Elite Colleges’ Quiet Fight to Favor Alumni Children

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did a degree at an Oxbridge school, and my classmates there thought my stories about my legacy undergrad roommate at my Ivy were funny. She went to an elite boarding school, and had a very rich family but had about a 2.7 GPA which is very difficult to do at an Ivy where most people get a 3.0 without trying just because of the ways grading curves are structured. My roommate was not the sharpest tool in the shed, but she was a legacy and she got in. These Oxbridge students who wore gowns and coattails regularly and bowed to the Queen and were part of a 1000 year old college thought it was ridiculously backwards that an American student might get into college with a big boost because their parents had attended the same college before them.

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

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

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

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

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

The debate about legacy is about a kid getting a substantial edge on admissions to an elite college over a kid with equivalent stats and extracurriculars simply because of who where their parents went to college. I don’t know why you’re complaining that college admissions officers can’t magically see that your special needs kid is better than a neurotypical applicant. Start your own thread if you want to complain about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did a degree at an Oxbridge school, and my classmates there thought my stories about my legacy undergrad roommate at my Ivy were funny. She went to an elite boarding school, and had a very rich family but had about a 2.7 GPA which is very difficult to do at an Ivy where most people get a 3.0 without trying just because of the ways grading curves are structured. My roommate was not the sharpest tool in the shed, but she was a legacy and she got in. These Oxbridge students who wore gowns and coattails regularly and bowed to the Queen and were part of a 1000 year old college thought it was ridiculously backwards that an American student might get into college with a big boost because their parents had attended the same college before them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly. But why do people come on here raving about one particular aspect of unfairness and not all the others? Legacy and athletics put people over the edge, but there are so many other aspects that make it unfair, yet they don't seem to care about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did a degree at an Oxbridge school, and my classmates there thought my stories about my legacy undergrad roommate at my Ivy were funny. She went to an elite boarding school, and had a very rich family but had about a 2.7 GPA which is very difficult to do at an Ivy where most people get a 3.0 without trying just because of the ways grading curves are structured. My roommate was not the sharpest tool in the shed, but she was a legacy and she got in. These Oxbridge students who wore gowns and coattails regularly and bowed to the Queen and were part of a 1000 year old college thought it was ridiculously backwards that an American student might get into college with a big boost because their parents had attended the same college before them.

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

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

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

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

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

The debate about legacy is about a kid getting a substantial edge on admissions to an elite college over a kid with equivalent stats and extracurriculars simply because of who where their parents went to college. I don’t know why you’re complaining that college admissions officers can’t magically see that your special needs kid is better than a neurotypical applicant. Start your own thread if you want to complain about that.

Missing the point. There are many unfair aspects of college admissions. Ones that put some kids at advantages over others. Why does legacy get everybody so stirred up and not other things? The neurotypical kid has an edge on admissions over a kid born without that particular advantage simply because of who he was born to, just like the legacy kid. Why is that any more fair? And not, I really don't feel like starting my own thread. This is actually about the whiny babies who weren't smart enough to get into good colleges and are now mad that they can't get their kids into one either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I am ok with both.

+2. DC1 is the 3rd generation at Brown, where DH's grandmother established a scholarship. I can see why the school would want us versus someone who sent 25 copy/paste applications to whatever US News ranked at the top that year.

[Anonymous]

My first year at an ivy had a roomie with a grandma that escaped a war torn country and had to start all over in cal. With a new language, a new culture, a new country. And her grandchild made it to the ivy league! That's impressive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did a degree at an Oxbridge school, and my classmates there thought my stories about my legacy undergrad roommate at my Ivy were funny. She went to an elite boarding school, and had a very rich family but had about a 2.7 GPA which is very difficult to do at an Ivy where most people get a 3.0 without trying just because of the ways grading curves are structured. My roommate was not the sharpest tool in the shed, but she was a legacy and she got in. These Oxbridge students who wore gowns and coattails regularly and bowed to the Queen and were part of a 1000 year old college thought it was ridiculously backwards that an American student might get into college with a big boost because their parents had attended the same college before them.

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

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

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

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

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

The debate about legacy is about a kid getting a substantial edge on admissions to an elite college over a kid with equivalent stats and extracurriculars simply because of who where their parents went to college. I don’t know why you’re complaining that college admissions officers can’t magically see that your special needs kid is better than a neurotypical applicant. Start your own thread if you want to complain about that.

Missing the point. There are many unfair aspects of college admissions. Ones that put some kids at advantages over others. Why does legacy get everybody so stirred up and not other things? The neurotypical kid has an edge on admissions over a kid born without that particular advantage simply because of who he was born to, just like the legacy kid. Why is that any more fair? And not, I really don't feel like starting my own thread. This is actually about the whiny babies who weren't smart enough to get into good colleges and are now mad that they can't get their kids into one either.

No you’re missing the point. The legacy kid will get admitted over the equivalent applicant or in many cases the superior applicant by virtue of being born to an alum. The kid born with special needs is presumably not performing as well as the neurotypical kid in the scenario you’re describing so it isn’t a case of a higher performing student being denied admissions. You may think that’s unfair because your child is a “better person” than the neurotypical applicant but colleges don’t admit applicants because their parents say they are better people than other applicants without any evidence to back up that assertion. And that is fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I am ok with both.

+2. DC1 is the 3rd generation at Brown, where DH's grandmother established a scholarship. I can see why the school would want us versus someone who sent 25 copy/paste applications to whatever US News ranked at the top that year.

How special for your DC1. I guess she didn’t need to send 25 applications like the rest of the unwashed masses because she knew she had an advantage as a legacy.

[Anonymous]

Amazed at quote from article that says 41% of Yale class is people of color. What percentage of US population is people of color. Best number I have found is about 40%.
If true, hard to imagine Yale class white vs non-white is exactly the same as our population as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amazed at quote from article that says 41% of Yale class is people of color. What percentage of US population is people of color. Best number I have found is about 40%.
If true, hard to imagine Yale class white vs non-white is exactly the same as our population as a whole.

Huh? The share of people in the U.S. who identify as non-Hispanic White and no other race has also declined in recent years, falling from 64% in 2010 to 58% in 2020, according to the new census data

Not sure why it’s weird to you that a college would try to have a diverse population that is somewhat similar to American demographics.

[Anonymous]

Amazed at quote from article that says 41% of Yale class is people of color. What percentage of US population is people of color. Best number I have found is about 40%. If true, hard to imagine Yale class white vs non-white is exactly the same as our population as a whole.

The diversity numbers are self reported, obviously not verified and totally bogus. Get a cup of coffee and sit at the cafeteria at any T25 campus and find out for yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazed at quote from article that says 41% of Yale class is people of color. What percentage of US population is people of color. Best number I have found is about 40%.
If true, hard to imagine Yale class white vs non-white is exactly the same as our population as a whole.

Huh? The share of people in the U.S. who identify as non-Hispanic White and no other race has also declined in recent years, falling from 64% in 2010 to 58% in 2020, according to the new census data

Not sure why it’s weird to you that a college would try to have a diverse population that is somewhat similar to American demographics.

Also 70 year old white dudes are not Yale undergrads. Check the college-age demographics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I am ok with both.

+2. DC1 is the 3rd generation at Brown, where DH's grandmother established a scholarship. I can see why the school would want us versus someone who sent 25 copy/paste applications to whatever US News ranked at the top that year.

How special for your DC1. I guess she didn’t need to send 25 applications like the rest of the unwashed masses because she knew she had an advantage as a legacy.

The unwashed masses don't care about the school's culture or fit. All they care about is social mobility/ finally making money. It doesn't matter if they attend MIT or Dartmouth, as long as they end up in a hardie planked SFH in McLean. We've been paying tuition for URMs for years now and fulfilling the promise of a life of "usefulness and reputation". It's not an advantage, it's a commitment. What are you bringing to the table that is so incredibly valuable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I am ok with both.

+2. DC1 is the 3rd generation at Brown, where DH's grandmother established a scholarship. I can see why the school would want us versus someone who sent 25 copy/paste applications to whatever US News ranked at the top that year.

How special for your DC1. I guess she didn’t need to send 25 applications like the rest of the unwashed masses because she knew she had an advantage as a legacy.

Do you think only rich heiress legacies are capable of tailoring an essay to explain why Brown? Brown has more than its fair share of mediocre wealthy kids and was the last Ivy to become need blind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I am ok with both.

+2. DC1 is the 3rd generation at Brown, where DH's grandmother established a scholarship. I can see why the school would want us versus someone who sent 25 copy/paste applications to whatever US News ranked at the top that year.

How special for your DC1. I guess she didn’t need to send 25 applications like the rest of the unwashed masses because she knew she had an advantage as a legacy.

The unwashed masses don't care about the school's culture or fit. All they care about is social mobility/ finally making money. It doesn't matter if they attend MIT or Dartmouth, as long as they end up in a hardie planked SFH in McLean. We've been paying tuition for URMs for years now and fulfilling the promise of a life of "usefulness and reputation". It's not an advantage, it's a commitment. What are you bringing to the table that is so incredibly valuable?

If your daughter has the intelligence level you show in the above posts, I bet the poor students you look down upon are running circles around her academically, despite all the financial resources you’ve provided. You may have taught your daughter that she hit a triple because she was born on third base but her fellow students will be smart enough to understand that Brown was fairly easy to get into at the time of her grandparent’s admission and rewarding her for her birthright seems pretty ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I am ok with both.

+2. DC1 is the 3rd generation at Brown, where DH's grandmother established a scholarship. I can see why the school would want us versus someone who sent 25 copy/paste applications to whatever US News ranked at the top that year.

How special for your DC1. I guess she didn’t need to send 25 applications like the rest of the unwashed masses because she knew she had an advantage as a legacy.

Do you think only rich heiress legacies are capable of tailoring an essay to explain why Brown? Brown has more than its fair share of mediocre wealthy kids and was the last Ivy to become need blind.

You're not explaining why your child wants Brown or other elite college. She seems desperate to join this "mediocre wealthy kids" club, despite the fact that these schools are terrible and admit lowlife idiots like us who can't stand strivers and desperate social climbers. She would be better off at a college without legacy consideration, where her 10 point SAT increase will lead to a life of greatness.