Reply to Interesting standardized testing data from Princeton's freshmen survey

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Interesting standardized testing data from Princeton's freshmen survey"

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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]There is a spin-off post to this, so adding my comment here - look how much better legacy kids do on the SAT/ACT. [/quote]
You mean kids whose parents are Ivy League educated do better on standardized tests? Wow, who would have thought?! I thought kids whose parents are poor, uneducated and lack resources would do better.  :roll: [/quote]
+1, basically every pro people talk about for legacy are just advantages of being wealthy. Legacy doesn’t need to exist.[/quote]
The fundraising ROI for universities says otherwise. Sorry that you hate capitalism.[/quote]
Great, show the proof that legacy admits of similar wealth status give more to the college then! I am not allergic to data.[/quote]
This isn't a controlled study. Universities are effectively making strategic business decisions though admissions. And they think legacy admits will give more, whether there is data to support it or not.

It's already well-established that yield is higher for legacies.
https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-why-elite-colleges-cant-give-up-legacy-admissions/[/quote]
It seems that you didn’t read this article, at least not closely. It almost entirely follows my argument and holds the limitation that it doesn’t hold conditional for the wealth of the person applying.[/quote]
"A whopping 42 percent of legacy graduates were flagged as potential top donors, which could include their whole family. Only 6 percent of non-legacy graduates were flagged as potential top donors."[/quote]
Once again that is not conditional for the wealth of the person applying. This is exactly my point. [/quote]

From the article:

[quote]It’s not that legacy students earned higher wages after graduation. Both groups – legacy and non-legacy – had an average income of roughly $85,000 a year.[/quote][/quote]
That is not adjusting for a variable. Some of you need to take intro stats.[/quote]

I understand that wealth and income are not the same thing, but how are they meaningfully different in this scenario?[/quote]
It’s more how you’re analyzing.

You need to be able to say that given a legacy student and a student without a parent attending Princeton, holding for the fact that both parents have the same wealth (whether it’s 48k annual income to 1.2million or whatever ridiculous number you wanna think), there’s a significant difference in the legacy parents child admission than the non legacy parent. The reason I believe this relationship will be insignificant is that they already conclude that wealth significantly increases probability of admission, so by adjusting, we’re actually identifying a confounding variable that likely determines this relationship more than the legacy status itself.

We know there’s a definite boost given to legacy, but the weight of significance is what’s being put to question. [/quote]

I think you are looking for conclusive proof rather than allowing for the overwhelming probability that when multiple generations of an affluent family attends a single school, that school becomes more important to the family and becomes a beneficiary of charitable giving by members of that family.

So even correcting for family wealth still leads to more giving by members of that family to the school.

Stanford recently made the conscious decision to forgo state funding to the tune of up to $10k/ student in order to preserve legacy admissions.  Was Stanford being irrational or just trying to maintain white supremacy or something?[/quote]
I have no doubt that being wealthy helps you tremendously get into a top institution, nor have I ever doubted that claim.[/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