How long before legacy admissions are gone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why it is in the interest of the university for legacy admissions to continue - outside of donations?

Once elite colleges stop filling 1/3+ of the class with legacies (they tend to be the children of the uber-wealthy, CEOs, SCOTUS, Senators, celebrities, etc.), the school stops feeling quite so “elite.”

Except they could just..admit these children without worrying about their legacy status. That would be more efficient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why it is in the interest of the university for legacy admissions to continue - outside of donations?

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

[Anonymous]

Never. Legacy admissions are not going away

[Anonymous]

Donate to your own alma mater to make it a better school & more desirable for your children to attend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the SC eliminates affirmative action then legacy needs to go as well. There are millions of people that were systematically denied the ability to be a legacy. Many colleges well into the 1970s only admitted a token number of URMs.

If AA is outlawed but not legacies then we are outright giving an advantage to the majority. Don’t see how this would make any sense.

Oh, boy. A real legal scholar here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the SC eliminates affirmative action then legacy needs to go as well. There are millions of people that were systematically denied the ability to be a legacy. Many colleges well into the 1970s only admitted a token number of URMs.

If AA is outlawed but not legacies then we are outright giving an advantage to the majority. Don’t see how this would make any sense.

Oh, boy. A real legal scholar here.

I think this is the best practical argument for affirmative action. Legacy preference plus sports recruiting (water polo, lacrosse, etc) as a practical matter favor whites. Without affirmative action, you could have a situation where the academic credentials of black and Hispanic students would have to be stronger than whites (and in fact, that is the case with Asians now, who don't benefit from sports and legacy to the same extent whites do)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Soon, I hope, especially if the SC strikes down affirmative action.
Very difficult to rationalize giving a thumb on the scale to children of alumni (who generally skew wealthier and have received more advantages) than to underrepresented minorities.

Last year a lawmaker in NY introduced a bill that would ban legacy preferences at all NY colleges (public and private) but a quick Google search doesn't bring much up, so I guess that's dead or stalled.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/S8498

I kind of wonder that if affirmative action is illegal (rather than just not mandated), how it is that legacy admissions (which are also naturally based on origin) are legal? I'd love to hear a lawyer explain that one (clearly I'm not a lawyer).

The protected classes are generally race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin. No discrimination/preferential treatment for or against (except is limited circumstances). Legacy status is not covered by the applicable laws or precedents.

But what if you could point out that only white people could be legacies - wouldn’t that effectively be preferential treatment of one class by making it impossible for others to get that advantage?

Similar - let’s say I give naturally red haired people free dinner at my restaurant. Isn’t that illegal because no nonwhite person has naturally red hair?

[Anonymous]

Why not switch to favorable treatment of kids of people who give lots of money, legacy or not? That seems more sensible anyways. Then of course generally judging the parents’ character too. No cartel leaders, more Nobel piece prize winners and Uber wealthy philanthropists with artist wives and such.

[Anonymous]

I am rolling my eyes.

The real legacy admits, children of very rich alum who donate substantially, are never going away. The legacy offspring of very prominent and connected alums are never going away. Between those two groups that was most legacies in recent decades. This move is just a red herring to placate some people and pretend something equitable blah blah equity is being done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A few universities do it already (MIT?). It’s not a good look in this era, so only a matter of time.

Sadly - not soon enough - if ever

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Legacies and athletes are more likely to donate. Grads who don’t fall into those categories don’t understand the importance of donating.

Tired old story.

Yes, nepotism has benefits for those in high places. That doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.

[Anonymous]

Utmost respect to MIT

Test required and no legacy

MIT is the real deal.

[Anonymous]

I am not convinced legacy helps that much. Just because the school says “legacy is considered”, other things come into play. For example, donor $$ or very active alumni. I know 3 kids who applied to Harvard and all were legacies, all were waitlisted (the soft rejection).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacies and athletes are more likely to donate. Grads who don’t fall into those categories don’t understand the importance of donating.

I was an athlete. Educate me, what is the importance of donating to a school with an enormous endowment when there are other causes I can support?

Being grateful for the education you received and wanting to pay it forward.

I paid for the education I received. There are a lot of competing causes out here.

I am the first person quote - asking why I would donate to a school with an enormous endowment when there are other causes I can support. I agree with the above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the SC eliminates affirmative action then legacy needs to go as well. There are millions of people that were systematically denied the ability to be a legacy. Many colleges well into the 1970s only admitted a token number of URMs.

If AA is outlawed but not legacies then we are outright giving an advantage to the majority. Don’t see how this would make any sense.

Oh, boy. A real legal scholar here.

I think this is the best practical argument for affirmative action. Legacy preference plus sports recruiting (water polo, lacrosse, etc) as a practical matter favor whites. Without affirmative action, you could have a situation where the academic credentials of black and Hispanic students would have to be stronger than whites (and in fact, that is the case with Asians now, who don't benefit from sports and legacy to the same extent whites do)

Sports recruiting does not favor whites (football, basketball, track, etc.).