Question for those opposed to legacy status

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see what seems like a lot of posts from people strongly opposed to “legacy admissions” and I’m curious about this position. I agree that unqualified applicants should not be admitted to any schools. Do you assume that no legacy applicants are qualified for admission to the school their parent attended? That seems odd to me given how important parental expectations are for success in school and life.

Do you mean that no kids should be permitted to apply to the schools their parents attended? How would it even work, when the common app asks for parental information (and that appears to be the basis for first generation applicants)? And how is it different from school that look at demonstrated interest? Why should legacy kids’ interest in attending the school they are familiar with, have a personal/family connection to, and likely grew up knowing about, visiting, rooting for its sports teams, etc not be allowed to follow that interest?

Genuinely curious, I promise.

Not rocket science. Simply ignore legacy status, focus on merit 100%.

Candidate deserves it? Gets in.

Doesn't deserve it? Doesn't get in.

Who your parents are should be irrelevant.

Except ... you're using terms like "deserve it." How do you determine who "deserves it?"

What do you do when you have 500 spots and there are 10,000 qualified applicants?

That's when these other criteria become valid, including legacy, affirmative action, etc. Schools build cohorts and communities. They aren't some reward for high achievement.

How do you think any, say, sports team would do it?

From those 10,000 qualified applicants you'd find the 500 most qualified.

What do you mean by "most qualified?" Is the person with and 800 Math and 600 Verbal of the SAT more qualified than the person with 700 in each section? Does the person who took AP Latin get a boost over the person who took AP Spanish? If someone took AP Spanish but it turns out they are native speakers at home and just took it for the easy A, they are less qualified now than the kid who sat next to them in class and only got a B plus? Is a kid who got extra credit in his science class and boosted his grade, but his who's mom is a Engineering professor at the local college and basically did his project for him more "qualified" than the kid who didn't enter the science fair because he didn't have time because he was babysitting his siblings after school because his mom was sick? What's more qualified, an A in BC calc in 12tt grade or a B+ in BC calc in 11th grade but that an A in multivariable in 12th grade? Is a kid who plays piano but not in school more qualified than the kid who plays violin in the school orchestra? Is the kid who started high school not speaking any English but managed to get Bs in all his English classes less qualified than the native speaker who got B pluses in the same class? Do you say "oh this year our most qualified applicants were all female psychology majors so sorry math and lit and language professors, no students for you."

Sure, things can get complex. But also simpler than today. The person with 800 Math and 600 Verbal of the SAT is definitively more qualified than the person with 760 Math and 575 Verbal. Full stop.

What about the person who has a 700 Math and a 700 verbal? What about students who took the ACT? Only dumb people think you can make definitive statements are who is more qualified based on SAT scores. Why would a college want to outsource its admissions process to the college board?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see what seems like a lot of posts from people strongly opposed to “legacy admissions” and I’m curious about this position. I agree that unqualified applicants should not be admitted to any schools. Do you assume that no legacy applicants are qualified for admission to the school their parent attended? That seems odd to me given how important parental expectations are for success in school and life.

Do you mean that no kids should be permitted to apply to the schools their parents attended? How would it even work, when the common app asks for parental information (and that appears to be the basis for first generation applicants)? And how is it different from school that look at demonstrated interest? Why should legacy kids’ interest in attending the school they are familiar with, have a personal/family connection to, and likely grew up knowing about, visiting, rooting for its sports teams, etc not be allowed to follow that interest?

Genuinely curious, I promise.

Truth be told, if the legacy kid does not have the stats, the legacy kid ain't getting in to the legacy school, so don't sweat it too much, OP.

This was not true for at least one legacy/VIP kid we know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am white, from a privileged background, and have parents and grandparents who went to Ivy league schools, Stanford, and other top universities. I don't think legacy status should be considered at all. I mean come on; the truth is the practice does give a leg up to those who are already privileged - aka resource hoarding. It says little to nothing about the applicant themselves. There is just no way to defeat that argument. It is a bs reason to let a kid into a school over another equally qualified applicant (as that is really how its most frequently used). It should not be considered a hook in any way.

I have one question though that I have never been able to find a solution to - how do you encourage alum to donate if it won't help their kid get in? It is the number one reason people donate long term. How do you replace the private scholarships funded for basically the same reason? How do you replace all that money that the school depends on? When most don't have enough to give to have a building named for them, and there is no longer any legacy status bestowed on their kids, how do you get donations from the ordinary graduates?

Schools that got rid of legacy have not had a measurable effect on donations. They are still getting plenty of donations.
Most people give money because they ultimately believe in the school’s mission and values - that is what the big donations are generally about

+1 Not only that, but they could lower the cost and so they don't need to provide that much aide.

Oxbridge is half the cost of Harvard, but it's still an elite college. And they don't look at legacies.

We have a friend in the UK whose kid went to Oxbridge. We were talking to them about how college works here, the cost, the legacy hooks, etc.. and they were just floored.

For a STEM student, Cambridge is about $45,000 plus another 12k in college fees and that doesn't include room and board. That's almost exactly what Harvard costs for full pay students

https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/files/publications/undergraduate_tuition_fees_2023-24.pdf

But isn't Cambridge just a 3yr degree like Oxford? There's one fewer year of tuition and room & board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am white, from a privileged background, and have parents and grandparents who went to Ivy league schools, Stanford, and other top universities. I don't think legacy status should be considered at all. I mean come on; the truth is the practice does give a leg up to those who are already privileged - aka resource hoarding. It says little to nothing about the applicant themselves. There is just no way to defeat that argument. It is a bs reason to let a kid into a school over another equally qualified applicant (as that is really how its most frequently used). It should not be considered a hook in any way.

I have one question though that I have never been able to find a solution to - how do you encourage alum to donate if it won't help their kid get in? It is the number one reason people donate long term. How do you replace the private scholarships funded for basically the same reason? How do you replace all that money that the school depends on? When most don't have enough to give to have a building named for them, and there is no longer any legacy status bestowed on their kids, how do you get donations from the ordinary graduates?

I have never heard this and I find it interesting if true. I have donated to my alma mater for 25+ years and never with the expectation that my kids would apply let alone attend. My husband donates to his alma mater and they do not give preference to legacies. I understand that this is a data set of 2 but I've also never heard my friends express this as a reason for donation to their schools. One of my kids had no interest in our alma maters - he wanted him own experience. The other is looking for a school that will be the best fit for him not what worked for either my husband or me 30 years ago. Neither of us stopped making donations upon learning this information.

This describes my family too - so make that a data set of 4!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see what seems like a lot of posts from people strongly opposed to “legacy admissions” and I’m curious about this position. I agree that unqualified applicants should not be admitted to any schools. Do you assume that no legacy applicants are qualified for admission to the school their parent attended? That seems odd to me given how important parental expectations are for success in school and life.

Do you mean that no kids should be permitted to apply to the schools their parents attended? How would it even work, when the common app asks for parental information (and that appears to be the basis for first generation applicants)? And how is it different from school that look at demonstrated interest? Why should legacy kids’ interest in attending the school they are familiar with, have a personal/family connection to, and likely grew up knowing about, visiting, rooting for its sports teams, etc not be allowed to follow that interest?

Genuinely curious, I promise.

Not rocket science. Simply ignore legacy status, focus on merit 100%.

Candidate deserves it? Gets in.

Doesn't deserve it? Doesn't get in.

Who your parents are should be irrelevant.

It's this for me. Other prioritized students arguably bring SOMETHING to the table that is unique, valued, etc. Parental connection is not one of them.

+1

I'm against Legacy and all non-merit criteria but not sure about this argument. Legacy students DO bring something to the table, the long-term connection to the place.

There will still be legacy students who are admitted on their own merit -and they can carry on the special bond

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see what seems like a lot of posts from people strongly opposed to “legacy admissions” and I’m curious about this position. I agree that unqualified applicants should not be admitted to any schools. Do you assume that no legacy applicants are qualified for admission to the school their parent attended? That seems odd to me given how important parental expectations are for success in school and life.

Do you mean that no kids should be permitted to apply to the schools their parents attended? How would it even work, when the common app asks for parental information (and that appears to be the basis for first generation applicants)? And how is it different from school that look at demonstrated interest? Why should legacy kids’ interest in attending the school they are familiar with, have a personal/family connection to, and likely grew up knowing about, visiting, rooting for its sports teams, etc not be allowed to follow that interest?

Genuinely curious, I promise.

Not rocket science. Simply ignore legacy status, focus on merit 100%.

Candidate deserves it? Gets in.

Doesn't deserve it? Doesn't get in.

Who your parents are should be irrelevant.

Except ... you're using terms like "deserve it." How do you determine who "deserves it?"

What do you do when you have 500 spots and there are 10,000 qualified applicants?

That's when these other criteria become valid, including legacy, affirmative action, etc. Schools build cohorts and communities. They aren't some reward for high achievement.

How do you think any, say, sports team would do it?

From those 10,000 qualified applicants you'd find the 500 most qualified.

What do you mean by "most qualified?" Is the person with and 800 Math and 600 Verbal of the SAT more qualified than the person with 700 in each section? Does the person who took AP Latin get a boost over the person who took AP Spanish? If someone took AP Spanish but it turns out they are native speakers at home and just took it for the easy A, they are less qualified now than the kid who sat next to them in class and only got a B plus? Is a kid who got extra credit in his science class and boosted his grade, but his who's mom is a Engineering professor at the local college and basically did his project for him more "qualified" than the kid who didn't enter the science fair because he didn't have time because he was babysitting his siblings after school because his mom was sick? What's more qualified, an A in BC calc in 12tt grade or a B+ in BC calc in 11th grade but that an A in multivariable in 12th grade? Is a kid who plays piano but not in school more qualified than the kid who plays violin in the school orchestra? Is the kid who started high school not speaking any English but managed to get Bs in all his English classes less qualified than the native speaker who got B pluses in the same class? Do you say "oh this year our most qualified applicants were all female psychology majors so sorry math and lit and language professors, no students for you."

Sure, things can get complex. But also simpler than today. The person with 800 Math and 600 Verbal of the SAT is definitively more qualified than the person with 760 Math and 575 Verbal. Full stop.

What about the person who has a 700 Math and a 700 verbal? What about students who took the ACT? Only dumb people think you can make definitive statements are who is more qualified based on SAT scores. Why would a college want to outsource its admissions process to the college board?

When you say something dumb like that, your argument loses credibility.

This is not rocket science. There are universities worldwide. They have ways to objectively measure academic merit and to maximize the fit between students and demands.

If you see college as a popularity contest or as a mechanism for legacy/ sports/ racial engineering, then yes things become more complex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am white, from a privileged background, and have parents and grandparents who went to Ivy league schools, Stanford, and other top universities. I don't think legacy status should be considered at all. I mean come on; the truth is the practice does give a leg up to those who are already privileged - aka resource hoarding. It says little to nothing about the applicant themselves. There is just no way to defeat that argument. It is a bs reason to let a kid into a school over another equally qualified applicant (as that is really how its most frequently used). It should not be considered a hook in any way.

I have one question though that I have never been able to find a solution to - how do you encourage alum to donate if it won't help their kid get in? It is the number one reason people donate long term. How do you replace the private scholarships funded for basically the same reason? How do you replace all that money that the school depends on? When most don't have enough to give to have a building named for them, and there is no longer any legacy status bestowed on their kids, how do you get donations from the ordinary graduates?

Schools that got rid of legacy have not had a measurable effect on donations. They are still getting plenty of donations.
Most people give money because they ultimately believe in the school’s mission and values - that is what the big donations are generally about

+1 Not only that, but they could lower the cost and so they don't need to provide that much aide.

Oxbridge is half the cost of Harvard, but it's still an elite college. And they don't look at legacies.

We have a friend in the UK whose kid went to Oxbridge. We were talking to them about how college works here, the cost, the legacy hooks, etc.. and they were just floored.

The US college system of today is beyond absurd. We are encouraging our kids to study abroad.

+1

Too many people, too many students, and not enough spaces. The US is becoming overcrowded - FAST.

There are tons of spaces. Most colleges out there are dying for students. The problem is that everyone want sot go to the same few places.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am white, from a privileged background, and have parents and grandparents who went to Ivy league schools, Stanford, and other top universities. I don't think legacy status should be considered at all. I mean come on; the truth is the practice does give a leg up to those who are already privileged - aka resource hoarding. It says little to nothing about the applicant themselves. There is just no way to defeat that argument. It is a bs reason to let a kid into a school over another equally qualified applicant (as that is really how its most frequently used). It should not be considered a hook in any way.

I have one question though that I have never been able to find a solution to - how do you encourage alum to donate if it won't help their kid get in? It is the number one reason people donate long term. How do you replace the private scholarships funded for basically the same reason? How do you replace all that money that the school depends on? When most don't have enough to give to have a building named for them, and there is no longer any legacy status bestowed on their kids, how do you get donations from the ordinary graduates?

Schools that got rid of legacy have not had a measurable effect on donations. They are still getting plenty of donations.
Most people give money because they ultimately believe in the school’s mission and values - that is what the big donations are generally about

+1 Not only that, but they could lower the cost and so they don't need to provide that much aide.

Oxbridge is half the cost of Harvard, but it's still an elite college. And they don't look at legacies.

We have a friend in the UK whose kid went to Oxbridge. We were talking to them about how college works here, the cost, the legacy hooks, etc.. and they were just floored.

The US college system of today is beyond absurd. We are encouraging our kids to study abroad.

+1

Too many people, too many students, and not enough spaces. The US is becoming overcrowded - FAST.

There are tons of spaces. Most colleges out there are dying for students. The problem is that everyone want sot go to the same few places.

If employers and graduate schools would recruit heavily from those schools, then they wouldn't have problems filling seats. Most of the schools that are really struggling, have minuscule endowments, are barely accredited, and have degrees that don't travel at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am white, from a privileged background, and have parents and grandparents who went to Ivy league schools, Stanford, and other top universities. I don't think legacy status should be considered at all. I mean come on; the truth is the practice does give a leg up to those who are already privileged - aka resource hoarding. It says little to nothing about the applicant themselves. There is just no way to defeat that argument. It is a bs reason to let a kid into a school over another equally qualified applicant (as that is really how its most frequently used). It should not be considered a hook in any way.

I have one question though that I have never been able to find a solution to - how do you encourage alum to donate if it won't help their kid get in? It is the number one reason people donate long term. How do you replace the private scholarships funded for basically the same reason? How do you replace all that money that the school depends on? When most don't have enough to give to have a building named for them, and there is no longer any legacy status bestowed on their kids, how do you get donations from the ordinary graduates?

Schools that got rid of legacy have not had a measurable effect on donations. They are still getting plenty of donations.
Most people give money because they ultimately believe in the school’s mission and values - that is what the big donations are generally about

+1 Not only that, but they could lower the cost and so they don't need to provide that much aide.

Oxbridge is half the cost of Harvard, but it's still an elite college. And they don't look at legacies.

We have a friend in the UK whose kid went to Oxbridge. We were talking to them about how college works here, the cost, the legacy hooks, etc.. and they were just floored.

For a STEM student, Cambridge is about $45,000 plus another 12k in college fees and that doesn't include room and board. That's almost exactly what Harvard costs for full pay students

https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/files/publications/undergraduate_tuition_fees_2023-24.pdf

But isn't Cambridge just a 3yr degree like Oxford? There's one fewer year of tuition and room & board.

There's that, too. They don't take GE classes in college like we do here.

That alone was attractive to my STEM focused kid who hates English and History (though got a 5 on AP English and 780 ELA section on SAT). But, after covid, I didn't want DC to be in another country, that far away.

I know some people here like to say that taking those GE classes in college makes for a more well rounded person, but honestly, all that says is that our K-12 education is so lacking that the kids have to take those same classes all over again in college, that the only way to get out of it is to take "college" level exams in HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am white, from a privileged background, and have parents and grandparents who went to Ivy league schools, Stanford, and other top universities. I don't think legacy status should be considered at all. I mean come on; the truth is the practice does give a leg up to those who are already privileged - aka resource hoarding. It says little to nothing about the applicant themselves. There is just no way to defeat that argument. It is a bs reason to let a kid into a school over another equally qualified applicant (as that is really how its most frequently used). It should not be considered a hook in any way.

I have one question though that I have never been able to find a solution to - how do you encourage alum to donate if it won't help their kid get in? It is the number one reason people donate long term. How do you replace the private scholarships funded for basically the same reason? How do you replace all that money that the school depends on? When most don't have enough to give to have a building named for them, and there is no longer any legacy status bestowed on their kids, how do you get donations from the ordinary graduates?

Schools that got rid of legacy have not had a measurable effect on donations. They are still getting plenty of donations.
Most people give money because they ultimately believe in the school’s mission and values - that is what the big donations are generally about

+1 Not only that, but they could lower the cost and so they don't need to provide that much aide.

Oxbridge is half the cost of Harvard, but it's still an elite college. And they don't look at legacies.

We have a friend in the UK whose kid went to Oxbridge. We were talking to them about how college works here, the cost, the legacy hooks, etc.. and they were just floored.

The US college system of today is beyond absurd. We are encouraging our kids to study abroad.

+1

Too many people, too many students, and not enough spaces. The US is becoming overcrowded - FAST.

There are tons of spaces. Most colleges out there are dying for students. The problem is that everyone want sot go to the same few places.

If employers and graduate schools would recruit heavily from those schools, then they wouldn't have problems filling seats. Most of the schools that are really struggling, have minuscule endowments, are barely accredited, and have degrees that don't travel at all.

DP.. you don't even have to look at the really crap colleges. Even decent state universities would do.

And if there are so many options, then why do we need legacy in college admissions? Just go to one of those colleges that are dying, right? Oh, but no, that's for "those" people, not my legacy child. We must hoard our privilege... ahem.. sorry, meant we must keep our traditions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see what seems like a lot of posts from people strongly opposed to “legacy admissions” and I’m curious about this position. I agree that unqualified applicants should not be admitted to any schools. Do you assume that no legacy applicants are qualified for admission to the school their parent attended? That seems odd to me given how important parental expectations are for success in school and life.

Do you mean that no kids should be permitted to apply to the schools their parents attended? How would it even work, when the common app asks for parental information (and that appears to be the basis for first generation applicants)? And how is it different from school that look at demonstrated interest? Why should legacy kids’ interest in attending the school they are familiar with, have a personal/family connection to, and likely grew up knowing about, visiting, rooting for its sports teams, etc not be allowed to follow that interest?

Genuinely curious, I promise.

Not rocket science. Simply ignore legacy status, focus on merit 100%.

Candidate deserves it? Gets in.

Doesn't deserve it? Doesn't get in.

Who your parents are should be irrelevant.

Except ... you're using terms like "deserve it." How do you determine who "deserves it?"

What do you do when you have 500 spots and there are 10,000 qualified applicants?

That's when these other criteria become valid, including legacy, affirmative action, etc. Schools build cohorts and communities. They aren't some reward for high achievement.

How do you think any, say, sports team would do it?

From those 10,000 qualified applicants you'd find the 500 most qualified.

What do you mean by "most qualified?" Is the person with and 800 Math and 600 Verbal of the SAT more qualified than the person with 700 in each section? Does the person who took AP Latin get a boost over the person who took AP Spanish? If someone took AP Spanish but it turns out they are native speakers at home and just took it for the easy A, they are less qualified now than the kid who sat next to them in class and only got a B plus? Is a kid who got extra credit in his science class and boosted his grade, but his who's mom is a Engineering professor at the local college and basically did his project for him more "qualified" than the kid who didn't enter the science fair because he didn't have time because he was babysitting his siblings after school because his mom was sick? What's more qualified, an A in BC calc in 12tt grade or a B+ in BC calc in 11th grade but that an A in multivariable in 12th grade? Is a kid who plays piano but not in school more qualified than the kid who plays violin in the school orchestra? Is the kid who started high school not speaking any English but managed to get Bs in all his English classes less qualified than the native speaker who got B pluses in the same class? Do you say "oh this year our most qualified applicants were all female psychology majors so sorry math and lit and language professors, no students for you."

Sure, things can get complex. But also simpler than today. The person with 800 Math and 600 Verbal of the SAT is definitively more qualified than the person with 760 Math and 575 Verbal. Full stop.

What about the person who has a 700 Math and a 700 verbal? What about students who took the ACT? Only dumb people think you can make definitive statements are who is more qualified based on SAT scores. Why would a college want to outsource its admissions process to the college board?

When you say something dumb like that, your argument loses credibility.

This is not rocket science. There are universities worldwide. They have ways to objectively measure academic merit and to maximize the fit between students and demands.

If you see college as a popularity contest or as a mechanism for legacy/ sports/ racial engineering, then yes things become more complex.

Oh I’m sorry. Did they change the SAT so it resembles an exam that all students are required to take for college and they only get one chance a year?

If they didn’t then yes it is exceedingly stupid to think the SAT can serve as a differentiating factor for selective college admissions.

Considering that they haven’t it is stupid to compare the SAT to other countries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have zero issue with kids applying to schools their parents went to, and totally get why some kids might be interested in doing this for a variety of reasons.

I think universities giving heavy preference to legacy applicants over non-legacy applicants has a negative social impact when it comes to admissions to elite schools. The reason why is that an education at an elite institution can be transformative for people, and has the most potential to transform the lives of people who do not currently have connections to elite academia. The more legacy admits to these schools, the more it consolidates the benefits of these schools in families that already have these benefits. I'm not saying they aren't doing something good with them, but for every legacy admit, that's one non-legacy applicant who is rejected. I think we lose something in not seeing those non-legacy admits attend these schools.

If the legacy admit is more qualified, then that will show up in the process without a legacy preference and they will earn their spot.

If the legacy admit and the non-legacy admit are equally qualified, I think there are greater social benefits to admitting the non-legacy students, even if there are certain benefits to the legacy student and the institution in admitting the legacy student.

If you give advantage to the legacy student, we ignore the societal benefits of seeing more families gain access to elite education, especially since we're already talking about highly qualified applicants here.

I would like to see more smart, hardworking students with middle class and/or rural backgrounds, and just more applicants with very limited professional and academic connections, gain access to these institutions. I think it would benefit all of us in the form of a more diverse professional class. Not just racially diverse, but diverse in backgrounds. I view legacy preference as an obstacle to that.

But if all things are equal, why would a private university not be able to choose the legacy over the same equally qualified candidate? If the parents/grandparents already give $$$, it's more likely they will continue to give and even more likely they will give more if the kid attends. It's just another part of the admissions process.

Given that most schools still don't admit all qualified legacy candidates (I doubt legacies are more than 20% at most schools--Harvard is only 14%), and the ones they do admit are largely "qualified", why not? Sure is it fair? well nothing in life is "Fair".
The really rich and famous kids would still get in due to name recognition, even if we eliminated "legacy" unless the admission process goes "name blind".

Fact still remains that at Elite universities, 95% of applicants are "qualified", yet the admission rates are only 5-10%, 9-9.5 out of 10 students wont gain admission.

We get it, you don't want to lose your "special in-club" card.

And it did NOT work for either of my kids, despite them having the scores/stats/resume/ECs for the top schools. Somehow we managed to move on, our kids are at great schools, they are happy, one has graduated and working a good job, despite not attending a T10 university

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools rely on alumni for fundraising. How will this affect a school's donations if there is no such legacy preference? Doesn't this fundraising help financial aide?

I'm a PP above who gives more to the school without legacy status.

People need to seriously reflect if they know they would give less to their alma mater based on the removal of legacy policies.

Likewise, schools need to find a way to cut this tie while still encouraging people to give.

And how do you propose this? Many many people do contribute just in case their kid(s) want to attend. It doesn't help really help for admissions I suspect, unless you are contributing in the 6 figures+ yearly. But for those contributing 2-3K/year in hopes it helps their kid get in, that money is what helps pay for merit and FA awards for others. Donations dwindle, and the colleges that meet "full FA without loans beyond the standard federal $5.5K" will be much smaller. So it's a catch 22.

Yes---we personally gave $2-3K/year for the 7 years before our kids might apply. Last kid had the stats/resume/interest, did ED and got deferred and rejected. Did I give this year? Nope. Plan to redirect that money to local organizations where I have more control/can see exactly where the money is going. Much better ways to support education than a T10 school---I'd prefer to help at the pre-K/ES/MS level locally in the neediest areas to help provide for those kids so when they finish HS they are on track to attend college.

Maybe I am an outlier, but I actually have no problem if schools were explicit that they have X number of spots for anyone willing to donate X$$s or above (first come)...imagine it would be at least 7 figures, maybe 8 figures. Your kid has to meet some minimum qualifications with respect to GPA/Test scores (which you would know ahead of your donation), but you won't be bothered with writing supplementals and all the other BS. At least it would be transparent to the rest of us...who all know that is happening anyway but behind closed doors.

Get rid of legacy and just make it clear that donating $100 or $1000 or even $10,000 per year is not impactful to these schools, so help more deserving groups somewhere else.

Finally, I imagine that admissions can probably throw out 50% of the applications they receive from kids who really have no business applying to that school. For the remainder, maybe create some buckets of kids to create geographic and income and whatever diversity (yeah, I know this is still rife with some problems, but just trying to communicate the idea)...and then just pull names out of the buckets for admission. Admission is kind of a lottery already, so again, just be transparent that it literally will be a lottery.

Most of the T20 schools, at ~90-95%of applicants have "business applying to that school". Most T20 schools could build amazing freshman classes many times over. Issue is there are too many qualified students, so not everyone will get in. It's a lottery in so many ways, people need to recognize this and pick strong targets and safeties as well, so they are happy come May 1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am white, from a privileged background, and have parents and grandparents who went to Ivy league schools, Stanford, and other top universities. I don't think legacy status should be considered at all. I mean come on; the truth is the practice does give a leg up to those who are already privileged - aka resource hoarding. It says little to nothing about the applicant themselves. There is just no way to defeat that argument. It is a bs reason to let a kid into a school over another equally qualified applicant (as that is really how its most frequently used). It should not be considered a hook in any way.

I have one question though that I have never been able to find a solution to - how do you encourage alum to donate if it won't help their kid get in? It is the number one reason people donate long term. How do you replace the private scholarships funded for basically the same reason? How do you replace all that money that the school depends on? When most don't have enough to give to have a building named for them, and there is no longer any legacy status bestowed on their kids, how do you get donations from the ordinary graduates?

Excellent question. I suspect many who donate more than $100/year do so in hopes of getting legacy status for their kids (I know we did that). Loosing that $$$ will likely affect Financial aid and merit awards at many schools---I suspect many will stop giving if legacy isn't a thing. So then you are hurting the exact people you are hoping to help by eliminating "legacy" status.

I'm all for legacy status, as long as the student's have stats to get in on their own. Otherwise, how do AO decide? It's a particularly touching essay that grabs the AO's attention? Who knows, but ultimately it's something small that helps them whittle down 40K+ applicants to less than 4K for an ultimate class of 2K. And 38-39K of those students would all make excellent freshman at university X. Fact is, it will never be Fair.

[Anonymous]

The concept of legacy preference is so medieval. Can you imagine applying for a job and getting a legal, stated preference based on who your father is? It’s like an old guild system or something.