Reply to How to respond when kid gets into school and is Legacy

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "How to respond when kid gets into school and is Legacy"

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]Whose the crazy person who thinks legacy is a huge boost?[/quote]

Um, anyone who has read any of the widely available statistical analyses done on data that is now public? Are you numerically illiterate?[/quote]

We aren’t talking about the historical data over the past few decades, recent data shows that legacy nothing more than a tiebreaker, if that.[/quote]
Even if what you are saying was true (which it is not for a double legacy), you seem to have some logic problems. When we know a double legacy kid got in, that is why. The fact that many legacies don’t get in is immaterial. If anything, it points to the difficulty of admission generally; this only underscores the point that the double legacy who did get in would have been rejected “but for” legacy status.[/quote]

One thing that has been eye-opening in this thread is the rank numerical illiteracy on display from the legacy parents. [/quote]

Ego-preserving blindness. [/quote]

Yes, but they are simultaneously claiming they are really smart and their kids are also really smart. So while you are clearly correct, it’s still something to see.

It is curious to see people who claim they are really smart demonstrate such profound numerical illiteracy. [/quote]

You keep saying this, yet have no recent data.  Weird.[/quote]

Again with the lack of numerical literacy. I will explain slowly, since your university obviously did a remarkably poor job educating you.

You are making an assertion, namely that legacy has no or minimal impact on admissions. Let’s call that your hypothesis. Your hypothesis is contradictory to presently accepted analytical consensus and numerous existing studies from well-respected institutions and academics.

Normally, when one proposes a hypothesis that contradicts established precedent, one brings forth data to demonstrate why the hypothesis correctly contradicts the existing understanding. This is considered part of the “scientific method,” which is clearly not something you understand. (I would do some reading up on the basics of scientific inquiry if I were you.)

What is insufficient when one is proposing a new hypothesis that contradicts the existing, data-supported consensus is to say “I don’t have any data but I know it’s true.” This, at best, is a theory. It is perfectly fine to have theories — some of the best science comes out of a hunch. But without supporting data and proof, your theory will not develop further.

Your theory is that legacy admissions are no longer a factor in admissions. This is an enormous departure from existing data analysis. Therefore, under the basics of the scientific method, it is up to you to produce hard evidence as to why prior understanding is wrong and your theory is correct.

Bring forward your data. Then we can talk. 
[/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