Is there anything positive about legacy admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, a a LMC to MC girl from a small town, first generation college attendee at a then need blind top university, I found having classmates n the dorm who were socioeconomic elites and whose families had gone there for generations to be culturally enriching. I saw how to dress, how to buy wine, what kinds of accessories worked. These were multigeneational alumni families but they got in on their merit, not lower standards. MIT.

+1

But they weren’t legacy admits.

MIT is a beautiful example that legacy admission are not really needed to get fundraising or have a well-funded private institution.

MIT gets more government $ than grateful alumni dollars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole point of going to an elite school is to rub elbows with the “privileged few.” Otherwise we would just administer an IQ test and take the top X%.

That is exactly how Asian top universities select students, India, South Korea, China, Singapore, etc

And England. There’s a reason Prince William went to St Andrews and not Oxford or Cambridge. And why Prince Harry didn’t go to college at all. There’s no “holistic admissions” there to give them a boost for being royal.

I guess it’s harder to fight aristocracy in the US.

[Anonymous]

It can be positive for the school in terms of $ and giving, and private schools are businesses, after all. They're not solely funded by tuition but by donors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It can be positive for the school in terms of $ and giving, and private schools are businesses, after all. They're not solely funded by tuition but by donors.

I agree that it might be good for the university, but ethically I side with MIT with no legacy admissions.

It might also profitable for companies to polute rivers (not disposing waste properly), but somehow regulations try to control negative externalities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can be positive for the school in terms of $ and giving, and private schools are businesses, after all. They're not solely funded by tuition but by donors.

I agree that it might be good for the university, but ethically I side with MIT with no legacy admissions.

It might also profitable for companies to polute rivers (not disposing waste properly), but somehow regulations try to control negative externalities.

Polluting rivers does not = private schools admitting legacies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT, John Hopkins, and Caltech. All private and well-funded without legacy admissions. Interesting don’t you agree?

And all recruit athletes. College admissions is not about merit. It’s about establishing an academic line that students need to pass and the choosing a class from there. You’re deluded if you think admissions should rank all applicants from 1-55000 and take the top x.

I guess we can debate what is merit. Is born into a family of generational wealth merit on its own?

No. Neither is being born with a high IQ, though, which is just as much a form of privilege as anything else. Is a naturally "smart" person more meritorious than a naturally athletic person or one born into generational wealth? They pick the students; the parents don't get to pick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the reasons people send their kids to private schools (though not the only reason) is to increase their chances of getting into an elite university. However, these students still have to compete with others who benefit from legacy admissions.

In a society that prides itself on meritocracy and free enterprise, is there anything positive for society about this type of admission practice—or does it simply entrench the privileges of a few? What do you think?

Are you the same person who recently started a thread on this in the Politics forum?

Why do you care so much?

As said over there, most legacies *don't* get in, this issue affects a small slice of people applying to elite *private* institutions, and most discussions of the issue conflate the advantages of the wealthy with the advantages of legacy.

This is a weird hang up.

[Anonymous]

No, not at all. Those days are over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can be positive for the school in terms of $ and giving, and private schools are businesses, after all. They're not solely funded by tuition but by donors.

I agree that it might be good for the university, but ethically I side with MIT with no legacy admissions.

It might also profitable for companies to polute rivers (not disposing waste properly), but somehow regulations try to control negative externalities.

Polluting rivers does not = private schools admitting legacies.

Entrenching aristocracies and debilitating meritocracy => not good for democracies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the reasons people send their kids to private schools (though not the only reason) is to increase their chances of getting into an elite university. However, these students still have to compete with others who benefit from legacy admissions.

In a society that prides itself on meritocracy and free enterprise, is there anything positive for society about this type of admission practice—or does it simply entrench the privileges of a few? What do you think?

Are you the same person who recently started a thread on this in the Politics forum?

Why do you care so much?

As said over there, most legacies *don't* get in, this issue affects a small slice of people applying to elite *private* institutions, and most discussions of the issue conflate the advantages of the wealthy with the advantages of legacy.

This is a weird hang up.

Why do you care so much about this post ? Maybe people have an opinion different from yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can be positive for the school in terms of $ and giving, and private schools are businesses, after all. They're not solely funded by tuition but by donors.

I agree that it might be good for the university, but ethically I side with MIT with no legacy admissions.

It might also profitable for companies to polute rivers (not disposing waste properly), but somehow regulations try to control negative externalities.

Polluting rivers does not = private schools admitting legacies.

Entrenching aristocracies and debilitating meritocracy => not good for democracies

"Merit" is subjective. Does someone born with intelligence, fast processing speed, and the resources and ability to score highly on standardized tests have more merit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can be positive for the school in terms of $ and giving, and private schools are businesses, after all. They're not solely funded by tuition but by donors.

I agree that it might be good for the university, but ethically I side with MIT with no legacy admissions.

It might also profitable for companies to polute rivers (not disposing waste properly), but somehow regulations try to control negative externalities.

Polluting rivers does not = private schools admitting legacies.

Entrenching aristocracies and debilitating meritocracy => not good for democracies

"Merit" is subjective. Does someone born with intelligence, fast processing speed, and the resources and ability to score highly on standardized tests have more merit?

Do you think such a person could succeed without working hard?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can be positive for the school in terms of $ and giving, and private schools are businesses, after all. They're not solely funded by tuition but by donors.

I agree that it might be good for the university, but ethically I side with MIT with no legacy admissions.

It might also profitable for companies to polute rivers (not disposing waste properly), but somehow regulations try to control negative externalities.

Polluting rivers does not = private schools admitting legacies.

Entrenching aristocracies and debilitating meritocracy => not good for democracies

"Merit" is subjective. Does someone born with intelligence, fast processing speed, and the resources and ability to score highly on standardized tests have more merit?

Do you think such a person could succeed without working hard?

Obviously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I asked a trustee at my Ivy last year why they continued with legacy admissions when they were so heavily criticized for it. He said they know it increases alumni donations and participation in the school for generations. They’ve also studied how legacies perform academically and they significantly outperform their peers at school and in professional success after school. Finally, the school isn’t simply an academics factory but a community, and having whole families tied to the school adds to the community they want to build.

Because non-legacy kids are not smart, cannot donate, and cannot be a good addition to the community….

You are missing the point entirely. Most admits are non-legacy and of course they contribute, but the legacy kids, on average, do better on these metrics that matter to the school.

[Anonymous]

Of anything, it could be used as a tiebreaker.