Reply to Elite Colleges’ Quiet Fight to Favor Alumni Children

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Elite Colleges’ Quiet Fight to Favor Alumni Children"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Look -- college is not a government program where the "most deserving" whatever that means gets the slot.  Getting federal money to do things for the common good does not change that.  Colleges get to pick what they want.  I get legacy.  It grounds the college and helps give it a history that can be shared.  But the college gets to decide what it wants.  Hey we need more music majors let's lower the scores for them or any other majors.

And this is the exact time that URMs admitted in an earlier time in great numbers have the legacy option.  Seems a bit harsh to pull from them.  [/quote]

It will never be a "fair system". There is no way for that to happen.  Just like life isn't fair.  The fact that some people can afford tutoring and extras to help their kids isn't fair either.  The fact that I can afford private schools (don't do that but I could) and can also afford to live in a top public district isn't fair.  State schools should not use legacy, but private schools should get to pick what they want.  Just like you stated, they do that when they don't admit 90% of their class as engineering, unless it's solely an engineering school. They do that with athletics, and many other admits.  
Most of these on DCUM complaining that it isn't fair don't really appreciate all of the advantages they already have over most of the kids in the USA/world.

[/quote]

I think legacy should be abolished and it’s not because of fairness. I don’t think fairness is a reasonable objection to legacy. It’s because legacy are the only group that get admissions advantages without accompanying accomplishments or benefits to the school. I honestly don’t understand how parents can even put their kids through admission as a legacy — it’s like flat-out telling them they are mediocre — but my real objection is that legacy admissions bring a lot of extremely entitled kids to campuses and I think it harms the environment of schools. [/quote]

Well the school does get a benefit.  legacies, especially if it's multiple generations are much more likely to donate after graduation.  Really legacy is all about financial issues for the university.  Similarly, a Rich legacy whose family actually donates is more likely to get admitted than someone whose parents have not.   I agree it's not the best for the school environment, but dont kid yourself, the places that admit by legacy are expensive schools and typically 50%+ are full pay students anyhow, with many being rich kids so that would be there no matter what.  [/quote]

There are no kids getting into anywhere because of legacy that are mediocre.  Just not a  thing.  They are in the group at each school that have the potential to be admitted.  No people who make multi million donations may get mediocre kids in.  But legacy is just not that.  [/quote]

I agree.  Most who get in via legacy have the stats to be admitted or extremely close (and really someone who has a 1500 SAT and 4.2 W GPA are not that much different than a 1580 and 4.4).  And that's to be expected because someone growing up in a wealthy family would have had the best educational opportunities available to them all the way thru life and expected to excel. [/quote]
I've heard it said that people who come from privileged backgrounds have a leg up already in life compared to mere mortals. Hence, part of the reason for holistic admissions.

If you compare two students with the same stats: one from a MC family whose parents went to a B rated state univ and the other whose a child of an ivy league graduate, the MC student probably had to work harder for those stats than the legacy kid.

Isn't that what we are told about poor kids, first gen kids.. that they have to work harder?  MC kids have to work harder than UMC.

So, yes, I would expect UMC kids whose parents are ivy league educated to have super high stats, but that kid most likely didn't have to work as hard, or at least had more opportunities than a MC, or LMC kid did with the same stats.

In that way, the MC or even UMC  kid  whose parents just managed to work hard an save seems to always be screwed - no hooks.[/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