Elite Colleges’ Quiet Fight to Favor Alumni Children

[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.

yes then pay full tax like any other private companies.

+100

They are all massive landowners and pay no real estate taxes.

[Anonymous]

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

UVA treats out of state legacy applicants as in state applicants. It doesn't give in state legacies any bump at all. So the "pubicly funded" argument doesn't really apply, because its policy doesn't put taxpayers at a disadvantage.

It's cool that the Times considers UVA to be prestigious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

UVA treats out of state legacy applicants as in state applicants. It doesn't give in state legacies any bump at all. So the "pubicly funded" argument doesn't really apply, because its policy doesn't put taxpayers at a disadvantage.

It's cool that the Times considers UVA to be prestigious.

That’s still a problem in my opinion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You clearly did not attend an Ivy or if you did you must have been a legacy. The data show that the legacy applicant gets a strong bonus at the school of their parent. If you get rid of that, there is no guarantee that the legacy kid gets in, when there are thousands of other elite applicants. So no, they dont necessarily “end up at an Ivy.”

[Anonymous]

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.

yes then pay full tax like any other private companies.

+100

They are all massive landowners and pay no real estate taxes.

+1 the tax exemption is a huge subsidy to private schools at all levels.

[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.

Sure, remember last year when teachers could just assess A levels and boarding school students where all qualified to attend schools they weren't remotely qualified to attend?

sh** happened during CoViD. It wasn’t perfect but it was a once in a century pandemic. What’s America’s excuse for giving people a leg up based on where their parents went to school. My spouse and I have 4 Ivy degrees between us (although I guess the graduate ones don’t count for legacy status for our kids) so we have a lot to lose if legacy preferences go away but I can’t defend my kids having a probability of getting admitted at 5x the rate of a comparable student in the applicant pool. It’s really unmeritocratic

[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.

Sure, remember last year when teachers could just assess A levels and boarding school students where all qualified to attend schools they weren't remotely qualified to attend?

sh** happened during CoViD. It wasn’t perfect but it was a once in a century pandemic. What’s America’s excuse for giving people a leg up based on where their parents went to school. My spouse and I have 4 Ivy degrees between us (although I guess the graduate ones don’t count for legacy status for our kids) so we have a lot to lose if legacy preferences go away but I can’t defend my kids having a probability of getting admitted at 5x the rate of a comparable student in the applicant pool. It’s really unmeritocratic

But why does a kid who happened to have been born with a better capacity for doing well in high school than my learning disabled kid have a much better chance of getting in? He isn't a better person. He didn't work harder. He probably won't contribute more to making this world a better place. He was just lucky enough not to be born with a learning disability. Why does he have a better shot at a top school than my kid? Why is that fair?

[Anonymous]

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.

Yes because getting into college is not about admitting the smartest. Never was. Never will be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, remember last year when teachers could just assess A levels and boarding school students where all qualified to attend schools they weren't remotely qualified to attend?

sh** happened during CoViD. It wasn’t perfect but it was a once in a century pandemic. What’s America’s excuse for giving people a leg up based on where their parents went to school. My spouse and I have 4 Ivy degrees between us (although I guess the graduate ones don’t count for legacy status for our kids) so we have a lot to lose if legacy preferences go away but I can’t defend my kids having a probability of getting admitted at 5x the rate of a comparable student in the applicant pool. It’s really unmeritocratic

But why does a kid who happened to have been born with a better capacity for doing well in high school than my learning disabled kid have a much better chance of getting in? He isn't a better person. He didn't work harder. He probably won't contribute more to making this world a better place. He was just lucky enough not to be born with a learning disability. Why does he have a better shot at a top school than my kid? Why is that fair?

Because that is the way the colleges want to build themselves. They want multi-generational families who know the history. They want donors.

[Anonymous]

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.

yes then pay full tax like any other private companies.

+100

They are all massive landowners and pay no real estate taxes.

+1 the tax exemption is a huge subsidy to private schools at all levels.

You think the state schools pay taxes?

[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.

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.

Because college is not about just the highest scores. In case you have not noticed, the smartest people are not the ones that run the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you that are okay with legacy preference, are you okay with affirmative action? Same thing but in reverse.

100% I mean, how can you complain about 14% legacy, which is very likely 99.99% full-pay, which is then funding the 51% POC and first gen. There is just nothing to complain about. That legacy admission is making AA and first gen admissions much more possible. It's great for the university and for the student ocmmunity. Just get over it.

No not okay with affirmative action at all. Some boost for a diverse class sure. I would use the same as the legacies. You have to be within the range of admitted students to get in. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, remember last year when teachers could just assess A levels and boarding school students where all qualified to attend schools they weren't remotely qualified to attend?

sh** happened during CoViD. It wasn’t perfect but it was a once in a century pandemic. What’s America’s excuse for giving people a leg up based on where their parents went to school. My spouse and I have 4 Ivy degrees between us (although I guess the graduate ones don’t count for legacy status for our kids) so we have a lot to lose if legacy preferences go away but I can’t defend my kids having a probability of getting admitted at 5x the rate of a comparable student in the applicant pool. It’s really unmeritocratic

But why does a kid who happened to have been born with a better capacity for doing well in high school than my learning disabled kid have a much better chance of getting in? He isn't a better person. He didn't work harder. He probably won't contribute more to making this world a better place. He was just lucky enough not to be born with a learning disability. Why does he have a better shot at a top school than my kid? Why is that fair?

colleges have no way of observing how hard a kid works to get a grade-they only see the grade. I also don’t know how you think colleges can assess how applicants will or won’t contribute more to making the world a better place. Maybe your kid is great but how would you assess that in an unbiased way beyond the essays, extracurricular and teacher references which they ask for already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, remember last year when teachers could just assess A levels and boarding school students where all qualified to attend schools they weren't remotely qualified to attend?

sh** happened during CoViD. It wasn’t perfect but it was a once in a century pandemic. What’s America’s excuse for giving people a leg up based on where their parents went to school. My spouse and I have 4 Ivy degrees between us (although I guess the graduate ones don’t count for legacy status for our kids) so we have a lot to lose if legacy preferences go away but I can’t defend my kids having a probability of getting admitted at 5x the rate of a comparable student in the applicant pool. It’s really unmeritocratic

But why does a kid who happened to have been born with a better capacity for doing well in high school than my learning disabled kid have a much better chance of getting in? He isn't a better person. He didn't work harder. He probably won't contribute more to making this world a better place. He was just lucky enough not to be born with a learning disability. Why does he have a better shot at a top school than my kid? Why is that fair?

colleges have no way of observing how hard a kid works to get a grade-they only see the grade. I also don’t know how you think colleges can assess how applicants will or won’t contribute more to making the world a better place. Maybe your kid is great but how would you assess that in an unbiased way beyond the essays, extracurricular and teacher references which they ask for already.

You can't. Which puts him a great disadvantage. Why is that fair? Why does a kid who can easily show it have more of a chance to get into a top school? According to this site, colleges have some sort of moral obligation to build their communities according to the highest GPAs, starting from the top and going down. Fortunately, the people who run those colleges aren't as stupid and narrow minded as the people who think this. They know they need diverse communities and a a strong foundation to stay relevant and solvent. People say "it's not fair" that legacies get an advantage. I say that it's not fair that neurotypical kids get an advantage. You see, fairness doesn't come into play and the stupid people on here complaining about it will never get it. They just think their neurotypical, above average, one-dimensional GPA chases is entitled to something more than others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, remember last year when teachers could just assess A levels and boarding school students where all qualified to attend schools they weren't remotely qualified to attend?

sh** happened during CoViD. It wasn’t perfect but it was a once in a century pandemic. What’s America’s excuse for giving people a leg up based on where their parents went to school. My spouse and I have 4 Ivy degrees between us (although I guess the graduate ones don’t count for legacy status for our kids) so we have a lot to lose if legacy preferences go away but I can’t defend my kids having a probability of getting admitted at 5x the rate of a comparable student in the applicant pool. It’s really unmeritocratic

But why does a kid who happened to have been born with a better capacity for doing well in high school than my learning disabled kid have a much better chance of getting in? He isn't a better person. He didn't work harder. He probably won't contribute more to making this world a better place. He was just lucky enough not to be born with a learning disability. Why does he have a better shot at a top school than my kid? Why is that fair?

colleges have no way of observing how hard a kid works to get a grade-they only see the grade. I also don’t know how you think colleges can assess how applicants will or won’t contribute more to making the world a better place. Maybe your kid is great but how would you assess that in an unbiased way beyond the essays, extracurricular and teacher references which they ask for already.

You can't. Which puts him a great disadvantage. Why is that fair? Why does a kid who can easily show it have more of a chance to get into a top school? According to this site, colleges have some sort of moral obligation to build their communities according to the highest GPAs, starting from the top and going down. Fortunately, the people who run those colleges aren't as stupid and narrow minded as the people who think this. They know they need diverse communities and a a strong foundation to stay relevant and solvent. People say "it's not fair" that legacies get an advantage. I say that it's not fair that neurotypical kids get an advantage. You see, fairness doesn't come into play and the stupid people on here complaining about it will never get it. They just think their neurotypical, above average, one-dimensional GPA chases is entitled to something more than others.

Nothing about the world is fair. The US college system is actually pretty fair.