New study explains why many elite colleges won’t give up legacy admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's complete BS. It's a practice that they used as a way to not increase the Jewish population, and now it's a practice they use as a way to not increase the Asian American population.



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/23/elite-schools-ivy-league-legacy-admissions-harvard-wealthier-whiter

Disturbing to think they are still using a method created by white supremacists back in the 1920s as an excuse to say, "oh, we need rich people's money so we can admit more URM".

If they lowered the cost, coupled with the amount these univ have in their endowments, the would not need to rely on legacy donations.

Rich parents is how Trump and Bushes got into ivy leagues. Let that sink in.

And the Kennedy’s and the Gores and the Kerry’s and…. There are a heck of a lot more not so bright kids of wealthy alumni that are Democrats in the Ivy League. Let that sink in.

I'm totally against legacies, but those ^ people are much brighter than Trump or GWB, MUCH more. So, that list doesn't mean what you think it means.

You’ve apparently never met any of the second and third generation Kennedy or Gore kids. Not the sharpest tools in the shed. And I wouldn’t be staking anything on the intelligence of Al Gore or John Kerry, either. Their careers just show how far the right connections and Ivy League credentials can get you.

No one can be as dumb as Trump. At the least, those people know how to speak like intelligent beings.

Different PP you must never have heard Caroline Kennedy speak, she’s dumb and incoherent lmao.

[Anonymous]

The issue I see unfolding is a question of who drives a college's strategy and who has the strongest voice: is it alumni relations, or is it admissions? At what threshold does that dynamic shift? How much is yield protection for brand-building worth in alumni dollars or volunteerism?

Take the example of a solid student who's the child of an alum (or two) who are involved, donated (modestly) etc. but the child doesn't really want to go. So admissions thinks: "this kid is good enough without the alum connection, but we're trying to look elite and the way we do that is by protecting yield (because we don't think junior wants to come and it's not like junior didn't know about us) so we want to reject junior". Then alumni relations would say "please don't reject junior but accept them, and then if junior says no like you think they will then I have a good chance of keeping the engagement and $$ from alum mom." And some of them might weigh the merits of both sides and decide to push it with the "show me more commitment" waitlisting. This is kind of a Hail Mary -- if parents and junior want it badly enough, they get a "good enough" kid, they get their yield numbers, and they get more money. But if the kid doesn't want to go and the parents aren't ok with pay-to-play, then the relationship is severed.

It's ugly either way.

[Anonymous]

I hope no one spent a lot of $ on this study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We stopped giving to Notre Dame after our youngest was rejected several years ago. The kid ended up at UVA, so obviously wasn’t a slouch. A courtesy waitlist wouldn’t have killed them. It didn’t really matter to us that the kid had no interest in attending. We still took it as a real slap in the face.

Interesting, but not surprised. My son is at ND, is a legacy, and we have never given them a cent. We have a daughter in HS who wants to go, and we are still not sending any money at this point beyond tuition payments. Giving doesn't matter. Connections do, and we have some strong connections there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's complete BS. It's a practice that they used as a way to not increase the Jewish population, and now it's a practice they use as a way to not increase the Asian American population.



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/23/elite-schools-ivy-league-legacy-admissions-harvard-wealthier-whiter

Disturbing to think they are still using a method created by white supremacists back in the 1920s as an excuse to say, "oh, we need rich people's money so we can admit more URM".

If they lowered the cost, coupled with the amount these univ have in their endowments, the would not need to rely on legacy donations.

Rich parents is how Trump and Bushes got into ivy leagues. Let that sink in.

And the Kennedy’s and the Gores and the Kerry’s and…. There are a heck of a lot more not so bright kids of wealthy alumni that are Democrats in the Ivy League. Let that sink in.

I'm totally against legacies, but those ^ people are much brighter than Trump or GWB, MUCH more. So, that list doesn't mean what you think it means.

You’ve apparently never met any of the second and third generation Kennedy or Gore kids. Not the sharpest tools in the shed. And I wouldn’t be staking anything on the intelligence of Al Gore or John Kerry, either. Their careers just show how far the right connections and Ivy League credentials can get you.

No one can be as dumb as Trump. At the least, those people know how to speak like intelligent beings.

Clearly you didn't follow her short-lived attempt to become a senator from NY.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/nyregion/28kennedytranscript.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of you against legacy admissions, please remember you can contact your schools to let them know your opinions (it is unlikely to change otherwise). Also, remember to have your children leave your school affiliation off their applications.

So are you suggesting they lie when asked, "Have any of your relatives (parents/siblings) attended _______? "

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We stopped giving to Notre Dame after our youngest was rejected several years ago. The kid ended up at UVA, so obviously wasn’t a slouch. A courtesy waitlist wouldn’t have killed them. It didn’t really matter to us that the kid had no interest in attending. We still took it as a real slap in the face.

LOL, we never gave to ND and our kid got in. We are smart enough to realize that our small contributions wouldn't make or break it. Now if you get your name on a building, that's a different story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We stopped giving to Notre Dame after our youngest was rejected several years ago. The kid ended up at UVA, so obviously wasn’t a slouch. A courtesy waitlist wouldn’t have killed them. It didn’t really matter to us that the kid had no interest in attending. We still took it as a real slap in the face.

Do you realize how many alumni kids apply to ND every year? The could fill the class twice over with just legacy kids.