Proposed legislation would ban legacy preference at colleges, universities across New York

[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:Wonderful. I hope it’s banned everywhere. It’s a joke.

+1.

+1 I started a thread about how legacy is basically racist because it mostly helps rich white people. I got slammed for that thread, probably by legacies.

I stated something similar to her:

"we are supposed to live in a democracy, not an aristocracy,".. "To me, it's one of the most blatant examples of unfairness and inequality,"

Of course, the people at the top want to continue with it because it benefits them.

The argument is not that different to what liberals say about how white men support Trump because they are afraid of losing power as a group.

When did colleges ever claim that admissions is entirely meritocratic or "democratic"? They can and do value all sorts of things that you might think are unfair or irrelevant. As long as they're not engaging in unlawful discrimination, what's your argument against that?

Typical response from a legacy admit.

It's not illegal, but it's wrong. As stated, it benefits mostly rich white people.

You only want the US to be a "democracy" when it comes to some things, but apparently, not when it comes to your little snowflake who probably couldn't make it into an ivy without legacy.

Legacy was originally used by elite institutions much like holistic admission was -- to keep the undesirables out.

The whole "pull yourself up by your boostraps" only applies to the middle/lower class. For rich people, they have legacy to prop them up.

It’s not a matter of what I want, it’s a matter of recognizing who it is who gets to decide what a university’s mission is. Why do you think that people outside universities should define universities’ missions for them?

Since you talk about “university’s mission”, Harvard college’s Vision, Mission, and History as given by Harvard is copied below. Now, show us where in Harvard talks about “legacy” and “legacy preference”?

The Transformative Power of a Liberal Arts and Sciences Education

Our mission to educate future leaders is woven throughout the Harvard College experience, inspiring every member of our community to strive toward a more just, fair, and promising world.

Mission
The mission of Harvard College is to educate the citizens and citizen-leaders for our society. We do this through our commitment to the transformative power of a liberal arts and sciences education.
Beginning in the classroom with exposure to new ideas, new ways of understanding, and new ways of knowing, students embark on a journey of intellectual transformation. Through a diverse living environment, where students live with people who are studying different topics, who come from different walks of life and have evolving identities, intellectual transformation is deepened and conditions for social transformation are created. From this we hope that students will begin to fashion their lives by gaining a sense of what they want to do with their gifts and talents, assessing their values and interests, and learning how they can best serve the world.

Vision
Harvard College sets the standard for residential liberal arts and sciences education. We have committed to creating and sustaining the conditions that enable all Harvard College students to experience an unparalleled educational journey that is intellectually, socially, and personally transformative.

History
History
When you attend Harvard College, you become a part of the rich history of the nation’s oldest institution of higher learning. Founded in 1636, Harvard has changed dramatically over the centuries, but has always served as a haven for the world’s most ambitious scholars and leaders.

“Mission” in the sense I’m using it is not limited to a formal mission statement written on a piece of paper. It refers to the institutional priorities and preferences as defined by the institution.

If Harvard formally defined the way you are thinking, show me where you found it.

A formal definition is not the point. None of these colleges deny that they give a preference to legacy applicants. They’re not hiding it, it is one of their many priorities.

In other words, Harvard's Vision and Mission are lofty but EMPTY words that have no practical meaning in practice.

You’re free to think that if you want. I think many would disagree with you. Many would point to Harvard’s very substantial financial aid policy and grants, including the 20% of families with incomes less than $65k who need to pay $0 in tuition and don’t need to take out loans.

But the point is, these are Harvard’s decisions to make. They don’t need to make admissions decisions solely based on grades and test scores, even if you and others scream that that is the only “fair” or “meritocratic” thing to do. They don’t need to agree with the criteria by which are you judging them. And clearly, they don’t.

Wht you keep saying something like ' solely based on grades and test scores'
nobody said that.

Just don't discriminate based on race and legacy status, but equal opportunity for each individual by looking at each candidate as an equal individual.
That's all

[Anonymous]

sucks to be Harvard.

[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:Wonderful. I hope it’s banned everywhere. It’s a joke.

+1.

+1 I started a thread about how legacy is basically racist because it mostly helps rich white people. I got slammed for that thread, probably by legacies.

I stated something similar to her:

"we are supposed to live in a democracy, not an aristocracy,".. "To me, it's one of the most blatant examples of unfairness and inequality,"

Of course, the people at the top want to continue with it because it benefits them.

The argument is not that different to what liberals say about how white men support Trump because they are afraid of losing power as a group.

When did colleges ever claim that admissions is entirely meritocratic or "democratic"? They can and do value all sorts of things that you might think are unfair or irrelevant. As long as they're not engaging in unlawful discrimination, what's your argument against that?

Typical response from a legacy admit.

It's not illegal, but it's wrong. As stated, it benefits mostly rich white people.

You only want the US to be a "democracy" when it comes to some things, but apparently, not when it comes to your little snowflake who probably couldn't make it into an ivy without legacy.

Legacy was originally used by elite institutions much like holistic admission was -- to keep the undesirables out.

The whole "pull yourself up by your boostraps" only applies to the middle/lower class. For rich people, they have legacy to prop them up.

It’s not a matter of what I want, it’s a matter of recognizing who it is who gets to decide what a university’s mission is. Why do you think that people outside universities should define universities’ missions for them?

Since you talk about “university’s mission”, Harvard college’s Vision, Mission, and History as given by Harvard is copied below. Now, show us where in Harvard talks about “legacy” and “legacy preference”?

The Transformative Power of a Liberal Arts and Sciences Education

Our mission to educate future leaders is woven throughout the Harvard College experience, inspiring every member of our community to strive toward a more just, fair, and promising world.

Mission
The mission of Harvard College is to educate the citizens and citizen-leaders for our society. We do this through our commitment to the transformative power of a liberal arts and sciences education.
Beginning in the classroom with exposure to new ideas, new ways of understanding, and new ways of knowing, students embark on a journey of intellectual transformation. Through a diverse living environment, where students live with people who are studying different topics, who come from different walks of life and have evolving identities, intellectual transformation is deepened and conditions for social transformation are created. From this we hope that students will begin to fashion their lives by gaining a sense of what they want to do with their gifts and talents, assessing their values and interests, and learning how they can best serve the world.

Vision
Harvard College sets the standard for residential liberal arts and sciences education. We have committed to creating and sustaining the conditions that enable all Harvard College students to experience an unparalleled educational journey that is intellectually, socially, and personally transformative.

History
History
When you attend Harvard College, you become a part of the rich history of the nation’s oldest institution of higher learning. Founded in 1636, Harvard has changed dramatically over the centuries, but has always served as a haven for the world’s most ambitious scholars and leaders.

“Mission” in the sense I’m using it is not limited to a formal mission statement written on a piece of paper. It refers to the institutional priorities and preferences as defined by the institution.

If Harvard formally defined the way you are thinking, show me where you found it.

A formal definition is not the point. None of these colleges deny that they give a preference to legacy applicants. They’re not hiding it, it is one of their many priorities.

In other words, Harvard's Vision and Mission are lofty but EMPTY words that have no practical meaning in practice.

You’re free to think that if you want. I think many would disagree with you. Many would point to Harvard’s very substantial financial aid policy and grants, including the 20% of families with incomes less than $65k who need to pay $0 in tuition and don’t need to take out loans.

But the point is, these are Harvard’s decisions to make. They don’t need to make admissions decisions solely based on grades and test scores, even if you and others scream that that is the only “fair” or “meritocratic” thing to do. They don’t need to agree with the criteria by which are you judging them. And clearly, they don’t.

Wht you keep saying something like ' solely based on grades and test scores'
nobody said that.

Just don't discriminate based on race and legacy status, but equal opportunity for each individual by looking at each candidate as an equal individual.
That's all

Let me try to reorient this discussion. This exchange all started based on these assertions, presumably made by you: "we are supposed to live in a democracy, not an aristocracy,".. "To me, it's one of the most blatant examples of unfairness and inequality,"

The fact that we live in a democracy does not mean that colleges need to apply some sort of admissions criteria that fit your definition of “equality.” You are applying standards that they just do not agree with and do not subscribe to. The things that you are saying shouldn’t be considered are just your subjective criteria as to what colleges can consider that an “individual” brings to the table, and what they cannot consider. But that’s just your opinion; others might believe that extracurriculars shouldn’t be considered, and still others might believe that athletic ability shouldn’t be considered. “Equality” or “fairness” does not mean that every single applicant has an equal chance at every single spot. That’s not what discrimination is. If colleges want to consider everything that an applicant brings to the table—including family connection and racial identity—they are perfectly entitled to do so. And in considering those factors they’re not “discriminating” against applicants who are not in those groups, just as they are not discriminating against non-athletes because they consider and recruit for athletic ability.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Wonderful. I hope it’s banned everywhere. It’s a joke.

+1.

+1 I started a thread about how legacy is basically racist because it mostly helps rich white people. I got slammed for that thread, probably by legacies.

I stated something similar to her:

"we are supposed to live in a democracy, not an aristocracy,".. "To me, it's one of the most blatant examples of unfairness and inequality,"

Of course, the people at the top want to continue with it because it benefits them.

The argument is not that different to what liberals say about how white men support Trump because they are afraid of losing power as a group.

When did colleges ever claim that admissions is entirely meritocratic or "democratic"? They can and do value all sorts of things that you might think are unfair or irrelevant. As long as they're not engaging in unlawful discrimination, what's your argument against that?

Typical response from a legacy admit.

It's not illegal, but it's wrong. As stated, it benefits mostly rich white people.

You only want the US to be a "democracy" when it comes to some things, but apparently, not when it comes to your little snowflake who probably couldn't make it into an ivy without legacy.

Legacy was originally used by elite institutions much like holistic admission was -- to keep the undesirables out.

The whole "pull yourself up by your boostraps" only applies to the middle/lower class. For rich people, they have legacy to prop them up.

It’s not a matter of what I want, it’s a matter of recognizing who it is who gets to decide what a university’s mission is. Why do you think that people outside universities should define universities’ missions for them?

Since you talk about “university’s mission”, Harvard college’s Vision, Mission, and History as given by Harvard is copied below. Now, show us where in Harvard talks about “legacy” and “legacy preference”?

The Transformative Power of a Liberal Arts and Sciences Education

Our mission to educate future leaders is woven throughout the Harvard College experience, inspiring every member of our community to strive toward a more just, fair, and promising world.

Mission
The mission of Harvard College is to educate the citizens and citizen-leaders for our society. We do this through our commitment to the transformative power of a liberal arts and sciences education.
Beginning in the classroom with exposure to new ideas, new ways of understanding, and new ways of knowing, students embark on a journey of intellectual transformation. Through a diverse living environment, where students live with people who are studying different topics, who come from different walks of life and have evolving identities, intellectual transformation is deepened and conditions for social transformation are created. From this we hope that students will begin to fashion their lives by gaining a sense of what they want to do with their gifts and talents, assessing their values and interests, and learning how they can best serve the world.

Vision
Harvard College sets the standard for residential liberal arts and sciences education. We have committed to creating and sustaining the conditions that enable all Harvard College students to experience an unparalleled educational journey that is intellectually, socially, and personally transformative.

History
History
When you attend Harvard College, you become a part of the rich history of the nation’s oldest institution of higher learning. Founded in 1636, Harvard has changed dramatically over the centuries, but has always served as a haven for the world’s most ambitious scholars and leaders.

“Mission” in the sense I’m using it is not limited to a formal mission statement written on a piece of paper. It refers to the institutional priorities and preferences as defined by the institution.

If Harvard formally defined the way you are thinking, show me where you found it.

A formal definition is not the point. None of these colleges deny that they give a preference to legacy applicants. They’re not hiding it, it is one of their many priorities.

In other words, Harvard's Vision and Mission are lofty but EMPTY words that have no practical meaning in practice.

You’re free to think that if you want. I think many would disagree with you. Many would point to Harvard’s very substantial financial aid policy and grants, including the 20% of families with incomes less than $65k who need to pay $0 in tuition and don’t need to take out loans.

But the point is, these are Harvard’s decisions to make. They don’t need to make admissions decisions solely based on grades and test scores, even if you and others scream that that is the only “fair” or “meritocratic” thing to do. They don’t need to agree with the criteria by which are you judging them. And clearly, they don’t.

Wht you keep saying something like ' solely based on grades and test scores'
nobody said that.

Just don't discriminate based on race and legacy status, but equal opportunity for each individual by looking at each candidate as an equal individual.
That's all

Let me try to reorient this discussion. This exchange all started based on these assertions, presumably made by you: "we are supposed to live in a democracy, not an aristocracy,".. "To me, it's one of the most blatant examples of unfairness and inequality,"

The fact that we live in a democracy does not mean that colleges need to apply some sort of admissions criteria that fit your definition of “equality.” You are applying standards that they just do not agree with and do not subscribe to. The things that you are saying shouldn’t be considered are just your subjective criteria as to what colleges can consider that an “individual” brings to the table, and what they cannot consider. But that’s just your opinion; others might believe that extracurriculars shouldn’t be considered, and still others might believe that athletic ability shouldn’t be considered. “Equality” or “fairness” does not mean that every single applicant has an equal chance at every single spot. That’s not what discrimination is. If colleges want to consider everything that an applicant brings to the table—including family connection and racial identity—they are perfectly entitled to do so. And in considering those factors they’re not “discriminating” against applicants who are not in those groups, just as they are not discriminating against non-athletes because they consider and recruit for athletic ability.

Excellent points.

[Anonymous]

100%

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Wonderful. I hope it’s banned everywhere. It’s a joke.

+1.

+1 I started a thread about how legacy is basically racist because it mostly helps rich white people. I got slammed for that thread, probably by legacies.

I stated something similar to her:

"we are supposed to live in a democracy, not an aristocracy,".. "To me, it's one of the most blatant examples of unfairness and inequality,"

Of course, the people at the top want to continue with it because it benefits them.

The argument is not that different to what liberals say about how white men support Trump because they are afraid of losing power as a group.

When did colleges ever claim that admissions is entirely meritocratic or "democratic"? They can and do value all sorts of things that you might think are unfair or irrelevant. As long as they're not engaging in unlawful discrimination, what's your argument against that?

Typical response from a legacy admit.

It's not illegal, but it's wrong. As stated, it benefits mostly rich white people.

You only want the US to be a "democracy" when it comes to some things, but apparently, not when it comes to your little snowflake who probably couldn't make it into an ivy without legacy.

Legacy was originally used by elite institutions much like holistic admission was -- to keep the undesirables out.

The whole "pull yourself up by your boostraps" only applies to the middle/lower class. For rich people, they have legacy to prop them up.

It’s not a matter of what I want, it’s a matter of recognizing who it is who gets to decide what a university’s mission is. Why do you think that people outside universities should define universities’ missions for them?

Since you talk about “university’s mission”, Harvard college’s Vision, Mission, and History as given by Harvard is copied below. Now, show us where in Harvard talks about “legacy” and “legacy preference”?

The Transformative Power of a Liberal Arts and Sciences Education

Our mission to educate future leaders is woven throughout the Harvard College experience, inspiring every member of our community to strive toward a more just, fair, and promising world.

Mission
The mission of Harvard College is to educate the citizens and citizen-leaders for our society. We do this through our commitment to the transformative power of a liberal arts and sciences education.
Beginning in the classroom with exposure to new ideas, new ways of understanding, and new ways of knowing, students embark on a journey of intellectual transformation. Through a diverse living environment, where students live with people who are studying different topics, who come from different walks of life and have evolving identities, intellectual transformation is deepened and conditions for social transformation are created. From this we hope that students will begin to fashion their lives by gaining a sense of what they want to do with their gifts and talents, assessing their values and interests, and learning how they can best serve the world.

Vision
Harvard College sets the standard for residential liberal arts and sciences education. We have committed to creating and sustaining the conditions that enable all Harvard College students to experience an unparalleled educational journey that is intellectually, socially, and personally transformative.

History
History
When you attend Harvard College, you become a part of the rich history of the nation’s oldest institution of higher learning. Founded in 1636, Harvard has changed dramatically over the centuries, but has always served as a haven for the world’s most ambitious scholars and leaders.

“Mission” in the sense I’m using it is not limited to a formal mission statement written on a piece of paper. It refers to the institutional priorities and preferences as defined by the institution.

If Harvard formally defined the way you are thinking, show me where you found it.

A formal definition is not the point. None of these colleges deny that they give a preference to legacy applicants. They’re not hiding it, it is one of their many priorities.

In other words, Harvard's Vision and Mission are lofty but EMPTY words that have no practical meaning in practice.

You’re free to think that if you want. I think many would disagree with you. Many would point to Harvard’s very substantial financial aid policy and grants, including the 20% of families with incomes less than $65k who need to pay $0 in tuition and don’t need to take out loans.

But the point is, these are Harvard’s decisions to make. They don’t need to make admissions decisions solely based on grades and test scores, even if you and others scream that that is the only “fair” or “meritocratic” thing to do. They don’t need to agree with the criteria by which are you judging them. And clearly, they don’t.

Wht you keep saying something like ' solely based on grades and test scores'
nobody said that.

Just don't discriminate based on race and legacy status, but equal opportunity for each individual by looking at each candidate as an equal individual.
That's all

Let me try to reorient this discussion. This exchange all started based on these assertions, presumably made by you: "we are supposed to live in a democracy, not an aristocracy,".. "To me, it's one of the most blatant examples of unfairness and inequality,"

The fact that we live in a democracy does not mean that colleges need to apply some sort of admissions criteria that fit your definition of “equality.” You are applying standards that they just do not agree with and do not subscribe to. The things that you are saying shouldn’t be considered are just your subjective criteria as to what colleges can consider that an “individual” brings to the table, and what they cannot consider. But that’s just your opinion; others might believe that extracurriculars shouldn’t be considered, and still others might believe that athletic ability shouldn’t be considered. “Equality” or “fairness” does not mean that every single applicant has an equal chance at every single spot. That’s not what discrimination is. If colleges want to consider everything that an applicant brings to the table—including family connection and racial identity—they are perfectly entitled to do so. And in considering those factors they’re not “discriminating” against applicants who are not in those groups, just as they are not discriminating against non-athletes because they consider and recruit for athletic ability.

blah blah blah WTF
It's not discriminaiton if you discriminate a person becaue of the person is in a certain group????

You are completely lost.

The athletic spot is given to anyone regardless of skin color or parental status or whaever.
Everyone can try, and make it solely on atheltic merit. There's no racial or legacy discrimination in that.
The academic spots should be given the same way.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Wonderful. I hope it’s banned everywhere. It’s a joke.

+1.

+1 I started a thread about how legacy is basically racist because it mostly helps rich white people. I got slammed for that thread, probably by legacies.

I stated something similar to her:

"we are supposed to live in a democracy, not an aristocracy,".. "To me, it's one of the most blatant examples of unfairness and inequality,"

Of course, the people at the top want to continue with it because it benefits them.

The argument is not that different to what liberals say about how white men support Trump because they are afraid of losing power as a group.

When did colleges ever claim that admissions is entirely meritocratic or "democratic"? They can and do value all sorts of things that you might think are unfair or irrelevant. As long as they're not engaging in unlawful discrimination, what's your argument against that?

Typical response from a legacy admit.

It's not illegal, but it's wrong. As stated, it benefits mostly rich white people.

You only want the US to be a "democracy" when it comes to some things, but apparently, not when it comes to your little snowflake who probably couldn't make it into an ivy without legacy.

Legacy was originally used by elite institutions much like holistic admission was -- to keep the undesirables out.

The whole "pull yourself up by your boostraps" only applies to the middle/lower class. For rich people, they have legacy to prop them up.

It’s not a matter of what I want, it’s a matter of recognizing who it is who gets to decide what a university’s mission is. Why do you think that people outside universities should define universities’ missions for them?

Since you talk about “university’s mission”, Harvard college’s Vision, Mission, and History as given by Harvard is copied below. Now, show us where in Harvard talks about “legacy” and “legacy preference”?

The Transformative Power of a Liberal Arts and Sciences Education

Our mission to educate future leaders is woven throughout the Harvard College experience, inspiring every member of our community to strive toward a more just, fair, and promising world.

Mission
The mission of Harvard College is to educate the citizens and citizen-leaders for our society. We do this through our commitment to the transformative power of a liberal arts and sciences education.
Beginning in the classroom with exposure to new ideas, new ways of understanding, and new ways of knowing, students embark on a journey of intellectual transformation. Through a diverse living environment, where students live with people who are studying different topics, who come from different walks of life and have evolving identities, intellectual transformation is deepened and conditions for social transformation are created. From this we hope that students will begin to fashion their lives by gaining a sense of what they want to do with their gifts and talents, assessing their values and interests, and learning how they can best serve the world.

Vision
Harvard College sets the standard for residential liberal arts and sciences education. We have committed to creating and sustaining the conditions that enable all Harvard College students to experience an unparalleled educational journey that is intellectually, socially, and personally transformative.

History
History
When you attend Harvard College, you become a part of the rich history of the nation’s oldest institution of higher learning. Founded in 1636, Harvard has changed dramatically over the centuries, but has always served as a haven for the world’s most ambitious scholars and leaders.

“Mission” in the sense I’m using it is not limited to a formal mission statement written on a piece of paper. It refers to the institutional priorities and preferences as defined by the institution.

If Harvard formally defined the way you are thinking, show me where you found it.

A formal definition is not the point. None of these colleges deny that they give a preference to legacy applicants. They’re not hiding it, it is one of their many priorities.

In other words, Harvard's Vision and Mission are lofty but EMPTY words that have no practical meaning in practice.

You’re free to think that if you want. I think many would disagree with you. Many would point to Harvard’s very substantial financial aid policy and grants, including the 20% of families with incomes less than $65k who need to pay $0 in tuition and don’t need to take out loans.

But the point is, these are Harvard’s decisions to make. They don’t need to make admissions decisions solely based on grades and test scores, even if you and others scream that that is the only “fair” or “meritocratic” thing to do. They don’t need to agree with the criteria by which are you judging them. And clearly, they don’t.

Wht you keep saying something like ' solely based on grades and test scores'
nobody said that.

Just don't discriminate based on race and legacy status, but equal opportunity for each individual by looking at each candidate as an equal individual.
That's all

Let me try to reorient this discussion. This exchange all started based on these assertions, presumably made by you: "we are supposed to live in a democracy, not an aristocracy,".. "To me, it's one of the most blatant examples of unfairness and inequality,"

The fact that we live in a democracy does not mean that colleges need to apply some sort of admissions criteria that fit your definition of “equality.” You are applying standards that they just do not agree with and do not subscribe to. The things that you are saying shouldn’t be considered are just your subjective criteria as to what colleges can consider that an “individual” brings to the table, and what they cannot consider. But that’s just your opinion; others might believe that extracurriculars shouldn’t be considered, and still others might believe that athletic ability shouldn’t be considered. “Equality” or “fairness” does not mean that every single applicant has an equal chance at every single spot. That’s not what discrimination is. If colleges want to consider everything that an applicant brings to the table—including family connection and racial identity—they are perfectly entitled to do so. And in considering those factors they’re not “discriminating” against applicants who are not in those groups, just as they are not discriminating against non-athletes because they consider and recruit for athletic ability.

Nobody cares about your weird ass definition on equality and discrimination
If the college makes you write down who your father is or what your race is, then use it, then t's discrimination and far from equality.

The society began to realize that hence we have a flood of lawsuits and regulations to ban it.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonderful. I hope it’s banned everywhere. It’s a joke.

+1.

+1 I started a thread about how legacy is basically racist because it mostly helps rich white people. I got slammed for that thread, probably by legacies.

I stated something similar to her:

"we are supposed to live in a democracy, not an aristocracy,".. "To me, it's one of the most blatant examples of unfairness and inequality,"

Of course, the people at the top want to continue with it because it benefits them.

The argument is not that different to what liberals say about how white men support Trump because they are afraid of losing power as a group.

When did colleges ever claim that admissions is entirely meritocratic or "democratic"? They can and do value all sorts of things that you might think are unfair or irrelevant. As long as they're not engaging in unlawful discrimination, what's your argument against that?

Typical response from a legacy admit.

It's not illegal, but it's wrong. As stated, it benefits mostly rich white people.

You only want the US to be a "democracy" when it comes to some things, but apparently, not when it comes to your little snowflake who probably couldn't make it into an ivy without legacy.

Legacy was originally used by elite institutions much like holistic admission was -- to keep the undesirables out.

The whole "pull yourself up by your boostraps" only applies to the middle/lower class. For rich people, they have legacy to prop them up.

It’s not a matter of what I want, it’s a matter of recognizing who it is who gets to decide what a university’s mission is. Why do you think that people outside universities should define universities’ missions for them?

Since you talk about “university’s mission”, Harvard college’s Vision, Mission, and History as given by Harvard is copied below. Now, show us where in Harvard talks about “legacy” and “legacy preference”?

The Transformative Power of a Liberal Arts and Sciences Education

Our mission to educate future leaders is woven throughout the Harvard College experience, inspiring every member of our community to strive toward a more just, fair, and promising world.

Mission
The mission of Harvard College is to educate the citizens and citizen-leaders for our society. We do this through our commitment to the transformative power of a liberal arts and sciences education.
Beginning in the classroom with exposure to new ideas, new ways of understanding, and new ways of knowing, students embark on a journey of intellectual transformation. Through a diverse living environment, where students live with people who are studying different topics, who come from different walks of life and have evolving identities, intellectual transformation is deepened and conditions for social transformation are created. From this we hope that students will begin to fashion their lives by gaining a sense of what they want to do with their gifts and talents, assessing their values and interests, and learning how they can best serve the world.

Vision
Harvard College sets the standard for residential liberal arts and sciences education. We have committed to creating and sustaining the conditions that enable all Harvard College students to experience an unparalleled educational journey that is intellectually, socially, and personally transformative.

History
History
When you attend Harvard College, you become a part of the rich history of the nation’s oldest institution of higher learning. Founded in 1636, Harvard has changed dramatically over the centuries, but has always served as a haven for the world’s most ambitious scholars and leaders.

“Mission” in the sense I’m using it is not limited to a formal mission statement written on a piece of paper. It refers to the institutional priorities and preferences as defined by the institution.

If Harvard formally defined the way you are thinking, show me where you found it.

A formal definition is not the point. None of these colleges deny that they give a preference to legacy applicants. They’re not hiding it, it is one of their many priorities.

In other words, Harvard's Vision and Mission are lofty but EMPTY words that have no practical meaning in practice.

You’re free to think that if you want. I think many would disagree with you. Many would point to Harvard’s very substantial financial aid policy and grants, including the 20% of families with incomes less than $65k who need to pay $0 in tuition and don’t need to take out loans.

But the point is, these are Harvard’s decisions to make. They don’t need to make admissions decisions solely based on grades and test scores, even if you and others scream that that is the only “fair” or “meritocratic” thing to do. They don’t need to agree with the criteria by which are you judging them. And clearly, they don’t.

Wht you keep saying something like ' solely based on grades and test scores'
nobody said that.

Just don't discriminate based on race and legacy status, but equal opportunity for each individual by looking at each candidate as an equal individual.
That's all

Let me try to reorient this discussion. This exchange all started based on these assertions, presumably made by you: "we are supposed to live in a democracy, not an aristocracy,".. "To me, it's one of the most blatant examples of unfairness and inequality,"

The fact that we live in a democracy does not mean that colleges need to apply some sort of admissions criteria that fit your definition of “equality.” You are applying standards that they just do not agree with and do not subscribe to. The things that you are saying shouldn’t be considered are just your subjective criteria as to what colleges can consider that an “individual” brings to the table, and what they cannot consider. But that’s just your opinion; others might believe that extracurriculars shouldn’t be considered, and still others might believe that athletic ability shouldn’t be considered. “Equality” or “fairness” does not mean that every single applicant has an equal chance at every single spot. That’s not what discrimination is. If colleges want to consider everything that an applicant brings to the table—including family connection and racial identity—they are perfectly entitled to do so. And in considering those factors they’re not “discriminating” against applicants who are not in those groups, just as they are not discriminating against non-athletes because they consider and recruit for athletic ability.

blah blah blah WTF
It's not discriminaiton if you discriminate a person becaue of the person is in a certain group????

You are completely lost.

The athletic spot is given to anyone regardless of skin color or parental status or whaever.
Everyone can try, and make it solely on atheltic merit. There's no racial or legacy discrimination in that.
The academic spots should be given the same way.

We are going in circles now, but I promise you I'm not lost. Your reference to "academic spots" (presumably in contrast to "athletic spots") shows that you don't understand how colleges approach admissions. They look at all aspects of every applicant and what that applicant brings to the table, including how they might add to racial and socioeconomic diversity, whether they would be a 1st gen college student (another factor you might think is discriminatory because it is based on family attributes), what family connection and history an applicant might have, what interesting extracurriculars an applicant might be engaged in pursuing including athletics, and what their academic interests are and academic excellence they bring. This is how they try to build a vital and exciting, multi-faceted collegiate environment. To them, family connection and tradition, and racial and economic diversity, are important values that they want to have represented in their community. I understand that those values aren't important to you and you think that in considering them the colleges are discriminating; while I disagree with your conclusion, it's really not important whether I agree or not. Because these are the colleges' values and priorities. So while you can go on as much as you want about how you think that is unfair or discriminatory or un-democratic, you are arguing based on a paradigm that the colleges simply don't share with you. They value certain things differently than you, which they are perfectly entitled to do.

I've appreciated this discussion with you, but for me it's come to an end, as I do think we are going in circles and further discussion would not be productive.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonderful. I hope it’s banned everywhere. It’s a joke.

+1.

+1 I started a thread about how legacy is basically racist because it mostly helps rich white people. I got slammed for that thread, probably by legacies.

I stated something similar to her:

"we are supposed to live in a democracy, not an aristocracy,".. "To me, it's one of the most blatant examples of unfairness and inequality,"

Of course, the people at the top want to continue with it because it benefits them.

The argument is not that different to what liberals say about how white men support Trump because they are afraid of losing power as a group.

When did colleges ever claim that admissions is entirely meritocratic or "democratic"? They can and do value all sorts of things that you might think are unfair or irrelevant. As long as they're not engaging in unlawful discrimination, what's your argument against that?

Typical response from a legacy admit.

It's not illegal, but it's wrong. As stated, it benefits mostly rich white people.

You only want the US to be a "democracy" when it comes to some things, but apparently, not when it comes to your little snowflake who probably couldn't make it into an ivy without legacy.

Legacy was originally used by elite institutions much like holistic admission was -- to keep the undesirables out.

The whole "pull yourself up by your boostraps" only applies to the middle/lower class. For rich people, they have legacy to prop them up.

It’s not a matter of what I want, it’s a matter of recognizing who it is who gets to decide what a university’s mission is. Why do you think that people outside universities should define universities’ missions for them?

Since you talk about “university’s mission”, Harvard college’s Vision, Mission, and History as given by Harvard is copied below. Now, show us where in Harvard talks about “legacy” and “legacy preference”?

The Transformative Power of a Liberal Arts and Sciences Education

Our mission to educate future leaders is woven throughout the Harvard College experience, inspiring every member of our community to strive toward a more just, fair, and promising world.

Mission
The mission of Harvard College is to educate the citizens and citizen-leaders for our society. We do this through our commitment to the transformative power of a liberal arts and sciences education.
Beginning in the classroom with exposure to new ideas, new ways of understanding, and new ways of knowing, students embark on a journey of intellectual transformation. Through a diverse living environment, where students live with people who are studying different topics, who come from different walks of life and have evolving identities, intellectual transformation is deepened and conditions for social transformation are created. From this we hope that students will begin to fashion their lives by gaining a sense of what they want to do with their gifts and talents, assessing their values and interests, and learning how they can best serve the world.

Vision
Harvard College sets the standard for residential liberal arts and sciences education. We have committed to creating and sustaining the conditions that enable all Harvard College students to experience an unparalleled educational journey that is intellectually, socially, and personally transformative.

History
History
When you attend Harvard College, you become a part of the rich history of the nation’s oldest institution of higher learning. Founded in 1636, Harvard has changed dramatically over the centuries, but has always served as a haven for the world’s most ambitious scholars and leaders.

“Mission” in the sense I’m using it is not limited to a formal mission statement written on a piece of paper. It refers to the institutional priorities and preferences as defined by the institution.

If Harvard formally defined the way you are thinking, show me where you found it.

A formal definition is not the point. None of these colleges deny that they give a preference to legacy applicants. They’re not hiding it, it is one of their many priorities.

In other words, Harvard's Vision and Mission are lofty but EMPTY words that have no practical meaning in practice.

You’re free to think that if you want. I think many would disagree with you. Many would point to Harvard’s very substantial financial aid policy and grants, including the 20% of families with incomes less than $65k who need to pay $0 in tuition and don’t need to take out loans.

But the point is, these are Harvard’s decisions to make. They don’t need to make admissions decisions solely based on grades and test scores, even if you and others scream that that is the only “fair” or “meritocratic” thing to do. They don’t need to agree with the criteria by which are you judging them. And clearly, they don’t.

Wht you keep saying something like ' solely based on grades and test scores'
nobody said that.

Just don't discriminate based on race and legacy status, but equal opportunity for each individual by looking at each candidate as an equal individual.
That's all

Let me try to reorient this discussion. This exchange all started based on these assertions, presumably made by you: "we are supposed to live in a democracy, not an aristocracy,".. "To me, it's one of the most blatant examples of unfairness and inequality,"

The fact that we live in a democracy does not mean that colleges need to apply some sort of admissions criteria that fit your definition of “equality.” You are applying standards that they just do not agree with and do not subscribe to. The things that you are saying shouldn’t be considered are just your subjective criteria as to what colleges can consider that an “individual” brings to the table, and what they cannot consider. But that’s just your opinion; others might believe that extracurriculars shouldn’t be considered, and still others might believe that athletic ability shouldn’t be considered. “Equality” or “fairness” does not mean that every single applicant has an equal chance at every single spot. That’s not what discrimination is. If colleges want to consider everything that an applicant brings to the table—including family connection and racial identity—they are perfectly entitled to do so. And in considering those factors they’re not “discriminating” against applicants who are not in those groups, just as they are not discriminating against non-athletes because they consider and recruit for athletic ability.

Nobody cares about your weird ass definition on equality and discrimination
If the college makes you write down who your father is or what your race is, then use it, then t's discrimination and far from equality.

The society began to realize that hence we have a flood of lawsuits and regulations to ban it.

#ckueless

You must be a troll.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonderful. I hope it’s banned everywhere. It’s a joke.

+1.

+1 I started a thread about how legacy is basically racist because it mostly helps rich white people. I got slammed for that thread, probably by legacies.

I stated something similar to her:

"we are supposed to live in a democracy, not an aristocracy,".. "To me, it's one of the most blatant examples of unfairness and inequality,"

Of course, the people at the top want to continue with it because it benefits them.

The argument is not that different to what liberals say about how white men support Trump because they are afraid of losing power as a group.

When did colleges ever claim that admissions is entirely meritocratic or "democratic"? They can and do value all sorts of things that you might think are unfair or irrelevant. As long as they're not engaging in unlawful discrimination, what's your argument against that?

Typical response from a legacy admit.

It's not illegal, but it's wrong. As stated, it benefits mostly rich white people.

You only want the US to be a "democracy" when it comes to some things, but apparently, not when it comes to your little snowflake who probably couldn't make it into an ivy without legacy.

Legacy was originally used by elite institutions much like holistic admission was -- to keep the undesirables out.

The whole "pull yourself up by your boostraps" only applies to the middle/lower class. For rich people, they have legacy to prop them up.

It’s not a matter of what I want, it’s a matter of recognizing who it is who gets to decide what a university’s mission is. Why do you think that people outside universities should define universities’ missions for them?

Since you talk about “university’s mission”, Harvard college’s Vision, Mission, and History as given by Harvard is copied below. Now, show us where in Harvard talks about “legacy” and “legacy preference”?

The Transformative Power of a Liberal Arts and Sciences Education

Our mission to educate future leaders is woven throughout the Harvard College experience, inspiring every member of our community to strive toward a more just, fair, and promising world.

Mission
The mission of Harvard College is to educate the citizens and citizen-leaders for our society. We do this through our commitment to the transformative power of a liberal arts and sciences education.
Beginning in the classroom with exposure to new ideas, new ways of understanding, and new ways of knowing, students embark on a journey of intellectual transformation. Through a diverse living environment, where students live with people who are studying different topics, who come from different walks of life and have evolving identities, intellectual transformation is deepened and conditions for social transformation are created. From this we hope that students will begin to fashion their lives by gaining a sense of what they want to do with their gifts and talents, assessing their values and interests, and learning how they can best serve the world.

Vision
Harvard College sets the standard for residential liberal arts and sciences education. We have committed to creating and sustaining the conditions that enable all Harvard College students to experience an unparalleled educational journey that is intellectually, socially, and personally transformative.

History
History
When you attend Harvard College, you become a part of the rich history of the nation’s oldest institution of higher learning. Founded in 1636, Harvard has changed dramatically over the centuries, but has always served as a haven for the world’s most ambitious scholars and leaders.

“Mission” in the sense I’m using it is not limited to a formal mission statement written on a piece of paper. It refers to the institutional priorities and preferences as defined by the institution.

If Harvard formally defined the way you are thinking, show me where you found it.

A formal definition is not the point. None of these colleges deny that they give a preference to legacy applicants. They’re not hiding it, it is one of their many priorities.

In other words, Harvard's Vision and Mission are lofty but EMPTY words that have no practical meaning in practice.

You’re free to think that if you want. I think many would disagree with you. Many would point to Harvard’s very substantial financial aid policy and grants, including the 20% of families with incomes less than $65k who need to pay $0 in tuition and don’t need to take out loans.

But the point is, these are Harvard’s decisions to make. They don’t need to make admissions decisions solely based on grades and test scores, even if you and others scream that that is the only “fair” or “meritocratic” thing to do. They don’t need to agree with the criteria by which are you judging them. And clearly, they don’t.

Wht you keep saying something like ' solely based on grades and test scores'
nobody said that.

Just don't discriminate based on race and legacy status, but equal opportunity for each individual by looking at each candidate as an equal individual.
That's all

Let me try to reorient this discussion. This exchange all started based on these assertions, presumably made by you: "we are supposed to live in a democracy, not an aristocracy,".. "To me, it's one of the most blatant examples of unfairness and inequality,"

The fact that we live in a democracy does not mean that colleges need to apply some sort of admissions criteria that fit your definition of “equality.” You are applying standards that they just do not agree with and do not subscribe to. The things that you are saying shouldn’t be considered are just your subjective criteria as to what colleges can consider that an “individual” brings to the table, and what they cannot consider. But that’s just your opinion; others might believe that extracurriculars shouldn’t be considered, and still others might believe that athletic ability shouldn’t be considered. “Equality” or “fairness” does not mean that every single applicant has an equal chance at every single spot. That’s not what discrimination is. If colleges want to consider everything that an applicant brings to the table—including family connection and racial identity—they are perfectly entitled to do so. And in considering those factors they’re not “discriminating” against applicants who are not in those groups, just as they are not discriminating against non-athletes because they consider and recruit for athletic ability.

blah blah blah WTF
It's not discriminaiton if you discriminate a person becaue of the person is in a certain group????

You are completely lost.

The athletic spot is given to anyone regardless of skin color or parental status or whaever.
Everyone can try, and make it solely on atheltic merit. There's no racial or legacy discrimination in that.
The academic spots should be given the same way.

We are going in circles now, but I promise you I'm not lost. Your reference to "academic spots" (presumably in contrast to "athletic spots") shows that you don't understand how colleges approach admissions. They look at all aspects of every applicant and what that applicant brings to the table, including how they might add to racial and socioeconomic diversity, whether they would be a 1st gen college student (another factor you might think is discriminatory because it is based on family attributes), what family connection and history an applicant might have, what interesting extracurriculars an applicant might be engaged in pursuing including athletics, and what their academic interests are and academic excellence they bring. This is how they try to build a vital and exciting, multi-faceted collegiate environment. To them, family connection and tradition, and racial and economic diversity, are important values that they want to have represented in their community. I understand that those values aren't important to you and you think that in considering them the colleges are discriminating; while I disagree with your conclusion, it's really not important whether I agree or not. Because these are the colleges' values and priorities. So while you can go on as much as you want about how you think that is unfair or discriminatory or un-democratic, you are arguing based on a paradigm that the colleges simply don't share with you. They value certain things differently than you, which they are perfectly entitled to do.

I've appreciated this discussion with you, but for me it's come to an end, as I do think we are going in circles and further discussion would not be productive.

You value discrimination.
I don't.