How much does legacy matter at Ivy League schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other things being equal between two otherwise identical candidates, your kid will get admitted. Marginal or not, it still helps.

People say this, but how often are two candidates truly identical? Perhaps they could have identical stats, but wouldn’t their essays and such distinguish them from one another? I don’t think my special snowflake is any more special than anyone else’s special snowflake, but I genuinely believe no other kid could have written my kid’s essays (and vice versa), had the same combination of activities and awards, etc.

No other kid could have written your kid's essays, but an essay coach might have!

Two kids from top schools with GPAs and test scores with <5% difference, who have both taken all top rigor courses and have good but not national level ECs, with similar ethic/ economic/ educational circumstances -- maybe has slightly more impressive ECs, and the other has more enthusiastic letters: they are functionally identical. Unless a kid is truly remarkable (Regeneron winner, nationally ranked figure skater, etc), any decision btw them is random.

In such a case, legacy can often be the tie breaker.

My family attended a T5 early admit reception earlier this year, and the 15 or so students who’d been admitted from our geographical region were extremely distinctive from each other (AO did a shout-out of each kid and why their particular application had stood out). I honestly don’t think these kids had enough similarities (beyond test scores and GPAs) to go head to head with a tie breaker like you describe.

All T5 admits (with the possible exception of the children of 8-figure donors) have these kinds of stories. So do the top 5% of students who got rejected from these schools.

Yes, they are distinct, but interchangeable too. One exceptional kid could be swapped out for another exceptional kid. That's not true of all the applicants, of course. But even the heads of admission at the top tier places admit that they could fill their classes three times over without losing any quality.

I'm happy your kid was accepted -- I'm sure they are amazing! -- but there are also some amazing kids who didn't make the cut. There are arbitrary reasons for that last cut: geography, gender, intellectual interest, and yes, child of alumni status.

Thank you for both your kind words about DC and your thoughtful explanation, which does make sense to me. Of the ~15 admits, I could suss out from parent name tags that 3 were legacy. But given how impressive these kids were, I very much disagree with the PPs who keep insisting that legacies are less qualified than non-legacies.

There are empirical studies that control for measurable qualifications that show a statistically significant preference to legacy candidates, all else fixed. But even if you choose to disregard those studies, you can note that the Ivies can fill their classes 10x over with similarly qualified candidates with high GPAs and class rankings, strong extracurriculars, near perfect test scores etc--all of those students have the capacity to succeed as admits-so factors that have nothing to do with merit like being a legacy, a donor etc can easily tip the admissions decision.

So NOT less qualified. Seems like legacy alone is at most a feather, not a thumb, on the scale. Similar to other institutional priorities like geographic diversity, major selection, etc.

Can we stop with this? 80-90% of applicants are "qualified." It means nothing. That does not mean 80-90% of applicants should get in. Nor should 80-90% of athletes...

What you are saying makes zero sense since the first part comes directly from school AOs themselves. Regarding the athletes it makes even less sense. They are being admitted for their athletics skill first and foremost provided that they cross an acceptable academic threshold. Their admissions success should be near 100% because they have been so heavily prescreened. YOu may not like it but athletics are important to the Ivy schools (the separate rating factor at Harvard should be a clure there) and will continue to be recruited long after we are gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here - We have 2 Ivy early choices and one is ED and one SCEA (not Princeton or Harvard unfortunately as I did hear those have the biggest boost).

Child is good enough to be recruited at schools that aren't an academic match. The Ivy's have upped their sports level so just isn't quite there. Top academic d 3 indicated child could walk on if they get in but no coach support for app process - child is debating going for Ivy and doing the sport club in college or walk on at D3...not sure if high academic d3 will be a harder admit or legacy at Ivy is a harder admit but we want to choose correctly for early.

My kid was similar. Applied ED as legacy to an Ivy, was admitted, and went on to be captain of nationally competitive club team there. Absolutely loved the club experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?

I don't want to speak for another poster, but I don't think they are saying it benefits non-whites more than whites. I think they are saying that it does not only benefit whites - non-whites are increasingly receiving more and more benefit from it because for the last 40 years, there was a general trend of increasing numbers of minorities at top schools and now their kids are applying. If they don't want to take advantage of it, their loss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?

I never said that but you cited the work of a paper that didn't work out so well because Arcidicano's work only gave the "right" answer if the model left out the personal factor which it did saying they it was a biased factor. Legacy benefits whites more because they are the largest proportion of the legacy pool, not because they are white. The proportion is dropping but the benefits will still favor whites by numbers until the proportion of whites at a school drops below 50% and then this change persists for a long enough period of time that there is a group of legacies which aren't majority white whose children are applying to a school. The benefits of a legacy tag are pretty equal for anyone who is a legacy regardless of race and actually on an individual level may disproportionaltely benefit Asian legacy applicants because they are the group that had the largest increase in admittance benefit for any single factor which was the personal rating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here - We have 2 Ivy early choices and one is ED and one SCEA (not Princeton or Harvard unfortunately as I did hear those have the biggest boost).

Child is good enough to be recruited at schools that aren't an academic match. The Ivy's have upped their sports level so just isn't quite there. Top academic d 3 indicated child could walk on if they get in but no coach support for app process - child is debating going for Ivy and doing the sport club in college or walk on at D3...not sure if high academic d3 will be a harder admit or legacy at Ivy is a harder admit but we want to choose correctly for early.

My kid was similar. Applied ED as legacy to an Ivy, was admitted, and went on to be captain of nationally competitive club team there. Absolutely loved the club experience.

Club can be great. Neighbors kid dropped from high level D1 soccer program down to club because it was overwhelming. Said the play was high level and had a great time though he lost his scholarship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?

I never said that but you cited the work of a paper that didn't work out so well because Arcidicano's work only gave the "right" answer if the model left out the personal factor which it did saying they it was a biased factor. Legacy benefits whites more because they are the largest proportion of the legacy pool, not because they are white. The proportion is dropping but the benefits will still favor whites by numbers until the proportion of whites at a school drops below 50% and then this change persists for a long enough period of time that there is a group of legacies which aren't majority white whose children are applying to a school. The benefits of a legacy tag are pretty equal for anyone who is a legacy regardless of race and actually on an individual level may disproportionaltely benefit Asian legacy applicants because they are the group that had the largest increase in admittance benefit for any single factor which was the personal rating.

I’ve posted some of this before, but perhaps not all: currently at Stanford, ~40% of legacy applicants and ~50% of legacy admits are of color. Legacy applicants as a group have higher stats than non-legacy applicants. Legacy kids make up ~10% of the class. Even if Stanford formally eliminates legacy preference next admissions cycle as the state of CA has mandated (and which I 100% support), there may not be any meaningful change to this percentage.

No idea about Ivies, but Stanford has been mentioned on this thread and the numbers above are not speculation but facts, provided directly by the university in November 2024.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?

I never said that but you cited the work of a paper that didn't work out so well because Arcidicano's work only gave the "right" answer if the model left out the personal factor which it did saying they it was a biased factor. Legacy benefits whites more because they are the largest proportion of the legacy pool, not because they are white. The proportion is dropping but the benefits will still favor whites by numbers until the proportion of whites at a school drops below 50% and then this change persists for a long enough period of time that there is a group of legacies which aren't majority white whose children are applying to a school. The benefits of a legacy tag are pretty equal for anyone who is a legacy regardless of race and actually on an individual level may disproportionaltely benefit Asian legacy applicants because they are the group that had the largest increase in admittance benefit for any single factor which was the personal rating.

I’ve posted some of this before, but perhaps not all: currently at Stanford, ~40% of legacy applicants and ~50% of legacy admits are of color. Legacy applicants as a group have higher stats than non-legacy applicants. Legacy kids make up ~10% of the class. Even if Stanford formally eliminates legacy preference next admissions cycle as the state of CA has mandated (and which I 100% support), there may not be any meaningful change to this percentage.

No idea about Ivies, but Stanford has been mentioned on this thread and the numbers above are not speculation but facts, provided directly by the university in November 2024.

What's your source for this? I've never seen data for Stanford, but a law professor at Stanford noted in an interview that legacy admits are more likely to be white and affluent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here - We have 2 Ivy early choices and one is ED and one SCEA (not Princeton or Harvard unfortunately as I did hear those have the biggest boost).

Child is good enough to be recruited at schools that aren't an academic match. The Ivy's have upped their sports level so just isn't quite there. Top academic d 3 indicated child could walk on if they get in but no coach support for app process - child is debating going for Ivy and doing the sport club in college or walk on at D3...not sure if high academic d3 will be a harder admit or legacy at Ivy is a harder admit but we want to choose correctly for early.

My kid was similar. Applied ED as legacy to an Ivy, was admitted, and went on to be captain of nationally competitive club team there. Absolutely loved the club experience.

My kid chose Ivy and Club as well- RD though

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here - We have 2 Ivy early choices and one is ED and one SCEA (not Princeton or Harvard unfortunately as I did hear those have the biggest boost).

Child is good enough to be recruited at schools that aren't an academic match. The Ivy's have upped their sports level so just isn't quite there. Top academic d 3 indicated child could walk on if they get in but no coach support for app process - child is debating going for Ivy and doing the sport club in college or walk on at D3...not sure if high academic d3 will be a harder admit or legacy at Ivy is a harder admit but we want to choose correctly for early.

My kid was similar. Applied ED as legacy to an Ivy, was admitted, and went on to be captain of nationally competitive club team there. Absolutely loved the club experience.

My kid chose Ivy and Club as well- RD though

Club is not easy to make. Only 2 Freshman out of 100+ though. You get many kids that were recruits or could have played doing club because of time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?

I never said that but you cited the work of a paper that didn't work out so well because Arcidicano's work only gave the "right" answer if the model left out the personal factor which it did saying they it was a biased factor. Legacy benefits whites more because they are the largest proportion of the legacy pool, not because they are white. The proportion is dropping but the benefits will still favor whites by numbers until the proportion of whites at a school drops below 50% and then this change persists for a long enough period of time that there is a group of legacies which aren't majority white whose children are applying to a school. The benefits of a legacy tag are pretty equal for anyone who is a legacy regardless of race and actually on an individual level may disproportionaltely benefit Asian legacy applicants because they are the group that had the largest increase in admittance benefit for any single factor which was the personal rating.

I’ve posted some of this before, but perhaps not all: currently at Stanford, ~40% of legacy applicants and ~50% of legacy admits are of color. Legacy applicants as a group have higher stats than non-legacy applicants. Legacy kids make up ~10% of the class. Even if Stanford formally eliminates legacy preference next admissions cycle as the state of CA has mandated (and which I 100% support), there may not be any meaningful change to this percentage.

No idea about Ivies, but Stanford has been mentioned on this thread and the numbers above are not speculation but facts, provided directly by the university in November 2024.

What's your source for this? I've never seen data for Stanford, but a law professor at Stanford noted in an interview that legacy admits are more likely to be white and affluent.

“Insider’s View” webinar with Howard Wolf, Stanford Vice President for Alumni Affairs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?

I never said that but you cited the work of a paper that didn't work out so well because Arcidicano's work only gave the "right" answer if the model left out the personal factor which it did saying they it was a biased factor. Legacy benefits whites more because they are the largest proportion of the legacy pool, not because they are white. The proportion is dropping but the benefits will still favor whites by numbers until the proportion of whites at a school drops below 50% and then this change persists for a long enough period of time that there is a group of legacies which aren't majority white whose children are applying to a school. The benefits of a legacy tag are pretty equal for anyone who is a legacy regardless of race and actually on an individual level may disproportionaltely benefit Asian legacy applicants because they are the group that had the largest increase in admittance benefit for any single factor which was the personal rating.

So non-white applicants today should be "understanding" of an unfair admissions advantage for whites simply because of historical reasons? Many white people were not particularly sympathetic to affirmative action that was designed to address historical inequities and injustices, yet many white people are happy to defend their own privilege and tell non-whites to wait a few decades so they too can have an unfair advantage over an equivalent applicant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?

I never said that but you cited the work of a paper that didn't work out so well because Arcidicano's work only gave the "right" answer if the model left out the personal factor which it did saying they it was a biased factor. Legacy benefits whites more because they are the largest proportion of the legacy pool, not because they are white. The proportion is dropping but the benefits will still favor whites by numbers until the proportion of whites at a school drops below 50% and then this change persists for a long enough period of time that there is a group of legacies which aren't majority white whose children are applying to a school. The benefits of a legacy tag are pretty equal for anyone who is a legacy regardless of race and actually on an individual level may disproportionaltely benefit Asian legacy applicants because they are the group that had the largest increase in admittance benefit for any single factor which was the personal rating.

I’ve posted some of this before, but perhaps not all: currently at Stanford, ~40% of legacy applicants and ~50% of legacy admits are of color. Legacy applicants as a group have higher stats than non-legacy applicants. Legacy kids make up ~10% of the class. Even if Stanford formally eliminates legacy preference next admissions cycle as the state of CA has mandated (and which I 100% support), there may not be any meaningful change to this percentage.

No idea about Ivies, but Stanford has been mentioned on this thread and the numbers above are not speculation but facts, provided directly by the university in November 2024.

What's your source for this? I've never seen data for Stanford, but a law professor at Stanford noted in an interview that legacy admits are more likely to be white and affluent.

“Insider’s View” webinar with Howard Wolf, Stanford Vice President for Alumni Affairs

So no rigorous study, just a university employee who maybe said something on a webinar that you don't even link to, but we're to accept this as fact while you tell us to disregard NBER reviewed research studies that don't support your worldview.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?

I never said that but you cited the work of a paper that didn't work out so well because Arcidicano's work only gave the "right" answer if the model left out the personal factor which it did saying they it was a biased factor. Legacy benefits whites more because they are the largest proportion of the legacy pool, not because they are white. The proportion is dropping but the benefits will still favor whites by numbers until the proportion of whites at a school drops below 50% and then this change persists for a long enough period of time that there is a group of legacies which aren't majority white whose children are applying to a school. The benefits of a legacy tag are pretty equal for anyone who is a legacy regardless of race and actually on an individual level may disproportionaltely benefit Asian legacy applicants because they are the group that had the largest increase in admittance benefit for any single factor which was the personal rating.

I’ve posted some of this before, but perhaps not all: currently at Stanford, ~40% of legacy applicants and ~50% of legacy admits are of color. Legacy applicants as a group have higher stats than non-legacy applicants. Legacy kids make up ~10% of the class. Even if Stanford formally eliminates legacy preference next admissions cycle as the state of CA has mandated (and which I 100% support), there may not be any meaningful change to this percentage.

No idea about Ivies, but Stanford has been mentioned on this thread and the numbers above are not speculation but facts, provided directly by the university in November 2024.

What's your source for this? I've never seen data for Stanford, but a law professor at Stanford noted in an interview that legacy admits are more likely to be white and affluent.

“Insider’s View” webinar with Howard Wolf, Stanford Vice President for Alumni Affairs

So no rigorous study, just a university employee who maybe said something on a webinar that you don't even link to, but we're to accept this as fact while you tell us to disregard NBER reviewed research studies that don't support your worldview.

The webinar was for alumni only and legacy admissions was a formal agenda point. If you’re seriously trying to claim that the VP of Alumni Affairs made these numbers up - which are actually rather disappointing to many alumni who wish Stanford would place a greater emphasis on legacy - I can’t help you. Again, I personally support the end of legacy preferences altogether, and don’t know why you keep confusing me with other posters. Sincere best wishes to you and your DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?

I never said that but you cited the work of a paper that didn't work out so well because Arcidicano's work only gave the "right" answer if the model left out the personal factor which it did saying they it was a biased factor. Legacy benefits whites more because they are the largest proportion of the legacy pool, not because they are white. The proportion is dropping but the benefits will still favor whites by numbers until the proportion of whites at a school drops below 50% and then this change persists for a long enough period of time that there is a group of legacies which aren't majority white whose children are applying to a school. The benefits of a legacy tag are pretty equal for anyone who is a legacy regardless of race and actually on an individual level may disproportionaltely benefit Asian legacy applicants because they are the group that had the largest increase in admittance benefit for any single factor which was the personal rating.

So non-white applicants today should be "understanding" of an unfair admissions advantage for whites simply because of historical reasons? Many white people were not particularly sympathetic to affirmative action that was designed to address historical inequities and injustices, yet many white people are happy to defend their own privilege and tell non-whites to wait a few decades so they too can have an unfair advantage over an equivalent applicant.

I did not say or imply anything of the sort. I just pointed out that legacy benefits were actually race neutral on their benefits within the legacy pool and pointed out that within that pool they might actually give Asian applicants a slightly higher boot than that received by others within that pool. Personally I think that the ultimate result of SFFA v Harvard was unfortunate; I am not in favor of eliminating affirmative action but rather reforming it to eliminate its benefit for High SES candidates of any race.

I get tired of people dragging out and citing the Arcidicano paper because it is crap. It was designed to achieve specific result and the only way that they could achieve that result was by dropping a real factor in Harvards admissions rubric (personal). David Card's rebuttal did a very thorough job of dismantling Arcidicano's work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?

I never said that but you cited the work of a paper that didn't work out so well because Arcidicano's work only gave the "right" answer if the model left out the personal factor which it did saying they it was a biased factor. Legacy benefits whites more because they are the largest proportion of the legacy pool, not because they are white. The proportion is dropping but the benefits will still favor whites by numbers until the proportion of whites at a school drops below 50% and then this change persists for a long enough period of time that there is a group of legacies which aren't majority white whose children are applying to a school. The benefits of a legacy tag are pretty equal for anyone who is a legacy regardless of race and actually on an individual level may disproportionaltely benefit Asian legacy applicants because they are the group that had the largest increase in admittance benefit for any single factor which was the personal rating.

I’ve posted some of this before, but perhaps not all: currently at Stanford, ~40% of legacy applicants and ~50% of legacy admits are of color. Legacy applicants as a group have higher stats than non-legacy applicants. Legacy kids make up ~10% of the class. Even if Stanford formally eliminates legacy preference next admissions cycle as the state of CA has mandated (and which I 100% support), there may not be any meaningful change to this percentage.

No idea about Ivies, but Stanford has been mentioned on this thread and the numbers above are not speculation but facts, provided directly by the university in November 2024.

What's your source for this? I've never seen data for Stanford, but a law professor at Stanford noted in an interview that legacy admits are more likely to be white and affluent.

“Insider’s View” webinar with Howard Wolf, Stanford Vice President for Alumni Affairs

So no rigorous study, just a university employee who maybe said something on a webinar that you don't even link to, but we're to accept this as fact while you tell us to disregard NBER reviewed research studies that don't support your worldview.

Arcidicano's paper is not "reviewed". It is classified as a working paper precisely to avoid review.