Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Private & Independent Schools
Reply to "Is there anything positive about legacy admissions? "
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Legacies keep the alumi donation pipeline full. With no legacies donations would plummet. It is that simple. [/quote] There's no evidence of this: an alternative hypothesis is that legacy boosts lead to admissions of kids who wouldn't have been admitted were it not for the legacy boost, thereby perpetuating the supremacy of otherwise less than stellar kids. And maybe one of the kids who would have been admitted, if selection were fully merit based would be the next billionaire who could keep college coffers full.[/quote] It's a pretty straight forward assumption. Most people would donate less if their child was rejected. The even bigger issue for schools is that alumni are walking billboards. They have a much larger impact an application rates than you realize. None of this is measurable by a study.[/quote] Yes, so you should stop stating your opinions as if they're fact. Stating "most people would donate less if their child was rejected" does not mean that legacy admissions are the best option for universities, and [b]the most elite universities don't need their alumni to be walking billboards for them--they're already at sub-5% admittance rates. [/b] It could be that cchools could do better if they picked the best applicant, and that best applicant was more successful and could donate more than the legacy student.[/quote] The elite schools are at sub 5% admittance rates BECAUSE of their alumni. "Best" as you say, is subjective. Best to Americans means reputation, cache, prestige, and perceived smarts, if the elite schools just focus on a cut off line based off test scores and grades, they will soon no longer be elite, because the elite of the U.S. will not want to go to these schools. [/quote] That’s your opinion, not a fact. As mentioned earlier in this thread, plenty of countries (ex: England, France, India, Korea, China) have elite universities with admissions that are entirely merit based that are perceived as elite. [/quote] I would love to see the stats on US citizen admissions to the elite universities in those countries. They also have very different funding mechanisms. The educational environment for kids is incredibly miserable in Asia. I see this first-hand as I live in Singapore. It is exhausting to witness the intensity with which families are pursuing US university options. The kids have after school and Saturday tuition all designed to optimize test scores and grades. And yes, all of the selection tests are trainable with enough effort. They no longer measure anything other than test prep. They’ve even managed to add in certifications to after school art, theater, and music programs. The credentialism is out of control. [/quote] I'm sure you can find those stats using a handy tool that "the kids" call Google. You just need to look at numbers and read more rather than state opinions without evidence. Perhaps because you live in Singapore, you have not realized that plenty of American kids are also in Saturday and/or Sunday academic enrichment classes and activities. It's competitive here too. But your anecdote is not data anyway--plenty of desirable schools (ex: Oxford and Cambridge) do not have legacy admissions despite being in a country with its own aristocracy.[/quote] +1 The USA is the only advanced country I have heard of that rewards kids with a substantial preference for elite college admissions just because their parents went there.[/quote] +1 it’s an anomaly for international standards.[/quote] +100 "No other way to do this," says the only country where universities admit students this way. [/quote] :D [/quote] On the other hand it doesn’t seem to impact the overall quality of the colleges so why do we need to change it? If you’re going to whine about “unqualified” admits, the legacy admits are not the logical starting point anyway. Athletes are. [/quote] Do you have evidence that it does not impact the overall quality of the colleges? And sure, many other countries do not provide athletes with advantages to admissions to their elite schools.[/quote] I mean to the extent you can judge the quality of a college, the national and international rankings don’t have any issue with it. [/quote] What's your evidence that national and international rankings "don't have any issue with it?"[/quote] US colleges with legacy admissions are still among the highest rated schools nationally and internationally - if it was impacting their quality wouldn’t you expect to see them drop?[/quote] We should compare the ratings of colleges that offer legacy preferences vs the ratings of those that don’t. [/quote] You could do that if you don't understand data and that many other factors other than legacy preferences influence those ratings.[/quote] Maybe the top private colleges know what they’re doing and you should realize that you get zero say in what they do. [/quote] Maybe, but some people are working on it. Wait and see: https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/legacy-college-admissions-preferences-backlash-772c88be?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqfGFvlrqmXVOOhJ18zHtfVzl-1vcfYhFrhg0cjg0gXd3i1KDaAmiYPX&gaa_ts=690a6313&gaa_sig=C1kojItHmI-q9r_wn1wq145nC4t7dKhywH75rZ_rgH0IK1OOiDE4uTZZhgDGvW6LjNPeZ3uq-J_Y8uhd3kkkmg%3D%3D[/quote] No one is forcing your kid to apply. [/quote] Why are you afraid of removing legacy admissions if your kid is so talented?[/quote] I have no fear, but I also think that none of us or our government should tell private universities what to do. They obviously think it’s good for their schools or they wouldn’t be doing it.[/quote] Are you okay with the government saying that universities should not base their admission decisions on race? [/quote] I think the pp was clear: "none of us or our government should tell private universities what to do". I am for one am not opposed to AA or legacy or athlete admissions.[/quote] So just to be clear, you say it’s ok for universities to accept applicants based on race or it’s not ok? Could you please clarify. [/quote] God you are insufferable. Here in the US private universities have to follow the Civil Rights Act and cannot discriminate based on race. There aren’t similar laws that govern legacy admissions and each school can decide for themselves whether preferences for legacies (or athletes, or artists, etc) are in the best interest of their school. I think this system works well and I am glad that private colleges don’t have to conform to some government mandated view of merit. And for the many schools whose practices don’t align with my family’s world view the answer is very simple, we don’t apply there. I would much rather have a wide variety of schools to consider than a rigid system based on some singular view of merit.[/quote] Got it, so you’re fine with the government telling universities what to do, as long as it’s in ways you agree with?[/quote] Again, I think you work really hard to not understand what anyone who disagrees with you is saying and to consistently respond with sarcasm when you have nothing intelligent to say. Let's try this again. Read it twice before you respond. Here in the United States institutions have to follow federal law, and the law doesn't allow for racial discrimination. Beyond that if they are private then can do what they want, which is why we have a wide assortment of universities to choose from with varied policies. In some other countries that you sound much more familiar with there are laws that enforce conformity. As an American, I like our system and appreciate that my family can choose to apply to schools that align with our values and others can choose something entirely different. I don't want someone else to impose their values on our system.[/quote] Make sense the government should not tell universities what to do, because none of those institutions receive money from the government in forms of grants or tax exemptions for their endowments. All the public money that goes to universities it’s just the imagination of a sick mind. You sound a bit like Joe the plumber : the government should stay away from Medicare ! In any case, I value universities like John Hopkins that voluntarily give up legacy admissions. They can still admit kids from alumni and rich people, but there is no commitment to do so. Alumni do not own the university to have preferences over other families. You have to realize that some traditions like legacy admissions are archaic, and the society could be better off without them.[/quote] It's a great formula you use, begin with sarcasm and insults. Then repeat what you've said for 19 pages without convincing anyone. It's great you value Johns (not John) Hopkins. Here in America you can choose to apply to the school that you value, so if you don't like the Ivy league schools with legacy admissions then you don't have to apply! Maybe in your country you are totally focused on how the society could be better off with uniform rules rather than allowing freedom of choice, here in America we allow people and institutions to make their own decisions and our constitution limits the government's ability to force rules on private institutions.[/quote] I can easily imagine people like you justifying archaic institutions like slavery 160 years ago. Fortunately, the United States is an evolving society, and some things do change. Hold on to your legacy admissions as much as you want — they might not last much longer.[/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
