Elite Colleges’ Quiet Fight to Favor Alumni Children

[Anonymous]

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.

Why should some lacrosse player get an easy way in? In a perfect world, these small schools would have intramural sports OR, perhaps better, build a new dorm to accommodate the extra kids. But no, they won’t do that.

[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.

Of course, if that’s the game, that’s the game, and people will follow the system set up. But my god is the process corrupt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Churches? The Heritage Foundation? The American Family Association?

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence? The Sierra Club? Greenpeace?

Your local country club?








/ ps you don't know diddly about research grants, how they work and what they are for, you are making yourself look stupid and should stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

dp.. whoosh.

[Anonymous]

Gosh, well connected rich people wanting to keep their slice of their pie.

This is affirmative action for the well connected and wealthy.

I guess that's why so many of these limo liberals support both - because they know that even with affirmative action, their offspring's place in these institutions is protected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course, if that’s the game, that’s the game, and people will follow the system set up. But my god is the process corrupt.

In the end you still have to get through the academic rigor of a real school. Most of these athletes are still smart but as stated in another thread, not the best athlete. They are less average academically and maybe a slight above average athletically. They rode the margins...I get parents are proud but it's really just a ruse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gosh, well connected rich people wanting to keep their slice of their pie.

This is affirmative action for the well connected and wealthy.

I guess that's why so many of these limo liberals support both - because they know that even with affirmative action, their offspring's place in these institutions is protected.

Yes! Good point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course, if that’s the game, that’s the game, and people will follow the system set up. But my god is the process corrupt.

In the end you still have to get through the academic rigor of a real school. Most of these athletes are still smart but as stated in another thread, not the best athlete. They are less average academically and maybe a slight above average athletically. They rode the margins...I get parents are proud but it's really just a ruse.

Well the fact is...they are going to harvard, etc. The ones I know are extremely academically accomplished and use the athletic talent to try to stand out from all the other smart applicants. It makes little sense but that is the game.

[Anonymous]

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.

I don't think anyone is debating that point. However, if they want access to federal money, they need to meet standards determined by the courts...

[Anonymous]

I think public colleges shouldn’t consider legacy and private schools should do whatever they want

[Anonymous]

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.

I don't think anyone is debating that point. However, if they want access to federal money, they need to meet standards determined by the courts...

Not a lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

dp.. whoosh.

Had the cursing American had a bigger vocab, he would have just said, "Cool story, bro" and moved on.

[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.

Wrong. The legacy bonus is equivalent to having an SAT score that's 64 to 160 points at some elite schools.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/12/us/SAT-bonus-ivy-league.html

Over six admission cycles, Harvard admitted legacy applicants at a rate of 34 percent — 5.7 times higher than for nonlegacy applicants, according to a study by Peter S. Arcidiacono, an economist at Duke and expert witness for the plaintiffs, working with two other academics.

The impact in question is only valid for one school. The Yale legacy applicant will have that advantage over the Harvard legacy applicant at Yale only. And vice-versa. Get rid of the legacy preference, and both applicants will end up at an Ivy.

[Anonymous]

I think it’s unfair that UVA and W&M consider legacy as publicly funded institutions

[Anonymous]

Interesting how the article said that legacies at Harvard get in at 5x the rate of regular candidates. That is a huge advantage