Reply to Question for those opposed to legacy status

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Question for those opposed to legacy status"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]For the anti-legacy posters do you also oppose any and all legacy preference for kids of current and former faculty, staff and employees of the University (including those who are alumni themselves)?

What about legacy preference for kids of alumni who donate hundreds (or thousands) of hours of their time over the years answering the university's call to interview undergraduate applicants for admission in their town?

What about the alumni who spend hundreds of hours volunteering to organize the 5 year class reunions?

Should the relationship for those employees and alumni be a one way street with all the benefits going to the university?

My long experience with a school that offers a legacy boost  (for ED applicants only) is that a large percentage of "legacy" applicants fall into one of the above categories. That makes sense as those are the parents/kids who know the university better than your ordinary alumni whose connection to the University may not go much beyond some donations to the annual fund.

Curious whether folks on here think banning all legacy -- with zero exceptions -- really is the right approach.

[/quote]

Absolutely. None of what you describe comes close to compensating for denying seats to more academically qualified applicants, and shutting out a swathe of diverse candidates who cannot be legacy because of this country's previously racist university admissions.

You don't seem to grasp that you're talking about minor, insignificant acts of service here, PP. Go read the files of worthy applicants and you'll see what the really valuable candidates have managed to do in their short life. It's incredibly unfair to deny them a spot just because someone's parent did a little something for their alma mater. And it's entirely wrong-headed of you to think that what the parent does somehow makes their child worthier. Do you even realize what you're saying?!?! You're passing judgment on a kid because of who their parent is and what their parent has done? Are you crazy?

So bizarre.

[/quote]

The majority of "legacy" spots are going to candidates that are equally qualified...majority are not George W Bush who obviously got in to college when he didn't have the resume. Yes there are some who are extremely well connected/wealthy who get in when they don't have the qualifications, but that is NOT the norm.

They are not just "giving a spot to someone for what their parent has done".  So when comparing two candidates, they choose to tip the scales to the one who is a legacy.  IN the same way that the scales might be tipped to someone who writes an exceptional essay or does a unique EC.  Harvard only fills 14% of their class with legacy (so about 150 kids).  Majority of those 150 kids have the resume to be at Harvard.  But just as easily could have been denied, like the 95% of applicants who are denied.  
Just because you have the stats, EC, resume for a top 20 school, it doesn't mean you will gain admission. It doesn't mean you are entitled to admission.  
Whether you get in or not can simply depend upon if the AO read your application for 2-3 mins right after having their morning coffee or if they read it at midnight 2 days before decisions are due.  Was the AO having a pissy day and just miserable or were they having a great day and totally on their job?  Most applications are given less than 5 mins of review (that's being generous).  So the decision to say "yay or nay" is a toss up, given that 95%+ of applicants to t20 schools would make ideal candidates.  But only 5-7% will get an acceptance.

[/quote]

Not true for the kids at our Big 3.  I'll start with the fact that I am referring to the set of kids who are all privileged - so none of them needs a leg up or a favor - they will all do fine. But certainly there are kids who are nowhere close to being in most rigorous courses, highest GPA/scores who are getting in as legacy.  They are not brining some other special quality to the table other than the fact that their parent went to the Ivy (and often that the other parent is a VIP).

Yes, they will graduate from their Ivy - but there is no reason why that kid is special and needs the Ivy admit over the 20 kids who worked their tails off to get better grades in FAR harder classes.   [/quote]

Yes, those kids exist, but I dare you to show me that all of Harvards/Yale/Princton's legacy admits only got in because they are legacy.  95% of them would have made ideal candidates already.  So you are nitpicking for 15-20 slots per year at each school (at the most) that went to "underqualified" candidates.  When there are 40K applicants, this has minimal effect.  The students who would benefit most from getting that spot are not donut hole families, but more first gen/lower income students and most of the Ivy's/T20 schools make a concerted effort already to increase this population yearly and work to better support them. 
Most of you on this group arguing are not doing it to provide access to those that would truly benefit from getting into a T20 school, which is the first gen/lower income students.  you are mad that your donut hole student isn't part of the 5% admission at a T20 school because your kid "worked so hard they deserve this".

[/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