Proposed legislation would ban legacy preference at colleges, universities across New York

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a waste of time. I feel like this is distracting from the actual problems.

I'm an alum interviewer for a selective school and I can tell you it's hard to get in even if you are a legacy. They are rejected more than they are accepted. If they get in with a 4.0 and 1500 where they otherwise wouldn't (and in my experience, they aren't), who gives a sh*t?

then why bother with legacy, and why are you an interviewer there?

These numbers tell you nothing about the qualifications of the applicants. There are very few sources for that information, but those that are availalbe suggest that these legacies are often very qualified. Admission rates are not very useful by themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a waste of time. I feel like this is distracting from the actual problems.

I'm an alum interviewer for a selective school and I can tell you it's hard to get in even if you are a legacy. They are rejected more than they are accepted. If they get in with a 4.0 and 1500 where they otherwise wouldn't (and in my experience, they aren't), who gives a sh*t?

then why bother with legacy, and why are you an interviewer there?

These numbers tell you nothing about the qualifications of the applicants. There are very few sources for that information, but those that are availalbe suggest that these legacies are often very qualified. Admission rates are not very useful by themselves.

NP--One could argue that it doesn't matter if legacies are qualified. If you have two candidates equally qualified and the legacy is accepted over the non-legacy is that fair? I think that is what is being debated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a waste of time. I feel like this is distracting from the actual problems.

I'm an alum interviewer for a selective school and I can tell you it's hard to get in even if you are a legacy. They are rejected more than they are accepted. If they get in with a 4.0 and 1500 where they otherwise wouldn't (and in my experience, they aren't), who gives a sh*t?

then why bother with legacy, and why are you an interviewer there?

These numbers tell you nothing about the qualifications of the applicants. There are very few sources for that information, but those that are availalbe suggest that these legacies are often very qualified. Admission rates are not very useful by themselves.

define "qualified"? Like Trump, GWB?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonderful. I hope it’s banned everywhere. It’s a joke.

+1.

+1 I started a thread about how legacy is basically racist because it mostly helps rich white people. I got slammed for that thread, probably by legacies.

I stated something similar to her:

"we are supposed to live in a democracy, not an aristocracy,".. "To me, it's one of the most blatant examples of unfairness and inequality,"

Of course, the people at the top want to continue with it because it benefits them.

The argument is not that different to what liberals say about how white men support Trump because they are afraid of losing power as a group.

When did colleges ever claim that admissions is entirely meritocratic or "democratic"? They can and do value all sorts of things that you might think are unfair or irrelevant. As long as they're not engaging in unlawful discrimination, what's your argument against that?

Typical response from a legacy admit.

It's not illegal, but it's wrong. As stated, it benefits mostly rich white people.

You only want the US to be a "democracy" when it comes to some things, but apparently, not when it comes to your little snowflake who probably couldn't make it into an ivy without legacy.

Legacy was originally used by elite institutions much like holistic admission was -- to keep the undesirables out.

The whole "pull yourself up by your boostraps" only applies to the middle/lower class. For rich people, they have legacy to prop them up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonderful. I hope it’s banned everywhere. It’s a joke.

+1.

+1 I started a thread about how legacy is basically racist because it mostly helps rich white people. I got slammed for that thread, probably by legacies.

I stated something similar to her:

"we are supposed to live in a democracy, not an aristocracy,".. "To me, it's one of the most blatant examples of unfairness and inequality,"

Of course, the people at the top want to continue with it because it benefits them.

The argument is not that different to what liberals say about how white men support Trump because they are afraid of losing power as a group.

When did colleges ever claim that admissions is entirely meritocratic or "democratic"? They can and do value all sorts of things that you might think are unfair or irrelevant. As long as they're not engaging in unlawful discrimination, what's your argument against that?

Typical response from a legacy admit.

It's not illegal, but it's wrong. As stated, it benefits mostly rich white people.

You only want the US to be a "democracy" when it comes to some things, but apparently, not when it comes to your little snowflake who probably couldn't make it into an ivy without legacy.

Legacy was originally used by elite institutions much like holistic admission was -- to keep the undesirables out.

The whole "pull yourself up by your boostraps" only applies to the middle/lower class. For rich people, they have legacy to prop them up.

It’s not a matter of what I want, it’s a matter of recognizing who it is who gets to decide what a university’s mission is. Why do you think that people outside universities should define universities’ missions for them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Neither federal nor state governments can ban colleges and universities from determining the criteria they want to build their student community, as long as they don't discriminate against protected classes. I can't believe the reach you all want government to have over our everyday lives. It's insane.

This 100%. None of these lawsuits will matter given all the benefits of test optional.

They can start with stop making you specify your race or legacy status on applications.

the legacy status question would be protected by the first amendment

Excercise the first amendment right, and start paying taxes then.

Do you realize how unrelated the two are? Do you realize that religious institutions don't pay taxes and still receive 1st amendment protections

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonderful. I hope it’s banned everywhere. It’s a joke.

+1.

+1 I started a thread about how legacy is basically racist because it mostly helps rich white people. I got slammed for that thread, probably by legacies.

I stated something similar to her:

"we are supposed to live in a democracy, not an aristocracy,".. "To me, it's one of the most blatant examples of unfairness and inequality,"

Of course, the people at the top want to continue with it because it benefits them.

The argument is not that different to what liberals say about how white men support Trump because they are afraid of losing power as a group.

When did colleges ever claim that admissions is entirely meritocratic or "democratic"? They can and do value all sorts of things that you might think are unfair or irrelevant. As long as they're not engaging in unlawful discrimination, what's your argument against that?

Typical response from a legacy admit.

It's not illegal, but it's wrong. As stated, it benefits mostly rich white people.

You only want the US to be a "democracy" when it comes to some things, but apparently, not when it comes to your little snowflake who probably couldn't make it into an ivy without legacy.

Legacy was originally used by elite institutions much like holistic admission was -- to keep the undesirables out.

The whole "pull yourself up by your boostraps" only applies to the middle/lower class. For rich people, they have legacy to prop them up.

The US has also always respected the ability of private institutions to govern themselves, why do you think government should be able to tell a private group who to admit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a waste of time. I feel like this is distracting from the actual problems.

I'm an alum interviewer for a selective school and I can tell you it's hard to get in even if you are a legacy. They are rejected more than they are accepted. If they get in with a 4.0 and 1500 where they otherwise wouldn't (and in my experience, they aren't), who gives a sh*t?

then why bother with legacy, and why are you an interviewer there?

These numbers tell you nothing about the qualifications of the applicants. There are very few sources for that information, but those that are availalbe suggest that these legacies are often very qualified. Admission rates are not very useful by themselves.

If these legacies are very qualified by themselves, that's a very good reason to get rid of it.
Same for URM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a waste of time. I feel like this is distracting from the actual problems.

I'm an alum interviewer for a selective school and I can tell you it's hard to get in even if you are a legacy. They are rejected more than they are accepted. If they get in with a 4.0 and 1500 where they otherwise wouldn't (and in my experience, they aren't), who gives a sh*t?

then why bother with legacy, and why are you an interviewer there?

These numbers tell you nothing about the qualifications of the applicants. There are very few sources for that information, but those that are availalbe suggest that these legacies are often very qualified. Admission rates are not very useful by themselves.

If these legacies are very qualified by themselves, that's a very good reason to get rid of it.
Same for URM.

Not really, all things being equal, a second or third generation student is a much better bet to turn into an active alum than a kid who chooses the school based on ranking or as a safety

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Neither federal nor state governments can ban colleges and universities from determining the criteria they want to build their student community, as long as they don't discriminate against protected classes. I can't believe the reach you all want government to have over our everyday lives. It's insane.

This 100%. None of these lawsuits will matter given all the benefits of test optional.

They can start with stop making you specify your race or legacy status on applications.

the legacy status question would be protected by the first amendment

Excercise the first amendment right, and start paying taxes then.

Do you realize how unrelated the two are? Do you realize that religious institutions don't pay taxes and still receive 1st amendment protections

Religious institutions do not discriminate and reject citizens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonderful. I hope it’s banned everywhere. It’s a joke.

+1.

+1 I started a thread about how legacy is basically racist because it mostly helps rich white people. I got slammed for that thread, probably by legacies.

I stated something similar to her:

"we are supposed to live in a democracy, not an aristocracy,".. "To me, it's one of the most blatant examples of unfairness and inequality,"

Of course, the people at the top want to continue with it because it benefits them.

The argument is not that different to what liberals say about how white men support Trump because they are afraid of losing power as a group.

When did colleges ever claim that admissions is entirely meritocratic or "democratic"? They can and do value all sorts of things that you might think are unfair or irrelevant. As long as they're not engaging in unlawful discrimination, what's your argument against that?

Typical response from a legacy admit.

It's not illegal, but it's wrong. As stated, it benefits mostly rich white people.

You only want the US to be a "democracy" when it comes to some things, but apparently, not when it comes to your little snowflake who probably couldn't make it into an ivy without legacy.

Legacy was originally used by elite institutions much like holistic admission was -- to keep the undesirables out.

The whole "pull yourself up by your boostraps" only applies to the middle/lower class. For rich people, they have legacy to prop them up.

The US has also always respected the ability of private institutions to govern themselves, why do you think government should be able to tell a private group who to admit?

The government tells private companies not to discriminate and forbids them asking race or anything like that on job applications or resumes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a waste of time. I feel like this is distracting from the actual problems.

I'm an alum interviewer for a selective school and I can tell you it's hard to get in even if you are a legacy. They are rejected more than they are accepted. If they get in with a 4.0 and 1500 where they otherwise wouldn't (and in my experience, they aren't), who gives a sh*t?

then why bother with legacy, and why are you an interviewer there?

Not sure what you are saying. I don't have a problem with legacy preference. I don't think it is a meaningful problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonderful. I hope it’s banned everywhere. It’s a joke.

+1.

+1 I started a thread about how legacy is basically racist because it mostly helps rich white people. I got slammed for that thread, probably by legacies.

I stated something similar to her:

"we are supposed to live in a democracy, not an aristocracy,".. "To me, it's one of the most blatant examples of unfairness and inequality,"

Of course, the people at the top want to continue with it because it benefits them.

The argument is not that different to what liberals say about how white men support Trump because they are afraid of losing power as a group.

When did colleges ever claim that admissions is entirely meritocratic or "democratic"? They can and do value all sorts of things that you might think are unfair or irrelevant. As long as they're not engaging in unlawful discrimination, what's your argument against that?

Typical response from a legacy admit.

It's not illegal, but it's wrong. As stated, it benefits mostly rich white people.

You only want the US to be a "democracy" when it comes to some things, but apparently, not when it comes to your little snowflake who probably couldn't make it into an ivy without legacy.

Legacy was originally used by elite institutions much like holistic admission was -- to keep the undesirables out.

The whole "pull yourself up by your boostraps" only applies to the middle/lower class. For rich people, they have legacy to prop them up.

The US has also always respected the ability of private institutions to govern themselves, why do you think government should be able to tell a private group who to admit?

Are you a democrat? Do you support toxic waste companies governing themselves?

Were you a product of legacy or hope your kids are?

I hope there is a lawsuit, and the companies have to reveal the stats, much like the Harvard lawsuit. Then we will see what the numbers really mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a waste of time. I feel like this is distracting from the actual problems.

I'm an alum interviewer for a selective school and I can tell you it's hard to get in even if you are a legacy. They are rejected more than they are accepted. If they get in with a 4.0 and 1500 where they otherwise wouldn't (and in my experience, they aren't), who gives a sh*t?

then why bother with legacy, and why are you an interviewer there?

Not sure what you are saying. I don't have a problem with legacy preference. I don't think it is a meaningful problem.

I'm responding to your "who gives a sh*t"? If you don't give a sh1t why are you an interviewer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonderful. I hope it’s banned everywhere. It’s a joke.

+1.

+1 I started a thread about how legacy is basically racist because it mostly helps rich white people. I got slammed for that thread, probably by legacies.

I stated something similar to her:

"we are supposed to live in a democracy, not an aristocracy,".. "To me, it's one of the most blatant examples of unfairness and inequality,"

Of course, the people at the top want to continue with it because it benefits them.

The argument is not that different to what liberals say about how white men support Trump because they are afraid of losing power as a group.

When did colleges ever claim that admissions is entirely meritocratic or "democratic"? They can and do value all sorts of things that you might think are unfair or irrelevant. As long as they're not engaging in unlawful discrimination, what's your argument against that?

Typical response from a legacy admit.

It's not illegal, but it's wrong. As stated, it benefits mostly rich white people.

You only want the US to be a "democracy" when it comes to some things, but apparently, not when it comes to your little snowflake who probably couldn't make it into an ivy without legacy.

Legacy was originally used by elite institutions much like holistic admission was -- to keep the undesirables out.

The whole "pull yourself up by your boostraps" only applies to the middle/lower class. For rich people, they have legacy to prop them up.

The US has also always respected the ability of private institutions to govern themselves, why do you think government should be able to tell a private group who to admit?

It's not about who they have to admit, but what criteria it's using.