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:A lot of people lament legacy advantages, but simultaneously want them for their own kids. Including the politicians.

Fully support it. Private colleges should be able to pick who they want for whatever reasons they want.

+1. Some schools want to be family traditions. Personally, I was crafting a class I would much rather have a kid who wants to be at my school than another kid who applied based on ranking and doesn't really care if they're at much school or another similar school.

But it's up to the private school to decide. Legacy admissions means the future alumni are more likely to donate and continue to support the university. Sure, it's not fair, but life is not fair. Many people get jobs based on who they know---is that fair? No, but networking is a way of life. Some people are automatically born into a better network, others have to work harder to build it. THat's happened for generations and isn't likely to end.

That’s what all people say when it benefits them. MIT and Amherst and JHU and the UC system for example have gotten rid of legacy preference and seem to be doing just fine financially. And federal funds are used by the schools. So not completely private.

Completely private. Government funding of that sort does not convert private universities into state actors.

These schools all abide by federal rules and guidelines set forth in order to continue receiving federal funding. So no, they are quasi-public institutions. They receive financial benefit from taxpayers, follow a few simple rules to keep the funding, and gate-keep the tax-payers.

Private universities are not quasi-public.

Yes, they are.

SMH.

[Anonymous]

I did a degree at an Oxbridge school, and my classmates there thought my stories about my legacy undergrad roommate at my Ivy were funny. She went to an elite boarding school, and had a very rich family but had about a 2.7 GPA which is very difficult to do at an Ivy where most people get a 3.0 without trying just because of the ways grading curves are structured. My roommate was not the sharpest tool in the shed, but she was a legacy and she got in. These Oxbridge students who wore gowns and coattails regularly and bowed to the Queen and were part of a 1000 year old college thought it was ridiculously backwards that an American student might get into college with a big boost because their parents had attended the same college before them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people lament legacy advantages, but simultaneously want them for their own kids. Including the politicians.

Fully support it. Private colleges should be able to pick who they want for whatever reasons they want.

+1. Some schools want to be family traditions. Personally, I was crafting a class I would much rather have a kid who wants to be at my school than another kid who applied based on ranking and doesn't really care if they're at much school or another similar school.

But it's up to the private school to decide. Legacy admissions means the future alumni are more likely to donate and continue to support the university. Sure, it's not fair, but life is not fair. Many people get jobs based on who they know---is that fair? No, but networking is a way of life. Some people are automatically born into a better network, others have to work harder to build it. THat's happened for generations and isn't likely to end.

That’s what all people say when it benefits them. MIT and Amherst and JHU and the UC system for example have gotten rid of legacy preference and seem to be doing just fine financially. And federal funds are used by the schools. So not completely private.

Completely private. Government funding of that sort does not convert private universities into state actors.

These schools all abide by federal rules and guidelines set forth in order to continue receiving federal funding. So no, they are quasi-public institutions. They receive financial benefit from taxpayers, follow a few simple rules to keep the funding, and gate-keep the tax-payers.

Are farmers quasi-public?

Yes, according to this logic farmers couldn't be able to hire family members or people they know. Or any business. Federal funding is given to schools because they produce value for society (educated workforce, research, culture), but the schools are financially supported by their private endowments. Federal funding is given to a lot of private companies that produce value for society too--tax breaks, loans, credits etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I did a degree at an Oxbridge school, and my classmates there thought my stories about my legacy undergrad roommate at my Ivy were funny. She went to an elite boarding school, and had a very rich family but had about a 2.7 GPA which is very difficult to do at an Ivy where most people get a 3.0 without trying just because of the ways grading curves are structured. My roommate was not the sharpest tool in the shed, but she was a legacy and she got in. These Oxbridge students who wore gowns and coattails regularly and bowed to the Queen and were part of a 1000 year old college thought it was ridiculously backwards that an American student might get into college with a big boost because their parents had attended the same college before them.

Sure, remember last year when teachers could just assess A levels and boarding school students where all qualified to attend schools they weren't remotely qualified to attend?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacy is a problem, but kids getting into schools because of sports is an even bigger problem. Those two student populations take a significant number of spots at top schools. A kid could be busting their ass, and an athlete who has a weaker transcript & test scores will get it.

If it's that easy, teach your kid how to play lacrosse.

My kid used athletic talent to access high academic college. I can't control that that is the system, so we played that game, but it's a silly criteria to use to help gain admittance to a place for academic pursuits.

Was your kid academically unqualified? Are they struggling with the academics at their “high college”? If so, why did you play the game? If not, then why don’t you have new insight that kids other than those who focus exclusively on academics through HS can be successful at top schools. Do you feel jealous that your kid had an easier path than yours, or do you simply dislike your kid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people lament legacy advantages, but simultaneously want them for their own kids. Including the politicians.

Fully support it. Private colleges should be able to pick who they want for whatever reasons they want.

+1. Some schools want to be family traditions. Personally, I was crafting a class I would much rather have a kid who wants to be at my school than another kid who applied based on ranking and doesn't really care if they're at much school or another similar school.

But it's up to the private school to decide. Legacy admissions means the future alumni are more likely to donate and continue to support the university. Sure, it's not fair, but life is not fair. Many people get jobs based on who they know---is that fair? No, but networking is a way of life. Some people are automatically born into a better network, others have to work harder to build it. THat's happened for generations and isn't likely to end.

That’s what all people say when it benefits them. MIT and Amherst and JHU and the UC system for example have gotten rid of legacy preference and seem to be doing just fine financially. And federal funds are used by the schools. So not completely private.

They say this, but there is no way to prove it. Trust me, big donor legacy kids are getting into MIT, Amherst, and JHU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For all of you that are okay with legacy preference, are you okay with affirmative action? Same thing but in reverse.

100% I mean, how can you complain about 14% legacy, which is very likely 99.99% full-pay, which is then funding the 51% POC and first gen. There is just nothing to complain about. That legacy admission is making AA and first gen admissions much more possible. It's great for the university and for the student ocmmunity. Just get over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I did a degree at an Oxbridge school, and my classmates there thought my stories about my legacy undergrad roommate at my Ivy were funny. She went to an elite boarding school, and had a very rich family but had about a 2.7 GPA which is very difficult to do at an Ivy where most people get a 3.0 without trying just because of the ways grading curves are structured. My roommate was not the sharpest tool in the shed, but she was a legacy and she got in. These Oxbridge students who wore gowns and coattails regularly and bowed to the Queen and were part of a 1000 year old college thought it was ridiculously backwards that an American student might get into college with a big boost because their parents had attended the same college before them.

Cool story. But I DGAF about what Oxbridge students think about America

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people lament legacy advantages, but simultaneously want them for their own kids. Including the politicians.

Fully support it. Private colleges should be able to pick who they want for whatever reasons they want.

+1. Some schools want to be family traditions. Personally, I was crafting a class I would much rather have a kid who wants to be at my school than another kid who applied based on ranking and doesn't really care if they're at much school or another similar school.

+1 I did not benefit from legacy nor will my kids. But if a private institution has two applicants who meet their requirements and one spot to fill I totally think they should be able to tip the scale a bit on one whose family has a history with the institution. Especially if they are also doing first gen/URM initiatives. I don't think public schools should factor in legacy though.

What if the choice is between two equal candidates, one is a legacy, the other first Gen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people lament legacy advantages, but simultaneously want them for their own kids. Including the politicians.

Fully support it. Private colleges should be able to pick who they want for whatever reasons they want.

+1. Some schools want to be family traditions. Personally, I was crafting a class I would much rather have a kid who wants to be at my school than another kid who applied based on ranking and doesn't really care if they're at much school or another similar school.

+1 I did not benefit from legacy nor will my kids. But if a private institution has two applicants who meet their requirements and one spot to fill I totally think they should be able to tip the scale a bit on one whose family has a history with the institution. Especially if they are also doing first gen/URM initiatives. I don't think public schools should factor in legacy though.

What if the choice is between two equal candidates, one is a legacy, the other first Gen?

Legacies are competing against other legacies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people lament legacy advantages, but simultaneously want them for their own kids. Including the politicians.

Fully support it. Private colleges should be able to pick who they want for whatever reasons they want.

+1. Some schools want to be family traditions. Personally, I was crafting a class I would much rather have a kid who wants to be at my school than another kid who applied based on ranking and doesn't really care if they're at much school or another similar school.

I'd prefer to craft a class with students that earned a place at the school and want to attend rather than students who slipped in through mommy or daddy's name and attend that school only because their mommy or daddy wants them to attend that school.

And how do kids earn those spots? By hard work? A lot of the time. But genetics and what they were born with plays a role there, too. My kid works harder than anybody he knows--seriously. He goes to an incredibly rigorous private school here in DC and works his butt off. He's a nice, active member of his school, and takes his classes seriously. But, he was born with some serious ADHD, slow processing, and executive function deficit. He is brilliantly ingelligent, but high school is hard because of the other issues. He will do great things in this world, once he just gets through high school. Why does somebody, who doesn't work as hard, but wasn't born this way, deserve a spot at some of these schools and he doesn't? Truly, they are not more "deserving." You simply have to stop being so one-dimensional in your thinking and understand that there is and should be a range of "deserving." And entry to good colleges doesn't, nor shouldn't, go to just one kind of student--the neurotypical, GPA-chasing striver. Let it go. These schools want a community--not an army of nerds.

[Anonymous]

Harvard and Yale will never not take federal money. These institutions are businesses first and foremost.

[Anonymous]

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.

They will get into schools they’re qualified to attend. Maybe it will be selective, maybe it won’t. Imagine if there were no special side doors or loop holes or handshake deals- some of these kids would have to go to average schools. They’re not all smart.

You are overestimating the impact of legacy at the most selective schools.

You are underestimating it.

I don't know how much impact it had for my kids, but when they applied to my alma mater - Williams College - they didn't get in, notwithstanding that their "stats" were in top quarter of applicants. Obviously the college saw things in (enough) other kids, that their legacy status didn't matter in the end. I don't think it made much of a difference for them at all. To be fair, neither applied Early Decision, and I have been told that legacy status doesn't matter much outside ED.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people lament legacy advantages, but simultaneously want them for their own kids. Including the politicians.

Fully support it. Private colleges should be able to pick who they want for whatever reasons they want.

+1. Some schools want to be family traditions. Personally, I was crafting a class I would much rather have a kid who wants to be at my school than another kid who applied based on ranking and doesn't really care if they're at much school or another similar school.

But it's up to the private school to decide. Legacy admissions means the future alumni are more likely to donate and continue to support the university. Sure, it's not fair, but life is not fair. Many people get jobs based on who they know---is that fair? No, but networking is a way of life. Some people are automatically born into a better network, others have to work harder to build it. THat's happened for generations and isn't likely to end.

That’s what all people say when it benefits them. MIT and Amherst and JHU and the UC system for example have gotten rid of legacy preference and seem to be doing just fine financially. And federal funds are used by the schools. So not completely private.

Completely private. Government funding of that sort does not convert private universities into state actors.

These schools all abide by federal rules and guidelines set forth in order to continue receiving federal funding. So no, they are quasi-public institutions. They receive financial benefit from taxpayers, follow a few simple rules to keep the funding, and gate-keep the tax-payers.

Are farmers quasi-public?

Great question.

Yes, they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people lament legacy advantages, but simultaneously want them for their own kids. Including the politicians.

Fully support it. Private colleges should be able to pick who they want for whatever reasons they want.

+1. Some schools want to be family traditions. Personally, I was crafting a class I would much rather have a kid who wants to be at my school than another kid who applied based on ranking and doesn't really care if they're at much school or another similar school.

But it's up to the private school to decide. Legacy admissions means the future alumni are more likely to donate and continue to support the university. Sure, it's not fair, but life is not fair. Many people get jobs based on who they know---is that fair? No, but networking is a way of life. Some people are automatically born into a better network, others have to work harder to build it. THat's happened for generations and isn't likely to end.

That’s what all people say when it benefits them. MIT and Amherst and JHU and the UC system for example have gotten rid of legacy preference and seem to be doing just fine financially. And federal funds are used by the schools. So not completely private.

Completely private. Government funding of that sort does not convert private universities into state actors.

These schools all abide by federal rules and guidelines set forth in order to continue receiving federal funding. So no, they are quasi-public institutions. They receive financial benefit from taxpayers, follow a few simple rules to keep the funding, and gate-keep the tax-payers.

Are farmers quasi-public?

Great question.

Yes, they are.

Yet college is a choice, food is not...pick something else.