Reply to How much does legacy matter at Ivy League schools

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "How much does legacy matter at Ivy League schools "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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[/quote]

Stop citing this useless study. Athletes and legacies are completely different. Athletes are mostly dumber than the average applicant. Legacies are mostly smarter than the average applicant. Any study that lumps them together (done to make legacies look bad) has zero validity. [/quote]

Please cite the study that supports your opinion that legacy admissions benefit non-whites more than whites.[/quote]

I never made a claim about who legacy admission benefits more. I am stating that maintaining legacy admission actually boost racial diversity in comparison to the counterfactual scenario of eliminating legacy admission, now that affirmative action is banned. If you look at the racial background 
of the cohort that scored a 1400+ on the SAT (in recent years), the demographics are as follows. 43% white, 38% Asian, 7% Hispanic, 1.6% Black. Compare this the demographics of HYP in the year 2000 and, 57% white, 20% Asian, 8% Hispanic, and 6% Black. So the cohort of legacy children from the class of 2000 will actually have a higher % of Black and Hispanic kids than the cohort of kids with 1400+ SAT scores. Throw in a slight boost to admissions odds for geographically underrepresented areas, and you can still get some additional racial diversity indirectly as a side-effect of your policy to promote geographic representation. Conclusion: eliminating legacy admission will actually make future cohorts of elite colleges less racially diverse now that affirmative action is illegal. Also, legacy students help with yield management and they are generally full pay, so it makes it financially feasible for colleges to subsidize tuition for a larger number of low-income students. Yes, it may not be fair. However, it is a very pragmatic policy that has meaningful benefits by allowing colleges to admit more low-income students, boosts black and Hispanic representation in a post-affirmative action environment and encourages donations. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics