Legacy Admit is racist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not realize that legacy admissions started out as a way to exclude Jews and Catholics from elite universities, much like holistic admissions did.

At least today, holistic admissions often help URM. But, what does legacy admissions do for URM or the kid with no hooks from a middle class family?

I'm disgusted with how so-called elite universities espouse "diversity" and holistic approach to have diverse/broad spectrum of views in the student body, but a very large % of admits are from legacy, who are typically wealthy and white. This approach is basically "keeping the status quo".. "good ol' boys network".. "keeping it in the family".

It's disturbing that these elite institutions have retained a policy that was steeped in bigotry.

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/12/15/groups-urge-colleges-abandon-legacy-admissions

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/17/harvard-university-students-smart-iq

IMO, the only reason why groups like the NAACP aren't fighting it is because URM do get a leg up. But imagine if those univ didn't give preference for URM.

If you look at the stats, it's not the URM kids who's taking spots from the MC/UMC white kid. It's the legacy admit kids who wouldn't have gotten in with the scores they have without that legacy hook.

None of this was on my radar before, but as my oldest is hitting senior year, we are looking at colleges and the whole admissions process a lot more, and what I'm finding is that the system built for and by rich white people still persists in institutions that claim they want diversity. It's just all smoke and mirrors.

Very disturbing.

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.

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?

English college system sucks. I would not point to that for anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, whites are the only group underrepresented at Harvard.

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.

A very high percentage of Elizabeth Warrens get in by checking URM boxes. The publish 40% is misleading.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A very high percentage of Elizabeth Warrens get in by checking URM boxes.

You are totally lying and have no evidence to support that. You think you know everything and that college adcoms are idiots. The opposite is true. Shameful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not realize that legacy admissions started out as a way to exclude Jews and Catholics from elite universities, much like holistic admissions did.

At least today, holistic admissions often help URM. But, what does legacy admissions do for URM or the kid with no hooks from a middle class family?

I'm disgusted with how so-called elite universities espouse "diversity" and holistic approach to have diverse/broad spectrum of views in the student body, but a very large % of admits are from legacy, who are typically wealthy and white. This approach is basically "keeping the status quo".. "good ol' boys network".. "keeping it in the family".

It's disturbing that these elite institutions have retained a policy that was steeped in bigotry.

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/12/15/groups-urge-colleges-abandon-legacy-admissions

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/17/harvard-university-students-smart-iq

IMO, the only reason why groups like the NAACP aren't fighting it is because URM do get a leg up. But imagine if those univ didn't give preference for URM.

If you look at the stats, it's not the URM kids who's taking spots from the MC/UMC white kid. It's the legacy admit kids who wouldn't have gotten in with the scores they have without that legacy hook.

None of this was on my radar before, but as my oldest is hitting senior year, we are looking at colleges and the whole admissions process a lot more, and what I'm finding is that the system built for and by rich white people still persists in institutions that claim they want diversity. It's just all smoke and mirrors.

Very disturbing.

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.

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?

You are mixing up some much stuff. Legacy is not as product of slavery or jim crow. It is a 20th century that started in the northeast and was directed at Jews and Catholics.

On another related topic -- where is the line drawn? If the government (and it will have to be the government at most schools) says no legacy, why not the government saying all women's only colleges need to admit men. Howard? What is to stop the government to say their class admission need to reflect society? Notre Dame and Boston College -- you have too many Catholics. Hey Princeton -- you have too many history majors.

Colleges should get to build their class as they see fit. Some choose no legacy and that becomes a selling point. Others stress it -- see Princeton and Notre Dame. The government has no place in this. You can complaint to the cows come home but most places will keep legacy because it is part of their identity. The schools that have dropped it don't really have a soul or they have an identity that is something else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, whites are the only group underrepresented at Harvard.

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.

A very high percentage of Elizabeth Warrens get in by checking URM boxes. The publish 40% is misleading.

US whites (non hispanics) is 60%. So can we have 40% billionaires, CEOs, political leaders, etc. in the US reserved for minorities then? Harvard is a world class institution. Why not use worldwide racial composition? About 16% of the world's population are whites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jesus Christ.

He was the biggest legacy of all!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

English college system sucks. I would not point to that for anything.

So that's your take away? Does MIT and Caltech suck, too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not realize that legacy admissions started out as a way to exclude Jews and Catholics from elite universities, much like holistic admissions did.

At least today, holistic admissions often help URM. But, what does legacy admissions do for URM or the kid with no hooks from a middle class family?

I'm disgusted with how so-called elite universities espouse "diversity" and holistic approach to have diverse/broad spectrum of views in the student body, but a very large % of admits are from legacy, who are typically wealthy and white. This approach is basically "keeping the status quo".. "good ol' boys network".. "keeping it in the family".

It's disturbing that these elite institutions have retained a policy that was steeped in bigotry.

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/12/15/groups-urge-colleges-abandon-legacy-admissions

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/17/harvard-university-students-smart-iq

IMO, the only reason why groups like the NAACP aren't fighting it is because URM do get a leg up. But imagine if those univ didn't give preference for URM.

If you look at the stats, it's not the URM kids who's taking spots from the MC/UMC white kid. It's the legacy admit kids who wouldn't have gotten in with the scores they have without that legacy hook.

None of this was on my radar before, but as my oldest is hitting senior year, we are looking at colleges and the whole admissions process a lot more, and what I'm finding is that the system built for and by rich white people still persists in institutions that claim they want diversity. It's just all smoke and mirrors.

Very disturbing.

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.

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?

You are mixing up some much stuff. Legacy is not as product of slavery or jim crow. It is a 20th century that started in the northeast and was directed at Jews and Catholics.

On another related topic -- where is the line drawn? If the government (and it will have to be the government at most schools) says no legacy, why not the government saying all women's only colleges need to admit men. Howard? What is to stop the government to say their class admission need to reflect society? Notre Dame and Boston College -- you have too many Catholics. Hey Princeton -- you have too many history majors.

Colleges should get to build their class as they see fit. Some choose no legacy and that becomes a selling point. Others stress it -- see Princeton and Notre Dame. The government has no place in this. You can complaint to the cows come home but most places will keep legacy because it is part of their identity. The schools that have dropped it don't really have a soul or they have an identity that is something else.

Both legacy admit and slavery/jim crow laws were created for one purpose: to keep wealthy white people in power. That's the point.

I didn't say government should mandate anything. You are bringing the government into this picture.

The point is that institutions that claim they support diversity continue to support a practice that not only was racist to being with, but continues to benefit the white wealthy ruling class.

It's hypocritical. And the comment about how "legacy is part of their identity", and "The schools that have dropped it don't really have a soul".. is disgustingly elitist. You are basically saying that elitist universities that like to "keep it in the family" have souls, and those that don't are soulless. Oh my.

Clearly, you are a legacy or hope your kids benefit from it.

[Anonymous]

Schools like MIT, Hopkins CalTech are doing away with legacy once they've raise their billions. Or they got a benefactor (Bloomberg) who makes up for all the lost donations.

It's not pure. It's done once they are able to.

[Anonymous]

Legacy is just beginning to benefit URM from thier attendance dud to Affirmative Action. Might as well let them get the benefits of their first gift.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not realize that legacy admissions started out as a way to exclude Jews and Catholics from elite universities, much like holistic admissions did.

At least today, holistic admissions often help URM. But, what does legacy admissions do for URM or the kid with no hooks from a middle class family?

I'm disgusted with how so-called elite universities espouse "diversity" and holistic approach to have diverse/broad spectrum of views in the student body, but a very large % of admits are from legacy, who are typically wealthy and white. This approach is basically "keeping the status quo".. "good ol' boys network".. "keeping it in the family".

It's disturbing that these elite institutions have retained a policy that was steeped in bigotry.

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/12/15/groups-urge-colleges-abandon-legacy-admissions

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/17/harvard-university-students-smart-iq

IMO, the only reason why groups like the NAACP aren't fighting it is because URM do get a leg up. But imagine if those univ didn't give preference for URM.

If you look at the stats, it's not the URM kids who's taking spots from the MC/UMC white kid. It's the legacy admit kids who wouldn't have gotten in with the scores they have without that legacy hook.

None of this was on my radar before, but as my oldest is hitting senior year, we are looking at colleges and the whole admissions process a lot more, and what I'm finding is that the system built for and by rich white people still persists in institutions that claim they want diversity. It's just all smoke and mirrors.

Very disturbing.

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.

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?

You are mixing up some much stuff. Legacy is not as product of slavery or jim crow. It is a 20th century that started in the northeast and was directed at Jews and Catholics.

On another related topic -- where is the line drawn? If the government (and it will have to be the government at most schools) says no legacy, why not the government saying all women's only colleges need to admit men. Howard? What is to stop the government to say their class admission need to reflect society? Notre Dame and Boston College -- you have too many Catholics. Hey Princeton -- you have too many history majors.

Colleges should get to build their class as they see fit. Some choose no legacy and that becomes a selling point. Others stress it -- see Princeton and Notre Dame. The government has no place in this. You can complaint to the cows come home but most places will keep legacy because it is part of their identity. The schools that have dropped it don't really have a soul or they have an identity that is something else.

Both legacy admit and slavery/jim crow laws were created for one purpose: to keep wealthy white people in power. That's the point.

I didn't say government should mandate anything. You are bringing the government into this picture.

The point is that institutions that claim they support diversity continue to support a practice that not only was racist to being with, but continues to benefit the white wealthy ruling class.

It's hypocritical. And the comment about how "legacy is part of their identity", and "The schools that have dropped it don't really have a soul".. is disgustingly elitist. You are basically saying that elitist universities that like to "keep it in the family" have souls, and those that don't are soulless. Oh my.

Clearly, you are a legacy or hope your kids benefit from it.

MIT, Caltech are just different. Legacy is of little use to the college. Hopkins has its money and they were not getting legacy in any numbers so easy to give up. By a soul or an identity I will keep picking on Notre Dame. I know multiple people who are four generations in. The live it. Yes they donate some. But they are boosters. They promote the school. They are also one of the most loyal group of alumni towards each other. Legacy builds that. It connects the school to its past. They value it. You don’t. Don’t go there then. But it is not racist. Is now being used by the student body of the 80s and 90s which were diverse.

The world didn’t start yesterday. It all comes with history good and bad. There is no clean slate. Maybe there should be in publics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to get out more. Most legacy kids are very smart and accomplished.

Completely wrong. Most legacy kids are mediocre students, there is nothing exceptional or unique about them. I have seen this over and over again.

My kids attend a Big3 private. The legacy kids at their school are NOT mediocre. Maybe at your DC’s school they are, but not what we see AT ALL.

They may not be all mediocre, but they are usually not the top students. The problem is the above average but not top legacy students got accepted into top schools over the top non-legacy students.

False. Legacy kids know how to make an attractive high school record. First, your "top kid" may be taking the wrong classes (too much of one subject or not the right classes. Each college has certain classes they like to see if you look at past students.). Second, the top kid may have $ issues and not apply. Third, your top kid may not participate in desirable ECs.Most legacy kids that actually get in have good grades and curated ECs, sports, or activities. At base, the overall application is more desirable than a kid with a high GPA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
MIT, Caltech are just different. Legacy is of little use to the college. Hopkins has its money and they were not getting legacy in any numbers so easy to give up. By a soul or an identity I will keep picking on Notre Dame. I know multiple people who are four generations in. The live it. Yes they donate some. But they are boosters. They promote the school. They are also one of the most loyal group of alumni towards each other. Legacy builds that. It connects the school to its past. They value it. You don’t. Don’t go there then. But it is not racist. Is now being used by the student body of the 80s and 90s which were diverse.

The world didn’t start yesterday. It all comes with history good and bad. There is no clean slate. Maybe there should be in publics.

Yes, those schools take in super smart kids, while Notre Dame is more like the "good ol boys" type school.. all about "who you know", not about "how smart and talented you are".

It's ironic that a university started by a Catholic priest would use legacy admission given how Jesus was all about reaching out to the poor.

Legacy started and continues to benefit wealthy white people. That is the point. The writer for the Notre Dame paper agrees.

https://ndsmcobserver.com/2020/02/its-time-to-rethink-legacy-admissions/

Notre Dame leads top U.S. colleges in legacy admissions. Of our freshman class, children of alumni comprise 21.3%. In comparison at Harvard, the subject of rebuke on legacy admissions, children of alumni comprise 14.6% of the freshman class.

Correspondingly, Notre Dame struggles with racial and socioeconomic diversity. Just 35% of Notre Dame students are people of color; comparable Catholic and Midwestern universities all exceed that figure. Additionally, Notre Dame students are less likely to have family income in the bottom fifth — and more likely to have family income in the top fifth — than students at these universities.

The connection is clear. Our alumni base is less racially diverse than our student body, and Notre Dame alumni tend to have higher incomes. Children of alumni typically reflect these whiter, wealthier backgrounds.

Prioritizing whiter, wealthier applicants places further barriers to the social advancement of marginalized groups. It also undermines the sort of campus discourse that “requires, and is enriched by, the presence and voices of diverse scholars and students.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to get out more. Most legacy kids are very smart and accomplished.

Completely wrong. Most legacy kids are mediocre students, there is nothing exceptional or unique about them. I have seen this over and over again.

My kids attend a Big3 private. The legacy kids at their school are NOT mediocre. Maybe at your DC’s school they are, but not what we see AT ALL.

They may not be all mediocre, but they are usually not the top students. The problem is the above average but not top legacy students got accepted into top schools over the top non-legacy students.

False. Legacy kids know how to make an attractive high school record. First, your "top kid" may be taking the wrong classes (too much of one subject or not the right classes. Each college has certain classes they like to see if you look at past students.). Second, the top kid may have $ issues and not apply. Third, your top kid may not participate in desirable ECs.Most legacy kids that actually get in have good grades and curated ECs, sports, or activities. At base, the overall application is more desirable than a kid with a high GPA.

This is the problem.. they have the money and connection to curate that package. The system is stacked against unhooked, MC kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Schools like MIT, Hopkins CalTech are doing away with legacy once they've raise their billions. Or they got a benefactor (Bloomberg) who makes up for all the lost donations.

It's not pure. It's done once they are able to.

you have to be kidding me. You think HYP have less $$ than MIT and Caltech? JHU and Caltech aren't even in the top 10.

https://www.newsweek.com/universities-largest-endowments-america-harvard-yale-stanford-1620979