How long before legacy admissions are gone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Utmost respect to MIT

Test required and no legacy

MIT is the real deal.

Cough - athletic recruiting - cough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.).

At these schools it overwhelmingly does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.).

Go look at the teams for soccer, crew, lacrosse, swimming, field hockey, etc etc. Mostly white kids from very expensive zips and prep schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Utmost respect to MIT

Test required and no legacy

MIT is the real deal.

Cough - athletic recruiting - cough.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.).

Funny how you conveniently mentioned 3 certain sports out of many.