Would You Support A Legacy Lottery?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. No legacy preference period.

+1.

It is wild that we have a heritable preference for elite college admissions. This would cause riots in other countries.

Interestingly, the other countries lie cheat and steal to not have to suffer the indignity of actually attending the schools in the countries where they live. "I desperately want to be in your system."

"Your system is terrible"

You can choose one or the other, but not both.

Wait.

Do you think that we are getting the best students from China, Taiwan, Korea, India, etc and the rejects are going to Tsinghua, Peking, Taipei, Seoul, IITs?

ROFLMAO

We're getting the rich kids that couldn't get into their national flagship university. Or the second or even third best university.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. No legacy preference period.

+1.

It is wild that we have a heritable preference for elite college admissions. This would cause riots in other countries.

Interestingly, the other countries lie cheat and steal to not have to suffer the indignity of actually attending the schools in the countries where they live. "I desperately want to be in your system."

"Your system is terrible"

You can choose one or the other, but not both.

You sound dim. There are plenty of universities around the world that are highly selective, world class and which do not admit students based on whether their parents attended.

Not sure why OP is talking about a legacy lottery. It's far more efficient/profitable to auction off legacy slots to the highest bidder.

So, go attend the other schools in the other countries (who produce no novel ideas, products, or anything else). Our system was working fine for centuries.

You realize that America hasn't been the patents leader in over a decade, right?

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/patents-by-country

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My college I graduated way back in 1985 went full tilt D&I and international students after I graduated. I was offered chance to speak at a event there back in 2008 and was shocked at the 300 person event of students there was many at most 1-2 white people. And I say 50 percent of students English was a second language. It was a white Catholic College when I went there. It was tons of Muslims and Hindus and Chinese as well as international students Africa all over.

I went to campus one more time around 2018 and same thing. I recently went to an Alumni Event first time ever. It was 99 percent White or Back. But nearly all white Catholic. No one in room under 55. Turns out none of those international or D&I students give back they just want degree and move on.

They still have a strong donor base but will soon disapear. They have a very good basketball team. Wont say school but Chris Mullen type players are no longer on team. And the blonde cheerleaders of 1985 are now overweight international students.

Racist fiction

I think there is some truth in having ties to a local area or region, as well as the university, that creates a feeling of belonging and alumni participation.

For international students who just see it as a stepping stone, with no ties to the region, who will leave and never come back, that is all they want. They want the degree and job placement and have moved on.

MIT has never had a legacy preference and yet their alumni donations are just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nonsense.

+1

There isn't a "Legacy problem." Lord. Legacy, if a school even considers it (which is dwindling), applicants are a tiny percentage of the applicant pool. It's not a "problem"

It's about 15%

[Anonymous]

I’m tired of the lack of focus of education. If the college is creating productive alumni, they will go on to lead good lives, donate, and contribute to their community. You don’t need to rig the system for their rich kids. You don’t need to give up standards for diversity. Educate the best and give them the resources to thrive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My college I graduated way back in 1985 went full tilt D&I and international students after I graduated. I was offered chance to speak at a event there back in 2008 and was shocked at the 300 person event of students there was many at most 1-2 white people. And I say 50 percent of students English was a second language. It was a white Catholic College when I went there. It was tons of Muslims and Hindus and Chinese as well as international students Africa all over.

I went to campus one more time around 2018 and same thing. I recently went to an Alumni Event first time ever. It was 99 percent White or Back. But nearly all white Catholic. No one in room under 55. Turns out none of those international or D&I students give back they just want degree and move on.

They still have a strong donor base but will soon disapear. They have a very good basketball team. Wont say school but Chris Mullen type players are no longer on team. And the blonde cheerleaders of 1985 are now overweight international students.

I also attended St. John's University. I can confirm it's not a white utopia, which is apparently triggering for you.

Not so much the White. But Catholic, hence a lot of Whites as Italians and Irish are all Catholic. Very few Catholics go the school compared to past.

Other thing back in day from 1977 to 1986 (my older siblings and young sibling went there) you actually had rich kids from Garden City, Manhasset, Rockville Centre type neighborhoods attend. Today those parents who graduated St. John’s don’t send their kids to the school, I did not send my kids. I have no intention of donating to them. And I have undergrad and grad degree from them. Once the Vitamin Water billionaire stops writing them seven figure checks they will be in trouble. A school Ronald Regan visited who called it the next Harvard in 1985 - 41 years later is milking international students full tuition to give discounts to poor students. Except international students don’t donate and the selection of poor kids who barely spoke English with B averages from third tier high schools in Brooklyn, Queens are not going to be next Bill Gates donating billions

Georgetown and Villanova did not follow this stupid strategy.

This is why legacy is good in a way. It keeps quality up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nonsense.

+1

There isn't a "Legacy problem." Lord. Legacy, if a school even considers it (which is dwindling), applicants are a tiny percentage of the applicant pool. It's not a "problem"

It's about 15%

Schools post percentages of their class who are legacy, it doesn't post the percentage of legacy admitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. No legacy preference period.

+1.

It is wild that we have a heritable preference for elite college admissions. This would cause riots in other countries.

Interestingly, the other countries lie cheat and steal to not have to suffer the indignity of actually attending the schools in the countries where they live. "I desperately want to be in your system."

"Your system is terrible"

You can choose one or the other, but not both.

You sound dim. There are plenty of universities around the world that are highly selective, world class and which do not admit students based on whether their parents attended.

Not sure why OP is talking about a legacy lottery. It's far more efficient/profitable to auction off legacy slots to the highest bidder.

So, go attend the other schools in the other countries (who produce no novel ideas, products, or anything else). Our system was working fine for centuries.

You realize that America hasn't been the patents leader in over a decade, right?

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/patents-by-country

"You think your apples are so cool, but we produce the best oranges...and much more of them"

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0b446a73-688a-42c5-a6ce-10592df1b5c2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m tired of the lack of focus of education. If the college is creating productive alumni, they will go on to lead good lives, donate, and contribute to their community. You don’t need to rig the system for their rich kids. You don’t need to give up standards for diversity. Educate the best and give them the resources to thrive.

When you open your college, you should do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My college I graduated way back in 1985 went full tilt D&I and international students after I graduated. I was offered chance to speak at a event there back in 2008 and was shocked at the 300 person event of students there was many at most 1-2 white people. And I say 50 percent of students English was a second language. It was a white Catholic College when I went there. It was tons of Muslims and Hindus and Chinese as well as international students Africa all over.

I went to campus one more time around 2018 and same thing. I recently went to an Alumni Event first time ever. It was 99 percent White or Back. But nearly all white Catholic. No one in room under 55. Turns out none of those international or D&I students give back they just want degree and move on.

They still have a strong donor base but will soon disapear. They have a very good basketball team. Wont say school but Chris Mullen type players are no longer on team. And the blonde cheerleaders of 1985 are now overweight international students.

Racist fiction

I think there is some truth in having ties to a local area or region, as well as the university, that creates a feeling of belonging and alumni participation.

For international students who just see it as a stepping stone, with no ties to the region, who will leave and never come back, that is all they want. They want the degree and job placement and have moved on.

MIT has never had a legacy preference and yet their alumni donations are just fine.

Yes. And if people want that process, they can go to MIT. Other schools have a different tradition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No.

If colleges want to give admission to families that donate buildings, improve infastructure, renovate dorms, fund full rides for poor kids, or donate things like specialized expensive science equipment, bravo to them.

It is a small sacrifice with far more benefits to the student body as a whole, to give a spot to the kids of major donors, than any possible tiny negative of the perception from those rejected from the university that their kid's potential spot was "taken" by the offspring of a rich donor.

Dollar to dollar, the lifetime benefits to the university and the tens to hundreds of thousands of other kids at the university, of giving maybe1 to 3 spots over a 4 to 10 year window (depending on family size) every generation to the kids of big donors, is incredibly lopsided, with almost all of the benefits going to students who are not the donor's kids.

Anyone who is pushing for the elimination of legacy/donor preference in admissions is, at best, a petty and shortsighted fool.

Reasonable logic. But then why limit to alumni? Why not just give preference to anyone who donates? Or give preference to anyone who pledges extra money.
"Dear Mr. X: Although you are qualified, we cannot offer you admission. Unless you want to pay us $190,000 instead of $90,000. Then we'll take you."

Buildings and science equipment cost many times over a few hundred thousand dollars.

If the Walmart family, a tech entrepreneur or some other rich tycoon 1% family wants to build a new football stadium at XYZ flagship university, who cares if their dumbest offspring get a fast tracked admission to the school, ending up one special case in a sea of 10,000 freshmen students.

Letting the legacy kids of big donors attend a university is an investment in the school that yields a benefit to all the other students that is many times more than the tuition itself, and a way better return than any other special admittance class that universities offer.

These are two separate issues: 1) Preferences for big donors (millions) and 2) Preferences for legacy who aren't big donors.

If I was running a college, I'd be annoyed that #1 was necessary, but I'd do it. I see no reason to do #2.

Until your progeny was a legacy. Then you would support it.

Maybe all the $1000 to $5000 recurring donations from everyday alumni are actually more important than the very very rare $100mm donation?

Why do you get to decide how they run their institution? Because your STEM robot got denied from Stanford?

DP

They don't.

But this is a democracy and all these schools are sucking at the taxpayer's teat. So the taxpayers as a whole do have a say. Or do colleges till think they don't need federal dollars like everyone was saying up until about a year ago.

So...you want a radical transformation of the elite schools. A total re-working of our entire elite educational system, because you want people to get access to them...because those schools produce successful alumni using the system they have used since the beginning. But that institution is terrible, because they choose the wrong people (who are more likely to be succesfull), but they are the best at producing great outcomes even though they choose the wrong people. So it needs to be changed, because its both terrible and also the best.

Schrodinger's admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My college I graduated way back in 1985 went full tilt D&I and international students after I graduated. I was offered chance to speak at a event there back in 2008 and was shocked at the 300 person event of students there was many at most 1-2 white people. And I say 50 percent of students English was a second language. It was a white Catholic College when I went there. It was tons of Muslims and Hindus and Chinese as well as international students Africa all over.

I went to campus one more time around 2018 and same thing. I recently went to an Alumni Event first time ever. It was 99 percent White or Back. But nearly all white Catholic. No one in room under 55. Turns out none of those international or D&I students give back they just want degree and move on.

They still have a strong donor base but will soon disapear. They have a very good basketball team. Wont say school but Chris Mullen type players are no longer on team. And the blonde cheerleaders of 1985 are now overweight international students.

I also attended St. John's University. I can confirm it's not a white utopia, which is apparently triggering for you.

Not so much the White. But Catholic, hence a lot of Whites as Italians and Irish are all Catholic. Very few Catholics go the school compared to past.

Other thing back in day from 1977 to 1986 (my older siblings and young sibling went there) you actually had rich kids from Garden City, Manhasset, Rockville Centre type neighborhoods attend. Today those parents who graduated St. John’s don’t send their kids to the school, I did not send my kids. I have no intention of donating to them. And I have undergrad and grad degree from them. Once the Vitamin Water billionaire stops writing them seven figure checks they will be in trouble. A school Ronald Regan visited who called it the next Harvard in 1985 - 41 years later is milking international students full tuition to give discounts to poor students. Except international students don’t donate and the selection of poor kids who barely spoke English with B averages from third tier high schools in Brooklyn, Queens are not going to be next Bill Gates donating billions

Georgetown and Villanova did not follow this stupid strategy.

This is why legacy is good in a way. It keeps quality up.

Maybe the newer students write better though?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. No legacy preference period.

+1.

It is wild that we have a heritable preference for elite college admissions. This would cause riots in other countries.

Most Elite schools in the US are private. They should be able to admit whomever they please. Do what you want with Public schools.

Most private schools get federal funding and grants.
Most private schools can give their donors tax deductions because of 501(c) status that can be withdrawn if their policies are contrary to public policy.

The idea that a private institution cannot favor the offspring of members without threatening and bullying is exactly the type of over the top outrage that resulted in our current political situation. It is ridiculous and frankly childish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. No legacy preference period.

+1.

It is wild that we have a heritable preference for elite college admissions. This would cause riots in other countries.

Interestingly, the other countries lie cheat and steal to not have to suffer the indignity of actually attending the schools in the countries where they live. "I desperately want to be in your system."

"Your system is terrible"

You can choose one or the other, but not both.

Wait.

Do you think that we are getting the best students from China, Taiwan, Korea, India, etc and the rejects are going to Tsinghua, Peking, Taipei, Seoul, IITs?

ROFLMAO

We're getting the rich kids that couldn't get into their national flagship university. Or the second or even third best university.

Virtually all IIT students would take a US T10 over IIT at the same price. They would be crazy not too. Unlikely for the others because they want to stay within their domestic economies and networks but don’t undervalue the attraction of top US schools within elite circles in the countries implied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m tired of the lack of focus of education. If the college is creating productive alumni, they will go on to lead good lives, donate, and contribute to their community. You don’t need to rig the system for their rich kids. You don’t need to give up standards for diversity. Educate the best and give them the resources to thrive.

Best by your measure I presume.