Legacy Admit is racist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

No. But they have bigger ambitions. Hopkins has what it wants for what it sees as its future which is a lot different from what Harvard sees. Harvard sees a global elite school that rules the world in every major. Hopkins does not. Harvard would not be ok with $800 billion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Right. But this is something that cannot be controlled for. Outlaw college counselors? Stop parents from helping? That is silly. Of course there is an uphill climb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

First -- don't listen to school newspapers that are filled with ultra left kids who know nothing about life. The author of that will be the biggest defender of legacy in 25 years. Second, you are taking the wrong lessons. Notre Dame kids are elite. Legacy helps but only if you are the pool of people that could attend. Legacy is not against Catholic doctrine. The opposite in fact. It supports families and supports the institution. Finally, it has nothing to do with race. Not at Notre Dame. Not at the ivies. But even if it does I am not sure anyone should care. As PPs have said --- the classes are more diverse over the last 20 years and everyone gets legacy.

[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?

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

They don't need legacy because they use the days' long in-person interviews with Prof. to weed out students. First, you need to hire the expensive Oxbridge tutors (a major expense sometimes for years), then you need to buy all the books so you kid can prepare, pay for travel to the in person interviews and finally get appropriate attire for the interview. Shockingly, many of the prepared kids chosen by the prof. are legacy or uber-rich anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Any system in America is stacked against unhooked MC kids! College, trades, professions, businesses all run in families, and a leg up is given to kids who are the second/third generation.[/b]
You sound like you have a problem with America. Some people start on second or third base and some people cant even get into the ball park.

[Anonymous]

If schools wanted to stack the deck, they just wouldn’t offer FA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

First -- don't listen to school newspapers that are filled with ultra left kids who know nothing about life. The author of that will be the biggest defender of legacy in 25 years. Second, you are taking the wrong lessons. Notre Dame kids are elite. Legacy helps but only if you are the pool of people that could attend. Legacy is not against Catholic doctrine. The opposite in fact. It supports families and supports the institution. Finally, it has nothing to do with race. Not at Notre Dame. Not at the ivies. But even if it does I am not sure anyone should care. As PPs have said --- the classes are more diverse over the last 20 years and everyone gets legacy.

What Christian doctrine supports giving the wealthy a leg up? That's news to me. Or are you saying that the Catholic doctrine cares more about "keeping it in the family" over Jesus' teachings about helping the poor and how "it is easier for the camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man go to heaven"?

So we should not listen to liberal students, but we should listen to rich, mostly white people who espouse being liberal but not when it comes to this?

It has a lot to do with race because, by and large, legacy admits are mostly white. Are there nonwhite legacies? Sure.. but the vast majority are white.

These universities care more about "keeping it in the family" than actually helping society. A degree from a prestigious university would do more for a lower/middle class student than for a rich kid. It's really shameful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Any system in America is stacked against unhooked MC kids! College, trades, professions, businesses all run in families, and a leg up is given to kids who are the second/third generation.[/b]
You sound like you have a problem with America. Some people start on second or third base and some people cant even get into the ball park.

So, you're not a liberal then? Because liberals believe that education should be the great equalizer, no? That some kids who are born on first base, and don't have that advantage should be given an extra leg up vs those who were born to wealthy families. I could've sworn that this is what liberals supported.

I thought America was about meritocracy and "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps", and not about who your family name. Do we have nobility in this country? Funny how the UK, which does have nobility, doesn't look at legacies for college admissions.

Seems backwards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Most schools will only let in legacies who are well-qualified. It’s not like they are letting in D student slackers (Jared excepting) So, maybe Harvard accepts a legacy with a 1480 and a 4.2 rather than a 1560 and 4.6? Is that really that big of a difference? The 1560 got 8 more questions correct, big whoop.
My overall point is that it’s all pretty subjective, even test scores and grades.

The 1560 vs. 1480 is a big whoop. Your kid can take it several times more and they will still get a 1480. The difference is real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

First -- don't listen to school newspapers that are filled with ultra left kids who know nothing about life. The author of that will be the biggest defender of legacy in 25 years. Second, you are taking the wrong lessons. Notre Dame kids are elite. Legacy helps but only if you are the pool of people that could attend. Legacy is not against Catholic doctrine. The opposite in fact. It supports families and supports the institution. Finally, it has nothing to do with race. Not at Notre Dame. Not at the ivies. But even if it does I am not sure anyone should care. As PPs have said --- the classes are more diverse over the last 20 years and everyone gets legacy.

What Christian doctrine supports giving the wealthy a leg up? That's news to me. Or are you saying that the Catholic doctrine cares more about "keeping it in the family" over Jesus' teachings about helping the poor and how "it is easier for the camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man go to heaven"?

So we should not listen to liberal students, but we should listen to rich, mostly white people who espouse being liberal but not when it comes to this?

It has a lot to do with race because, by and large, legacy admits are mostly white. Are there nonwhite legacies? Sure.. but the vast majority are white.

These universities care more about "keeping it in the family" than actually helping society. A degree from a prestigious university would do more for a lower/middle class student than for a rich kid. It's really shameful.

Go look at the total number of athletes at colleges and you’ll realize that hook is stacked to advantage middle and upper class white kids. I’m not talking about the sports that bring money in at some colleges and universities (basketball and football), I’m talking lacrosse, water polo, equestrian, fencing, sailing, soccer, tennis, squash, swimming, diving, softball, baseball, fieldhockey, ice hockey, cross country, skiiing, wrestling, rugby, golf, and track and field. Most of these sports have high barriers to entry. I mean look at all the public squash courts and public golf couses that provide you with an affordable set of gloves. Then there are all those inexpensive ice rinks in warmer places where pond hockey isn’t available. The abundance of free lacrosse fields with plenty of sticks, pads, and helmets available for kids to play pickup lacrosse even if their parents can’t afford the equipment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

First -- don't listen to school newspapers that are filled with ultra left kids who know nothing about life. The author of that will be the biggest defender of legacy in 25 years. Second, you are taking the wrong lessons. Notre Dame kids are elite. Legacy helps but only if you are the pool of people that could attend. Legacy is not against Catholic doctrine. The opposite in fact. It supports families and supports the institution. Finally, it has nothing to do with race. Not at Notre Dame. Not at the ivies. But even if it does I am not sure anyone should care. As PPs have said --- the classes are more diverse over the last 20 years and everyone gets legacy.

What Christian doctrine supports giving the wealthy a leg up? That's news to me. Or are you saying that the Catholic doctrine cares more about "keeping it in the family" over Jesus' teachings about helping the poor and how "it is easier for the camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man go to heaven"?

So we should not listen to liberal students, but we should listen to rich, mostly white people who espouse being liberal but not when it comes to this?

It has a lot to do with race because, by and large, legacy admits are mostly white. Are there nonwhite legacies? Sure.. but the vast majority are white.

These universities care more about "keeping it in the family" than actually helping society. A degree from a prestigious university would do more for a lower/middle class student than for a rich kid. It's really shameful.

Go look at the total number of athletes at colleges and you’ll realize that hook is stacked to advantage middle and upper class white kids. I’m not talking about the sports that bring money in at some colleges and universities (basketball and football), I’m talking lacrosse, water polo, equestrian, fencing, sailing, soccer, tennis, squash, swimming, diving, softball, baseball, fieldhockey, ice hockey, cross country, skiiing, wrestling, rugby, golf, and track and field. Most of these sports have high barriers to entry. I mean look at all the public squash courts and public golf couses that provide you with an affordable set of gloves. Then there are all those inexpensive ice rinks in warmer places where pond hockey isn’t available. The abundance of free lacrosse fields with plenty of sticks, pads, and helmets available for kids to play pickup lacrosse even if their parents can’t afford the equipment.

+1

But the whiners who rejected will still whine. If you can't get in with those built-in advantages, oh well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Most schools will only let in legacies who are well-qualified. It’s not like they are letting in D student slackers (Jared excepting) So, maybe Harvard accepts a legacy with a 1480 and a 4.2 rather than a 1560 and 4.6? Is that really that big of a difference? The 1560 got 8 more questions correct, big whoop.
My overall point is that it’s all pretty subjective, even test scores and grades.

given that the legacy admit probably wouldn't have gotten in without legacy, and the number of legacy admits is fairly large, yes, it is a big difference.

Actually, most schools that have looked at this show that the legacy admits are equally qualified to their demographic cohort. It is the VIP admits, done for dollars or publicity, that do not measure up. And then, we can talk about how the demographic cohorts are not equally qualified. But that's a different thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, if you did that, the you’d certainly have to start prioritizing whites for fellowships designated for minorities, since at 16% of the global population, they appear to be, of all races, one of the smallest groups!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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

BTW, this reminds me of something I read recently — that Harvard (and other top universities with deep endowments) get quite a bit of federal funding anyway. I guess that’s the answer for why worldwide racial composition doesn’t factor. Any university receiving federal funding is at heart a university whose primary responsibilities are to the nation and its citizens, who indirectly help support it with their taxes.

[Anonymous]

Separate but equal lives on at US Ivies at elite universities and the democratic party supporters of progressive equity-based affirmative action