their school go for free for 10 years. These are supposed to be nonprofits, about education, but it's just a money making scheme for the rich people. https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/10/31/ballooning-ivy-league-endowment-forecasted-to-top-1-trillion-by-2048/?sh=5545c60c3a37
|
I don't understand this nonsense post. Everyone's a legacy somewhere - even at schools like Howard. Nobody cares about legacy simply because everyone is a beneficiary of this baked-in practice. |
And they still don’t get into the parent’s alma mater. Overwhelming these days, only the n |
^^ Megadonor and VIP children get that admit. |
So that makes it okay? If helps URM, look the other way. If not, it's racist. Is that what you are saying? |
I have seen the opposite again and again. Most elite college grads marry other elite college grads, and the kids are incredibly smart. When they don’t get into a parent’s college, they end up at another top college. However, when the elite college grads marry someone not as smart, then yes, at least one of the kids is not so smart. |
Legacy is great. It is one of the things that build a university and create and continue its identity. Generations of a family go there. The reward for the university is loyalty, donor money, boosters and supporters. Notre Dame families are a great example. So are Princeton and Harvard. Nothing unfair about it when looked at over time. Sure if you are first generation you are not getting the bump now but your kids will. |
legacy admissions is anything but "free market" in terms of merit. It's rich people hoarding "resources" for the rich. The UK doesn't have "legacy" admits. Are you saying that Oxbridge is collapsing and doesn't have smart rich people wanting to attend? |
Says the legacy. LOL |
Not all legacy kids are the same!! Some legacy kids get in over other, smarter legacy kids. It’s the biggest, most influential donors who have the clout to get their kids in. It has MUCH less to do with how accomplished the kid is. |
This never happened. A low stat kid is not getting in on legacy. Maybe if they are a super donor sure but that will never change. Every legacy at every top school is qualified. Again super donor kids, maybe not. But a legacy is not getting into Harvard with the stats you mentioned unless as a PP said they are an Adams or a Kennedy. |
I'm saying that these universities that espouse "diversity" are hypocrites for having a huge number of admits be legacies. At least with URM representation it does indeed support a diverse student body. |
Are you a legacy admit? Do you not understand that there are many universities that don't look at legacy admits? The majority that do are these elite institutions that espouse "diversity" and holistic admissions. Here's the problem with legacy: Mitch McConnell has never owned a slave. BUT, his ancestors did. He is indirectly a beneficiary of said slave owning family. These families sent their kids to elite universities. Bam.. legacy is born. This has played out time and again with families like the Bushes, Kushners, Trumps. Family wealth begets family wealth. This is partly why black families have had a more difficult time getting out of poverty. 99% of them don't have legacies. The practice of legacy admit is a legacy of bigotry. Holistic admissions for URM is a more recent practice. Most liberals know that "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" is much harder for a black family than a white family. Yet, elite liberals (perhaps like you) see nothing wrong with keeping it in the family, so to speak. In this regard, you are no better than rich conservatives. This cycle basically "keeps it in the family" and makes it increasingly difficult for the middle class to become upwardly mobile. Unhooked families (which are the vast majority in the US) are competing for a tiny slice of the pie, while these rich, well connected families (which are a tiny % of the US population) have a bigger slice of the pie. You can say, "that's the way it's always been", but the problem is, liberal elites talk a good game about diversity and equity, but in practice, when it comes to legacy admissions, they don't want to practice what they preach. That's the problem I have with it. MIT, CalTech, Cambridge, Oxford -- they don't take legacy into account. Are these vaunted institutions suffering for it? https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/16/top-universities-that-do-not-consider-legacy-when-admitting-students.html#:~:text=The%20six%20schools%20in%20the,the%20practice%20of%20legacy%20admissions.&text=MIT%20and%20CalTech%20do%20not%20consider%20legacy%20status. Isn't it crazy that a country that has a monarchy, the House of Lords (assuming you know what and how members of the House of Lords get in) doesn't believe in legacy admissions, while a country that espouses individualism and meritocracy has legacy admissions in their elite universities? |
No, whites are the majority at Harvard. Look it up. |
No, whites are the majority at Harvard. Look it up. ^PP is looking at it compared to the US population - white people are 70% of the population, ergo, they should be 70% of admits if admits should reflect the US population. Harvard is 40% white. |