Is there anything positive about legacy admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Really ? Where did you read that ?

[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?

More than just considering the last name.

[Anonymous]

This is such a troll post. Clearly from the same person trolling with about a half dozen other threads on the first 2 pages of this forum. All pointless, but written to evoke emotional responses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is such a troll post. Clearly from the same person trolling with about a half dozen other threads on the first 2 pages of this forum. All pointless, but written to evoke emotional responses.

Don’t read the thread and you will be happier.

[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?

More than just considering the last name.

Wrong. They only need so many super smart people. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a troll post. Clearly from the same person trolling with about a half dozen other threads on the first 2 pages of this forum. All pointless, but written to evoke emotional responses.

Don’t read the thread and you will be happier.

I assure you, I’m not reading it. But I will call out your bad behavior. If other people want to waste their time, that’s up to them. But in calling out your trolling, maybe fewer people will reply to what are obviously obnoxious threads you start. These threads are not in good faith and you’re not trying to actually learn anything or get help with anything. You’re trying to watch people argue with one another for your own twisted sense of entitlement. Get help.

Please tell me if I’ve missed any:
1) is your school too generous?
2) how receptive is your school to feedback?
3) private schools with proactive parents?
4) question on antisemitism. (Locked for being inherently antisemitic)
5) conservative or progressive schools?
6) are private schools really that special or just overpriced?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a troll post. Clearly from the same person trolling with about a half dozen other threads on the first 2 pages of this forum. All pointless, but written to evoke emotional responses.

Don’t read the thread and you will be happier.

I assure you, I’m not reading it. But I will call out your bad behavior. If other people want to waste their time, that’s up to them. But in calling out your trolling, maybe fewer people will reply to what are obviously obnoxious threads you start. These threads are not in good faith and you’re not trying to actually learn anything or get help with anything. You’re trying to watch people argue with one another for your own twisted sense of entitlement. Get help.

Please tell me if I’ve missed any:
1) is your school too generous?
2) how receptive is your school to feedback?
3) private schools with proactive parents?
4) question on antisemitism. (Locked for being inherently antisemitic)
5) conservative or progressive schools?
6) are private schools really that special or just overpriced?

Ok, don’t write and you will be happier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

More than just considering the last name.

Wrong. They only need so many super smart people. Sorry.

Yes, and you are not one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another benefit of legacies: they know what they’re getting. People have inflated ideas of what Harvard is as an institution or what Harvard can do for them. Legacies know it’s a school. It’s not even the best school available for every kid or future. Legacies are satisfied with the product and the price they’re paying for it.

This is true of private schools too. Legacies at St Albans know what they’re getting. They’re not disappointed that it’s not a utopia.

It is not about utopia. I suppose this whole selection process promise some social ordering will be kept. After all, the elite education isn't just for educating but for keeping up social orders.

On the practical side, even these hypocritical schools need some real meat, no? I understand if the parents are super successful or have huge societal impact then it is possible their children will be high achievers. But what about a stayed at home parent who once went to Ivies? What do they bring to the table? Why do we have to assume their children are going to do great things?

No but many parents sacrificing for private schools have unusually high expectations for them. Others don’t understand privates and think they’re promised things that they aren’t, like individualized learning or constant challenge.

Part of admissions is to find kids and families who “get” the schools. Legacies get them. They’re not expecting perfection or even asking questions like why is this better than public?

hmm? It works for second-tier private schools.
But for "big 3", Clearly, many many people think it is better that is why the admission rate is like 10%/ Do they need legacy to fill the spots?

Many people are or would be unhappy with the big 3. They may think it’s better than other options, but they think the schools should be more. This dissatisfaction also leads them to donate less. Some don’t even understand fundraising or the role or obligation beyond tuition.

They should make it super clear to folks. 70% admits are rich people who can afford the schools, have some VIP status, and their kids might or might have inferior IQs and abilities. The rest are open slots for public competition up for grabs. And if you get FA, thank to the rich people. Forget about social justice. It is a social network opportunity , and it is a just a business model. I hope at least they pay teachers more than the public schools.

Your numbers are way off.

[Anonymous]

This is so beautiful. It started in California last year. Who knows, there might be a follow up in other parts of the country.

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/09/30/california-bans-legacy-and-donor-preferences-in-admissions-at-private-nonprofit-universities/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another benefit of legacies: they know what they’re getting. People have inflated ideas of what Harvard is as an institution or what Harvard can do for them. Legacies know it’s a school. It’s not even the best school available for every kid or future. Legacies are satisfied with the product and the price they’re paying for it.

This is true of private schools too. Legacies at St Albans know what they’re getting. They’re not disappointed that it’s not a utopia.

It is not about utopia. I suppose this whole selection process promise some social ordering will be kept. After all, the elite education isn't just for educating but for keeping up social orders.

On the practical side, even these hypocritical schools need some real meat, no? I understand if the parents are super successful or have huge societal impact then it is possible their children will be high achievers. But what about a stayed at home parent who once went to Ivies? What do they bring to the table? Why do we have to assume their children are going to do great things?

No but many parents sacrificing for private schools have unusually high expectations for them. Others don’t understand privates and think they’re promised things that they aren’t, like individualized learning or constant challenge.

Part of admissions is to find kids and families who “get” the schools. Legacies get them. They’re not expecting perfection or even asking questions like why is this better than public?

hmm? It works for second-tier private schools.
But for "big 3", Clearly, many many people think it is better that is why the admission rate is like 10%/ Do they need legacy to fill the spots?

Many people are or would be unhappy with the big 3. They may think it’s better than other options, but they think the schools should be more. This dissatisfaction also leads them to donate less. Some don’t even understand fundraising or the role or obligation beyond tuition.

They should make it super clear to folks. 70% admits are rich people who can afford the schools, have some VIP status, and their kids might or might have inferior IQs and abilities. The rest are open slots for public competition up for grabs. And if you get FA, thank to the rich people. Forget about social justice. It is a social network opportunity , and it is a just a business model. I hope at least they pay teachers more than the public schools.

Your numbers are way off.

I’m not PP, but what are your so-called numbers that aren’t “way off”?

[Anonymous]

Legacies keep the alumi donation pipeline full. With no legacies donations would plummet. It is that simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Legacies keep the alumi donation pipeline full. With no legacies donations would plummet. It is that simple.

Ask MIT, John Hopkins, and Caltech, how do they manage without legacy admissions.

[Anonymous]

What makes you think that donations at JHU, MIT, and Caltech are on par or better than at schools with legacy admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What makes you think that donations at JHU, MIT, and Caltech are on par or better than at schools with legacy admissions?

What makes you think that without legacy admissions there is any shortfall in funding or deteriorating performance ?