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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Getting rid of legacy preference does absolutely nothing.  The same pool of privileged applicants will just spread themselves across the range of selective schools instead of getting funneled into the ones their parents attended.  It won't create additional opportunities for another else when viewed in the aggregate.[/quote]

This.  You get it. [/quote]

Wrong.   This is true only if you want to craft a narrative that suits your belief that the status quo in society should hold.  Legacy status primarily benefits wealthy white people.   When Johns Hopkins removed legacy preferences, the percentage of enrolled legacies declined from 12.5 to 3.5 percent, while Pell grant student enrollment (a proxy for low-income status) climbed from 9 to 19 percent.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/amhersts-legacy-announcement-wont-end-inequity/620476/

[/quote]

Did you even read the link you posted?  Removal of legacy status and increasing socioeconomic diversity are completely independent of one another.

“Hill’s absolutely accurate point is that increased institutional spending on grant aid—not loans—for students with economic need will do much more to increase the enrollment of working-class and low-income students at wealthy colleges than getting rid of legacy admissions will.”

[/quote]

Apparently you didn’t read it. Did you see how the share of Pell grant recipients increased by 10 pct in 2 years after legacy admissions were removed at John’s Hopkins while the share of legacy admin dropped? The point is they would increase even more if more grants were available for poor kids. [/quote]

They are completely independent events.[/quote]

Sure-the legacy admits just magically dropped when the policy not to give them preference changed.   :roll: [/quote]

Pell grants and legacy admit rates are completely independent.[/quote]

Johns Hopkins got rid of legacy preferences and it’s share of legacy students dropped from 12.5 to 3.5 percent.  Ergo, without said preferences a good chunk of legacy students were no longer competitive against the broader pool of admitted students.  People may try to argue as people on this thread have that this doesn’t matter because that 10 percent that Johns Hopkins now rejects are all commendable qualified students, but the face is that they weren’t as good as the legacy students weren’t as good as the students admitted in their place.

And you may choose to interpret the fact that the share of Pell grant students increased dramatically has nothing to do with dropping legacy preferences is a completely independent trend but you would be completely wrong, at least according to people who know anything about education statistics.  Admissions are not a win win situation.  If rich legacy kids lose, other kids gain, and in the case of Johns Hopkins it was poorer but more talented kids than the legacy pool.
[/quote]

When JHU got rid of legacy, legacy students stopped applying ED!  That’s why the numbers went down.   It isn’t because they weren’t as competitive.  It’s because they decided that if they weren’t going to have a hook, they would just assume apply ED somewhere they actually wanted to go.  They probably ended up in other T20 schools.[/quote]

So these JHU legacy kids didn't really want to go to JHU so they went elsewhere once they no longer had legacy preference.  Um, ok.   I don't agree with that interpretation, but if the kids didn't want to go to the same school as their parents, why is this a bad outcome?[/quote]

It isn’t a bad outcome.  My point is that it’s complete and total nonsense to suggest that the percentage of legacies at JHU decreased because most of them were unqualified and couldn’t get in once the legacy hook was removed.  The reason why the percentage of legacies at JHU dropped was because fewer applied once the hook was removed.  Those legacy applicants took their ED elsewhere.[/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