Anonymous wrote:The concept of legacy preference is so medieval. Can you imagine applying for a job and getting a legal, stated preference based on who your father is? It’s like an old guild system or something.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am white, from a privileged background, and have parents and grandparents who went to Ivy league schools, Stanford, and other top universities. I don't think legacy status should be considered at all. I mean come on; the truth is the practice does give a leg up to those who are already privileged - aka resource hoarding. It says little to nothing about the applicant themselves. There is just no way to defeat that argument. It is a bs reason to let a kid into a school over another equally qualified applicant (as that is really how its most frequently used). It should not be considered a hook in any way.

I have one question though that I have never been able to find a solution to - how do you encourage alum to donate if it won't help their kid get in? It is the number one reason people donate long term. How do you replace the private scholarships funded for basically the same reason? How do you replace all that money that the school depends on? When most don't have enough to give to have a building named for them, and there is no longer any legacy status bestowed on their kids, how do you get donations from the ordinary graduates?

Schools that got rid of legacy have not had a measurable effect on donations. They are still getting plenty of donations.
Most people give money because they ultimately believe in the school’s mission and values - that is what the big donations are generally about

+1 Not only that, but they could lower the cost and so they don't need to provide that much aide.

Oxbridge is half the cost of Harvard, but it's still an elite college. And they don't look at legacies.

We have a friend in the UK whose kid went to Oxbridge. We were talking to them about how college works here, the cost, the legacy hooks, etc.. and they were just floored.

For a STEM student, Cambridge is about $45,000 plus another 12k in college fees and that doesn't include room and board. That's almost exactly what Harvard costs for full pay students

https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/files/publications/undergraduate_tuition_fees_2023-24.pdf

But isn't Cambridge just a 3yr degree like Oxford? There's one fewer year of tuition and room & board.

There's that, too. They don't take GE classes in college like we do here.

That alone was attractive to my STEM focused kid who hates English and History (though got a 5 on AP English and 780 ELA section on SAT). But, after covid, I didn't want DC to be in another country, that far away.

I know some people here like to say that taking those GE classes in college makes for a more well rounded person, but honestly, all that says is that our K-12 education is so lacking that the kids have to take those same classes all over again in college, that the only way to get out of it is to take "college" level exams in HS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the anti-legacy posters do you also oppose any and all legacy preference for kids of current and former faculty, staff and employees of the University (including those who are alumni themselves)?

What about legacy preference for kids of alumni who donate hundreds (or thousands) of hours of their time over the years answering the university's call to interview undergraduate applicants for admission in their town?

What about the alumni who spend hundreds of hours volunteering to organize the 5 year class reunions?

Should the relationship for those employees and alumni be a one way street with all the benefits going to the university?

My long experience with a school that offers a legacy boost (for ED applicants only) is that a large percentage of "legacy" applicants fall into one of the above categories. That makes sense as those are the parents/kids who know the university better than your ordinary alumni whose connection to the University may not go much beyond some donations to the annual fund.

Curious whether folks on here think banning all legacy -- with zero exceptions -- really is the right approach.

Absolutely. None of what you describe comes close to compensating for denying seats to more academically qualified applicants, and shutting out a swathe of diverse candidates who cannot be legacy because of this country's previously racist university admissions.

You don't seem to grasp that you're talking about minor, insignificant acts of service here, PP. Go read the files of worthy applicants and you'll see what the really valuable candidates have managed to do in their short life. It's incredibly unfair to deny them a spot just because someone's parent did a little something for their alma mater. And it's entirely wrong-headed of you to think that what the parent does somehow makes their child worthier. Do you even realize what you're saying?!?! You're passing judgment on a kid because of who their parent is and what their parent has done? Are you crazy?


So bizarre.

No I'm not crazy since these are not my policies. What you are saying, however, is that most of the top private universities in the US are "bizarre" and "crazy"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am white, from a privileged background, and have parents and grandparents who went to Ivy league schools, Stanford, and other top universities. I don't think legacy status should be considered at all. I mean come on; the truth is the practice does give a leg up to those who are already privileged - aka resource hoarding. It says little to nothing about the applicant themselves. There is just no way to defeat that argument. It is a bs reason to let a kid into a school over another equally qualified applicant (as that is really how its most frequently used). It should not be considered a hook in any way.

I have one question though that I have never been able to find a solution to - how do you encourage alum to donate if it won't help their kid get in? It is the number one reason people donate long term. How do you replace the private scholarships funded for basically the same reason? How do you replace all that money that the school depends on? When most don't have enough to give to have a building named for them, and there is no longer any legacy status bestowed on their kids, how do you get donations from the ordinary graduates?

Schools that got rid of legacy have not had a measurable effect on donations. They are still getting plenty of donations.
Most people give money because they ultimately believe in the school’s mission and values - that is what the big donations are generally about

+1 Not only that, but they could lower the cost and so they don't need to provide that much aide.

Oxbridge is half the cost of Harvard, but it's still an elite college. And they don't look at legacies.

We have a friend in the UK whose kid went to Oxbridge. We were talking to them about how college works here, the cost, the legacy hooks, etc.. and they were just floored.

The US college system of today is beyond absurd. We are encouraging our kids to study abroad.

+1

Too many people, too many students, and not enough spaces. The US is becoming overcrowded - FAST.

There are tons of spaces. Most colleges out there are dying for students. The problem is that everyone want sot go to the same few places.

+1000

Step outside the T20-25 and it is much easier to get accepted. These are still excellent universities---majority of people attend schools ranked below T20 and many do well in life. Change your attitude and you can succeed at a great school

If you think crazy admissions are limited to T25, you haven't been paying attention for the last few years

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am white, from a privileged background, and have parents and grandparents who went to Ivy league schools, Stanford, and other top universities. I don't think legacy status should be considered at all. I mean come on; the truth is the practice does give a leg up to those who are already privileged - aka resource hoarding. It says little to nothing about the applicant themselves. There is just no way to defeat that argument. It is a bs reason to let a kid into a school over another equally qualified applicant (as that is really how its most frequently used). It should not be considered a hook in any way.

I have one question though that I have never been able to find a solution to - how do you encourage alum to donate if it won't help their kid get in? It is the number one reason people donate long term. How do you replace the private scholarships funded for basically the same reason? How do you replace all that money that the school depends on? When most don't have enough to give to have a building named for them, and there is no longer any legacy status bestowed on their kids, how do you get donations from the ordinary graduates?

Schools that got rid of legacy have not had a measurable effect on donations. They are still getting plenty of donations.
Most people give money because they ultimately believe in the school’s mission and values - that is what the big donations are generally about

+1 Not only that, but they could lower the cost and so they don't need to provide that much aide.

Oxbridge is half the cost of Harvard, but it's still an elite college. And they don't look at legacies.

We have a friend in the UK whose kid went to Oxbridge. We were talking to them about how college works here, the cost, the legacy hooks, etc.. and they were just floored.

The US college system of today is beyond absurd. We are encouraging our kids to study abroad.

+1

Too many people, too many students, and not enough spaces. The US is becoming overcrowded - FAST.

There are tons of spaces. Most colleges out there are dying for students. The problem is that everyone want sot go to the same few places.

+1000

Step outside the T20-25 and it is much easier to get accepted. These are still excellent universities---majority of people attend schools ranked below T20 and many do well in life. Change your attitude and you can succeed at a great school

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am white, from a privileged background, and have parents and grandparents who went to Ivy league schools, Stanford, and other top universities. I don't think legacy status should be considered at all. I mean come on; the truth is the practice does give a leg up to those who are already privileged - aka resource hoarding. It says little to nothing about the applicant themselves. There is just no way to defeat that argument. It is a bs reason to let a kid into a school over another equally qualified applicant (as that is really how its most frequently used). It should not be considered a hook in any way.

I have one question though that I have never been able to find a solution to - how do you encourage alum to donate if it won't help their kid get in? It is the number one reason people donate long term. How do you replace the private scholarships funded for basically the same reason? How do you replace all that money that the school depends on? When most don't have enough to give to have a building named for them, and there is no longer any legacy status bestowed on their kids, how do you get donations from the ordinary graduates?

Schools that got rid of legacy have not had a measurable effect on donations. They are still getting plenty of donations.
Most people give money because they ultimately believe in the school’s mission and values - that is what the big donations are generally about

+1 Not only that, but they could lower the cost and so they don't need to provide that much aide.

Oxbridge is half the cost of Harvard, but it's still an elite college. And they don't look at legacies.

We have a friend in the UK whose kid went to Oxbridge. We were talking to them about how college works here, the cost, the legacy hooks, etc.. and they were just floored.

The US college system of today is beyond absurd. We are encouraging our kids to study abroad.

+1

Too many people, too many students, and not enough spaces. The US is becoming overcrowded - FAST.

There are tons of spaces. Most colleges out there are dying for students. The problem is that everyone want sot go to the same few places.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the anti-legacy posters do you also oppose any and all legacy preference for kids of current and former faculty, staff and employees of the University (including those who are alumni themselves)?

What about legacy preference for kids of alumni who donate hundreds (or thousands) of hours of their time over the years answering the university's call to interview undergraduate applicants for admission in their town?

What about the alumni who spend hundreds of hours volunteering to organize the 5 year class reunions?

Should the relationship for those employees and alumni be a one way street with all the benefits going to the university?

My long experience with a school that offers a legacy boost (for ED applicants only) is that a large percentage of "legacy" applicants fall into one of the above categories. That makes sense as those are the parents/kids who know the university better than your ordinary alumni whose connection to the University may not go much beyond some donations to the annual fund.

Curious whether folks on here think banning all legacy -- with zero exceptions -- really is the right approach.

Absolutely. None of what you describe comes close to compensating for denying seats to more academically qualified applicants, and shutting out a swathe of diverse candidates who cannot be legacy because of this country's previously racist university admissions.

You don't seem to grasp that you're talking about minor, insignificant acts of service here, PP. Go read the files of worthy applicants and you'll see what the really valuable candidates have managed to do in their short life. It's incredibly unfair to deny them a spot just because someone's parent did a little something for their alma mater. And it's entirely wrong-headed of you to think that what the parent does somehow makes their child worthier. Do you even realize what you're saying?!?! You're passing judgment on a kid because of who their parent is and what their parent has done? Are you crazy?


So bizarre.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am white, from a privileged background, and have parents and grandparents who went to Ivy league schools, Stanford, and other top universities. I don't think legacy status should be considered at all. I mean come on; the truth is the practice does give a leg up to those who are already privileged - aka resource hoarding. It says little to nothing about the applicant themselves. There is just no way to defeat that argument. It is a bs reason to let a kid into a school over another equally qualified applicant (as that is really how its most frequently used). It should not be considered a hook in any way.

I have one question though that I have never been able to find a solution to - how do you encourage alum to donate if it won't help their kid get in? It is the number one reason people donate long term. How do you replace the private scholarships funded for basically the same reason? How do you replace all that money that the school depends on? When most don't have enough to give to have a building named for them, and there is no longer any legacy status bestowed on their kids, how do you get donations from the ordinary graduates?

Excellent question. I suspect many who donate more than $100/year do so in hopes of getting legacy status for their kids (I know we did that). Loosing that $$$ will likely affect Financial aid and merit awards at many schools---I suspect many will stop giving if legacy isn't a thing. So then you are hurting the exact people you are hoping to help by eliminating "legacy" status.

I'm all for legacy status, as long as the student's have stats to get in on their own. Otherwise, how do AO decide? It's a particularly touching essay that grabs the AO's attention? Who knows, but ultimately it's something small that helps them whittle down 40K+ applicants to less than 4K for an ultimate class of 2K. And 38-39K of those students would all make excellent freshman at university X. Fact is, it will never be Fair.

Dannenberg points to a study that tracked alumni giving from 1998 to 2008 at the top 100 American universities, as ranked by U.S. News & World Report. The study found “no statistically significant evidence” that legacy preferences themselves make any given alum more likely to donate; instead, the study suggested, they simply allow schools to let in more children of wealthy alumni than they otherwise would. So since those wealthy alumni tend to donate more money, the legacy preference does appear to help colleges’ bottom line. But giving these students higher priority doesn’t seem financially vital: Seven schools tracked in the study did away with legacy preferences and didn’t see any large drop-off in donations, though such a drop-off could conceivably occur over a longer time span.

Anonymous wrote:For the anti-legacy posters do you also oppose any and all legacy preference for kids of current and former faculty, staff and employees of the University (including those who are alumni themselves)?

What about legacy preference for kids of alumni who donate hundreds (or thousands) of hours of their time over the years answering the university's call to interview undergraduate applicants for admission in their town?

What about the alumni who spend hundreds of hours volunteering to organize the 5 year class reunions?

Should the relationship for those employees and alumni be a one way street with all the benefits going to the university?

My long experience with a school that offers a legacy boost (for ED applicants only) is that a large percentage of "legacy" applicants fall into one of the above categories. That makes sense as those are the parents/kids who know the university better than your ordinary alumni whose connection to the University may not go much beyond some donations to the annual fund.

Curious whether folks on here think banning all legacy -- with zero exceptions -- really is the right approach.

Anonymous wrote:For the anti-legacy posters do you also oppose any and all legacy preference for kids of current and former faculty, staff and employees of the University (including those who are alumni themselves)?

What about legacy preference for kids of alumni who donate hundreds (or thousands) of hours of their time over the years answering the university's call to interview undergraduate applicants for admission in their town?

What about the alumni who spend hundreds of hours volunteering to organize the 5 year class reunions?

Should the relationship for those employees and alumni be a one way street with all the benefits going to the university?

My long experience with a school that offers a legacy boost (for ED applicants only) is that a large percentage of "legacy" applicants fall into one of the above categories. That makes sense as those are the parents/kids who know the university better than your ordinary alumni whose connection to the University may not go much beyond some donations to the annual fund.

Curious whether folks on here think banning all legacy -- with zero exceptions -- really is the right approach.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No preference for legacy status. It’s not hard to understand, OP.

For OP, it is because OP cannot fathom losing their privilege.

Your generation is overusing this word.

+1! And “entitled” and “racist”. I’ve stopped listening

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want to leave parents out of the equation, don’t ask if parents went to college and higher degree achieved.

A kid who has parents who’ve achieved graduate degrees is more privileged than a first Gen kid. That matters.

It shouldn’t. You can’t pick your parents anymore than you can pick the color of your skin or sex. It’s just as wrong to hold it against a kid that their parent is uneducated as that their parent is educated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No preference for legacy status. It’s not hard to understand, OP.

For OP, it is because OP cannot fathom losing their privilege.

Your generation is overusing this word.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The concept of legacy preference is so medieval. Can you imagine applying for a job and getting a legal, stated preference based on who your father is? It’s like an old guild system or something.

Well actually businesses and corporations tend be more like the old guild system than colleges but no one’s complaining about that.