Interesting standardized testing data from Princeton's freshmen survey

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of 14 other schools (7 other Ivy League schools, Northwestern, Stanford, MIT, U Chicago, Caltech, JHU, & Georgetown) as "cross-admits" omitted Duke. Why ?

I also thought that was very odd. There is a lot of overlap in applications between the two. I'm a Duke alum who will admit that the vast majority choose Princeton over Duke, but they draw the same applicants and occasionally someone will choose Duke.

As a former Prince editor it makes me laugh a bit that you’d care so much about which schools a bunch of part-time students journalists decided to treat as peer schools for a special edition survey.

It makes me laugh that you took the time to write such a pointless response. I will not be losing any sleep over this. I just noted it.

And as an alleged former editor, that is a very insulting way to refer to student journalists. Get over yourself.

As another former "Prince" editor, I would note that "part-time student journalists" is not insulting. It's accurate.

NP: you two “Prince” editors (what a douchey term - is that like “reunions” instead of “reunion”) are devaluing the Princeton degree.

I don’t care if they are full time journalists or part time. They are Princeton students. The alleged best and brightest. So don’t demean them with that term.

Your attempt to defend your school just made it look worse. It was a random comment made in passing and you made a mountain out of a molehill.

Most Princeton alums I know are kind people with a lot of EQ. There are always exceptions to the rule. Apparently they hang out at “Prince.”

Could your skin possibly get any thinner? The point was that it’s highly unlikely that anyone gave a ton of thought to whether Duke, as opposed to Northwestern or Johns Hopkins, should be included in this section of a student survey. It’s not a put-down of Duke at all.

The kids working on the student paper - and, yes, it’s referred to as the “Prince” on campus - aren’t professional journalists or even journalism majors. Given how demanding the academics are at Princeton, they put out a pretty damn good student newspaper, and some alumni do go on to careers as journalists. But if they are conducting a detailed survey of new students or graduates (there are usually surveys of both), they aren’t going to obsess over the nuances of every question.

So, if you’re capable, do try and relax a bit.

The original response basically said that they found it interesting that Duke wasn't included. Not "I am staying up all night stressing about Duke not being included." Not "these student journalists are completely incompetent because they left out Duke." Just that it was interesting that Duke was not included. Full stop. You have wasted much of your time creating drama where there wasn't any.

Good Lord. You are the one who needs to relax. I think you've spent too much time stuck in traffic on Route 1.

Agreed. These Princeton alums are insufferable.

Laughing even harder, then, that you spend your time on threads about…Princeton.

And Reunions are great.

You're just making it worse and proving their point.

I know a lot of great Princeton alums who go to great lengths to avoid the bad stereotypes about Ivy grads, and you are just making it worse. Every school has its admissions mistakes.

My sins are pointing out that it’s no big deal that Duke was omitted from a list of peer schools in a survey in the student newspaper, and then calling that newspaper the “Prince,” like just about everyone who’s ever worked on it (and most people on campus)?

You might want to work on your issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of 14 other schools (7 other Ivy League schools, Northwestern, Stanford, MIT, U Chicago, Caltech, JHU, & Georgetown) as "cross-admits" omitted Duke. Why ?

I also thought that was very odd. There is a lot of overlap in applications between the two. I'm a Duke alum who will admit that the vast majority choose Princeton over Duke, but they draw the same applicants and occasionally someone will choose Duke.

As a former Prince editor it makes me laugh a bit that you’d care so much about which schools a bunch of part-time students journalists decided to treat as peer schools for a special edition survey.

It makes me laugh that you took the time to write such a pointless response. I will not be losing any sleep over this. I just noted it.

And as an alleged former editor, that is a very insulting way to refer to student journalists. Get over yourself.

As another former "Prince" editor, I would note that "part-time student journalists" is not insulting. It's accurate.

NP: you two “Prince” editors (what a douchey term - is that like “reunions” instead of “reunion”) are devaluing the Princeton degree.

I don’t care if they are full time journalists or part time. They are Princeton students. The alleged best and brightest. So don’t demean them with that term.

Your attempt to defend your school just made it look worse. It was a random comment made in passing and you made a mountain out of a molehill.

Most Princeton alums I know are kind people with a lot of EQ. There are always exceptions to the rule. Apparently they hang out at “Prince.”

Could your skin possibly get any thinner? The point was that it’s highly unlikely that anyone gave a ton of thought to whether Duke, as opposed to Northwestern or Johns Hopkins, should be included in this section of a student survey. It’s not a put-down of Duke at all.

The kids working on the student paper - and, yes, it’s referred to as the “Prince” on campus - aren’t professional journalists or even journalism majors. Given how demanding the academics are at Princeton, they put out a pretty damn good student newspaper, and some alumni do go on to careers as journalists. But if they are conducting a detailed survey of new students or graduates (there are usually surveys of both), they aren’t going to obsess over the nuances of every question.

So, if you’re capable, do try and relax a bit.

The original response basically said that they found it interesting that Duke wasn't included. Not "I am staying up all night stressing about Duke not being included." Not "these student journalists are completely incompetent because they left out Duke." Just that it was interesting that Duke was not included. Full stop. You have wasted much of your time creating drama where there wasn't any.

Good Lord. You are the one who needs to relax. I think you've spent too much time stuck in traffic on Route 1.

Agreed. These Princeton alums are insufferable.

Laughing even harder, then, that you spend your time on threads about…Princeton.

And Reunions are great.

You're just making it worse and proving their point.

I know a lot of great Princeton alums who go to great lengths to avoid the bad stereotypes about Ivy grads, and you are just making it worse. Every school has its admissions mistakes.

My sins are pointing out that it’s no big deal that Duke was omitted from a list of peer schools in a survey in the student newspaper, and then calling that newspaper the “Prince,” like just about everyone who’s ever worked on it (and most people on campus)?

You might want to work on your issues.

You are clearly slow. Once again, they did not say it was a big deal Duke was omitted. They just said it was curious. You over-reacted and made something out of nothing. I’m a Princeton alum and you are embarrassing me. Please stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a spin-off post to this, so adding my comment here - look how much better legacy kids do on the SAT/ACT.

You mean kids whose parents are Ivy League educated do better on standardized tests? Wow, who would have thought?! I thought kids whose parents are poor, uneducated and lack resources would do better.

+1, basically every pro people talk about for legacy are just advantages of being wealthy. Legacy doesn’t need to exist.

The fundraising ROI for universities says otherwise. Sorry that you hate capitalism.

Great, show the proof that legacy admits of similar wealth status give more to the college then! I am not allergic to data.

This isn't a controlled study. Universities are effectively making strategic business decisions though admissions. And they think legacy admits will give more, whether there is data to support it or not.

It's already well-established that yield is higher for legacies.
https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-why-elite-colleges-cant-give-up-legacy-admissions/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of 14 other schools (7 other Ivy League schools, Northwestern, Stanford, MIT, U Chicago, Caltech, JHU, & Georgetown) as "cross-admits" omitted Duke. Why ?

I also thought that was very odd. There is a lot of overlap in applications between the two. I'm a Duke alum who will admit that the vast majority choose Princeton over Duke, but they draw the same applicants and occasionally someone will choose Duke.

As a former Prince editor it makes me laugh a bit that you’d care so much about which schools a bunch of part-time students journalists decided to treat as peer schools for a special edition survey.

It makes me laugh that you took the time to write such a pointless response. I will not be losing any sleep over this. I just noted it.

And as an alleged former editor, that is a very insulting way to refer to student journalists. Get over yourself.

As another former "Prince" editor, I would note that "part-time student journalists" is not insulting. It's accurate.

NP: you two “Prince” editors (what a douchey term - is that like “reunions” instead of “reunion”) are devaluing the Princeton degree.

I don’t care if they are full time journalists or part time. They are Princeton students. The alleged best and brightest. So don’t demean them with that term.

Your attempt to defend your school just made it look worse. It was a random comment made in passing and you made a mountain out of a molehill.

Most Princeton alums I know are kind people with a lot of EQ. There are always exceptions to the rule. Apparently they hang out at “Prince.”

Could your skin possibly get any thinner? The point was that it’s highly unlikely that anyone gave a ton of thought to whether Duke, as opposed to Northwestern or Johns Hopkins, should be included in this section of a student survey. It’s not a put-down of Duke at all.

The kids working on the student paper - and, yes, it’s referred to as the “Prince” on campus - aren’t professional journalists or even journalism majors. Given how demanding the academics are at Princeton, they put out a pretty damn good student newspaper, and some alumni do go on to careers as journalists. But if they are conducting a detailed survey of new students or graduates (there are usually surveys of both), they aren’t going to obsess over the nuances of every question.

So, if you’re capable, do try and relax a bit.

The original response basically said that they found it interesting that Duke wasn't included. Not "I am staying up all night stressing about Duke not being included." Not "these student journalists are completely incompetent because they left out Duke." Just that it was interesting that Duke was not included. Full stop. You have wasted much of your time creating drama where there wasn't any.

Good Lord. You are the one who needs to relax. I think you've spent too much time stuck in traffic on Route 1.

Agreed. These Princeton alums are insufferable.

Laughing even harder, then, that you spend your time on threads about…Princeton.

And Reunions are great.

You're just making it worse and proving their point.

I know a lot of great Princeton alums who go to great lengths to avoid the bad stereotypes about Ivy grads, and you are just making it worse. Every school has its admissions mistakes.

My sins are pointing out that it’s no big deal that Duke was omitted from a list of peer schools in a survey in the student newspaper, and then calling that newspaper the “Prince,” like just about everyone who’s ever worked on it (and most people on campus)?

You might want to work on your issues.

You are clearly slow. Once again, they did not say it was a big deal Duke was omitted. They just said it was curious. You over-reacted and made something out of nothing. I’m a Princeton alum and you are embarrassing me. Please stop.

I don’t think Duke was omitted. I think they asked students to name their top choice and had room for the top 9. Maybe Duke was #10?

[Anonymous]

Where is data by race?

Racially - who gets admitted TO, who gets scholarships, who has the highest/lowest SATs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of 14 other schools (7 other Ivy League schools, Northwestern, Stanford, MIT, U Chicago, Caltech, JHU, & Georgetown) as "cross-admits" omitted Duke. Why ?

I also thought that was very odd. There is a lot of overlap in applications between the two. I'm a Duke alum who will admit that the vast majority choose Princeton over Duke, but they draw the same applicants and occasionally someone will choose Duke.

As a former Prince editor it makes me laugh a bit that you’d care so much about which schools a bunch of part-time students journalists decided to treat as peer schools for a special edition survey.

It makes me laugh that you took the time to write such a pointless response. I will not be losing any sleep over this. I just noted it.

And as an alleged former editor, that is a very insulting way to refer to student journalists. Get over yourself.

As another former "Prince" editor, I would note that "part-time student journalists" is not insulting. It's accurate.

NP: you two “Prince” editors (what a douchey term - is that like “reunions” instead of “reunion”) are devaluing the Princeton degree.

I don’t care if they are full time journalists or part time. They are Princeton students. The alleged best and brightest. So don’t demean them with that term.

Your attempt to defend your school just made it look worse. It was a random comment made in passing and you made a mountain out of a molehill.

Most Princeton alums I know are kind people with a lot of EQ. There are always exceptions to the rule. Apparently they hang out at “Prince.”

Could your skin possibly get any thinner? The point was that it’s highly unlikely that anyone gave a ton of thought to whether Duke, as opposed to Northwestern or Johns Hopkins, should be included in this section of a student survey. It’s not a put-down of Duke at all.

The kids working on the student paper - and, yes, it’s referred to as the “Prince” on campus - aren’t professional journalists or even journalism majors. Given how demanding the academics are at Princeton, they put out a pretty damn good student newspaper, and some alumni do go on to careers as journalists. But if they are conducting a detailed survey of new students or graduates (there are usually surveys of both), they aren’t going to obsess over the nuances of every question.

So, if you’re capable, do try and relax a bit.

The original response basically said that they found it interesting that Duke wasn't included. Not "I am staying up all night stressing about Duke not being included." Not "these student journalists are completely incompetent because they left out Duke." Just that it was interesting that Duke was not included. Full stop. You have wasted much of your time creating drama where there wasn't any.

Good Lord. You are the one who needs to relax. I think you've spent too much time stuck in traffic on Route 1.

Agreed. These Princeton alums are insufferable.

Laughing even harder, then, that you spend your time on threads about…Princeton.

And Reunions are great.

You're just making it worse and proving their point.

I know a lot of great Princeton alums who go to great lengths to avoid the bad stereotypes about Ivy grads, and you are just making it worse. Every school has its admissions mistakes.

My sins are pointing out that it’s no big deal that Duke was omitted from a list of peer schools in a survey in the student newspaper, and then calling that newspaper the “Prince,” like just about everyone who’s ever worked on it (and most people on campus)?

You might want to work on your issues.

We all have our sins. And over time, we do our best not to be guided by these sins.

If my major sin was omitting Duke from some peer list, oh, what a nice world that would be. But congrats on you and your sins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a spin-off post to this, so adding my comment here - look how much better legacy kids do on the SAT/ACT.

You mean kids whose parents are Ivy League educated do better on standardized tests? Wow, who would have thought?! I thought kids whose parents are poor, uneducated and lack resources would do better.

+1, basically every pro people talk about for legacy are just advantages of being wealthy. Legacy doesn’t need to exist.

The fundraising ROI for universities says otherwise. Sorry that you hate capitalism.

Great, show the proof that legacy admits of similar wealth status give more to the college then! I am not allergic to data.

This isn't a controlled study. Universities are effectively making strategic business decisions though admissions. And they think legacy admits will give more, whether there is data to support it or not.

It's already well-established that yield is higher for legacies.
https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-why-elite-colleges-cant-give-up-legacy-admissions/

It seems that you didn’t read this article, at least not closely. It almost entirely follows my argument and holds the limitation that it doesn’t hold conditional for the wealth of the person applying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of 14 other schools (7 other Ivy League schools, Northwestern, Stanford, MIT, U Chicago, Caltech, JHU, & Georgetown) as "cross-admits" omitted Duke. Why ?

I also thought that was very odd. There is a lot of overlap in applications between the two. I'm a Duke alum who will admit that the vast majority choose Princeton over Duke, but they draw the same applicants and occasionally someone will choose Duke.

As a former Prince editor it makes me laugh a bit that you’d care so much about which schools a bunch of part-time students journalists decided to treat as peer schools for a special edition survey.

It makes me laugh that you took the time to write such a pointless response. I will not be losing any sleep over this. I just noted it.

And as an alleged former editor, that is a very insulting way to refer to student journalists. Get over yourself.

As another former "Prince" editor, I would note that "part-time student journalists" is not insulting. It's accurate.

NP: you two “Prince” editors (what a douchey term - is that like “reunions” instead of “reunion”) are devaluing the Princeton degree.

I don’t care if they are full time journalists or part time. They are Princeton students. The alleged best and brightest. So don’t demean them with that term.

Your attempt to defend your school just made it look worse. It was a random comment made in passing and you made a mountain out of a molehill.

Most Princeton alums I know are kind people with a lot of EQ. There are always exceptions to the rule. Apparently they hang out at “Prince.”

Could your skin possibly get any thinner? The point was that it’s highly unlikely that anyone gave a ton of thought to whether Duke, as opposed to Northwestern or Johns Hopkins, should be included in this section of a student survey. It’s not a put-down of Duke at all.

The kids working on the student paper - and, yes, it’s referred to as the “Prince” on campus - aren’t professional journalists or even journalism majors. Given how demanding the academics are at Princeton, they put out a pretty damn good student newspaper, and some alumni do go on to careers as journalists. But if they are conducting a detailed survey of new students or graduates (there are usually surveys of both), they aren’t going to obsess over the nuances of every question.

So, if you’re capable, do try and relax a bit.

The original response basically said that they found it interesting that Duke wasn't included. Not "I am staying up all night stressing about Duke not being included." Not "these student journalists are completely incompetent because they left out Duke." Just that it was interesting that Duke was not included. Full stop. You have wasted much of your time creating drama where there wasn't any.

Good Lord. You are the one who needs to relax. I think you've spent too much time stuck in traffic on Route 1.

Agreed. These Princeton alums are insufferable.

Their basically cultists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where is data by race?

Racially - who gets admitted TO, who gets scholarships, who has the highest/lowest SATs.

They won't share that information until they are compelled to. For obvious reasons

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a spin-off post to this, so adding my comment here - look how much better legacy kids do on the SAT/ACT.

You mean kids whose parents are Ivy League educated do better on standardized tests? Wow, who would have thought?! I thought kids whose parents are poor, uneducated and lack resources would do better.

+1, basically every pro people talk about for legacy are just advantages of being wealthy. Legacy doesn’t need to exist.

The fundraising ROI for universities says otherwise. Sorry that you hate capitalism.

Great, show the proof that legacy admits of similar wealth status give more to the college then! I am not allergic to data.

This isn't a controlled study. Universities are effectively making strategic business decisions though admissions. And they think legacy admits will give more, whether there is data to support it or not.

It's already well-established that yield is higher for legacies.
https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-why-elite-colleges-cant-give-up-legacy-admissions/

It seems that you didn’t read this article, at least not closely. It almost entirely follows my argument and holds the limitation that it doesn’t hold conditional for the wealth of the person applying.

From the article:

It’s unclear exactly how many dollars each point translates to, but legacies had an average “give” score of 48 points, 50 percent higher than the 32 point average of non-legacies.

It’s not that legacy students earned higher wages after graduation. Both groups – legacy and non-legacy – had an average income of roughly $85,000 a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a spin-off post to this, so adding my comment here - look how much better legacy kids do on the SAT/ACT.

And how poorly recruited athletes do!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a spin-off post to this, so adding my comment here - look how much better legacy kids do on the SAT/ACT.

You mean kids whose parents are Ivy League educated do better on standardized tests? Wow, who would have thought?! I thought kids whose parents are poor, uneducated and lack resources would do better.

+1, basically every pro people talk about for legacy are just advantages of being wealthy. Legacy doesn’t need to exist.

The fundraising ROI for universities says otherwise. Sorry that you hate capitalism.

Great, show the proof that legacy admits of similar wealth status give more to the college then! I am not allergic to data.

This isn't a controlled study. Universities are effectively making strategic business decisions though admissions. And they think legacy admits will give more, whether there is data to support it or not.

It's already well-established that yield is higher for legacies.
https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-why-elite-colleges-cant-give-up-legacy-admissions/

It seems that you didn’t read this article, at least not closely. It almost entirely follows my argument and holds the limitation that it doesn’t hold conditional for the wealth of the person applying.

"A whopping 42 percent of legacy graduates were flagged as potential top donors, which could include their whole family. Only 6 percent of non-legacy graduates were flagged as potential top donors."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a spin-off post to this, so adding my comment here - look how much better legacy kids do on the SAT/ACT.

You mean kids whose parents are Ivy League educated do better on standardized tests? Wow, who would have thought?! I thought kids whose parents are poor, uneducated and lack resources would do better.

+1, basically every pro people talk about for legacy are just advantages of being wealthy. Legacy doesn’t need to exist.

The fundraising ROI for universities says otherwise. Sorry that you hate capitalism.

Great, show the proof that legacy admits of similar wealth status give more to the college then! I am not allergic to data.

This isn't a controlled study. Universities are effectively making strategic business decisions though admissions. And they think legacy admits will give more, whether there is data to support it or not.

It's already well-established that yield is higher for legacies.
https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-why-elite-colleges-cant-give-up-legacy-admissions/

It seems that you didn’t read this article, at least not closely. It almost entirely follows my argument and holds the limitation that it doesn’t hold conditional for the wealth of the person applying.

"A whopping 42 percent of legacy graduates were flagged as potential top donors, which could include their whole family. Only 6 percent of non-legacy graduates were flagged as potential top donors."

Once again that is not conditional for the wealth of the person applying. This is exactly my point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a spin-off post to this, so adding my comment here - look how much better legacy kids do on the SAT/ACT.

You mean kids whose parents are Ivy League educated do better on standardized tests? Wow, who would have thought?! I thought kids whose parents are poor, uneducated and lack resources would do better.

+1, basically every pro people talk about for legacy are just advantages of being wealthy. Legacy doesn’t need to exist.

The fundraising ROI for universities says otherwise. Sorry that you hate capitalism.

Great, show the proof that legacy admits of similar wealth status give more to the college then! I am not allergic to data.

This isn't a controlled study. Universities are effectively making strategic business decisions though admissions. And they think legacy admits will give more, whether there is data to support it or not.

It's already well-established that yield is higher for legacies.
https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-why-elite-colleges-cant-give-up-legacy-admissions/

It seems that you didn’t read this article, at least not closely. It almost entirely follows my argument and holds the limitation that it doesn’t hold conditional for the wealth of the person applying.

"A whopping 42 percent of legacy graduates were flagged as potential top donors, which could include their whole family. Only 6 percent of non-legacy graduates were flagged as potential top donors."

Once again that is not conditional for the wealth of the person applying. This is exactly my point.

The article is talking about after the students attended, not when they were applying. You're arguing about something irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a spin-off post to this, so adding my comment here - look how much better legacy kids do on the SAT/ACT.

You mean kids whose parents are Ivy League educated do better on standardized tests? Wow, who would have thought?! I thought kids whose parents are poor, uneducated and lack resources would do better.

+1, basically every pro people talk about for legacy are just advantages of being wealthy. Legacy doesn’t need to exist.

The fundraising ROI for universities says otherwise. Sorry that you hate capitalism.

Great, show the proof that legacy admits of similar wealth status give more to the college then! I am not allergic to data.

This isn't a controlled study. Universities are effectively making strategic business decisions though admissions. And they think legacy admits will give more, whether there is data to support it or not.

It's already well-established that yield is higher for legacies.
https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-why-elite-colleges-cant-give-up-legacy-admissions/

It seems that you didn’t read this article, at least not closely. It almost entirely follows my argument and holds the limitation that it doesn’t hold conditional for the wealth of the person applying.

"A whopping 42 percent of legacy graduates were flagged as potential top donors, which could include their whole family. Only 6 percent of non-legacy graduates were flagged as potential top donors."

Once again that is not conditional for the wealth of the person applying. This is exactly my point.

The article is talking about after the students attended, not when they were applying. You're arguing about something irrelevant.

? bizarre response. I'm assuming you just are unaware of what controlling for variables means, so you feel the need to lash out. This is a very childish response.