Anonymous wrote:It doesn't. I'm a 3x generation Cornell legacy. My cousins and I all became PhDs. I'm the only one that got in to Cornell but I had everything you need to get into elite schools (national awards) they did not.

Legacy preferences do not mean that every legacy candidate gets admitted. It means they are far more likely to get admitted, relative to a comparable candidate without the legacy preference. Your story about your single family does not mean that legacy preferences do not exist.

There are studies with actual data which show otherwise. This 2023 one by two Harvard professors shows that legacy candidates are 5X more likely to get into the group of "Ivy Plus" schools than non-legacy candidates. The authors note: “It’s absolutely not true that legacy applicants have an advantage in getting into other institutions where their parents did not go — admissions rates look basically the same. Showing you that it really is about being a legacy applicant, as opposed to other factors.”

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Nontech_Figures.pdf

It doesn't. I'm a 3x generation Cornell legacy. My cousins and I all became PhDs. I'm the only one that got in to Cornell but I had everything you need to get into elite schools (national awards) they did not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?

I don't want to speak for another poster, but I don't think they are saying it benefits non-whites more than whites. I think they are saying that it does not only benefit whites - non-whites are increasingly receiving more and more benefit from it because for the last 40 years, there was a general trend of increasing numbers of minorities at top schools and now their kids are applying. If they don't want to take advantage of it, their loss.

+1. The majority of my Princeton classmates whose kids have been admitted in recent years (sample size of 7-8) are non-white.

My spouse, siblings, and I are seeing the same among our Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Penn/Wharton classmates’ kids. I don’t think the poster who keeps saying legacy still primarily benefits white applicants went to any of these schools.

Sadly, your self-reported HYPS/Penn degree was granted in vain if you don’t know the difference between your anecdote and rigorous data analysis.

No one in my family thinks our diplomas make us better than anyone else, yet you covet them for your non-legacy DC. That’s what’s truly sad.

I guess all you can do is throw out things you think are insults when you have no evidence behind your arguments. And you may want to tell your psychiatrist about your ability to discern the educational pedigrees of random internet posters. They may want to up your meds.

I haven’t been launching insults, unlike this lovely statement from you. Speculating that you are not a HYPS or Penn graduate (who is likelier to know more about their school’s legacy preferences than a non-alum) is not an insult - that you think it is speaks volumes about your motivations for clinging onto your outdated claim that legacy preferences at these highly rejective schools primarily benefit white applicants in 2025.

OP, I apologize for my part in derailing your thread, and will cease to engage with this poster going forward. I think your DC should shoot their shot at whatever their first choice school happens to be. If it’s one of your Ivy alma maters, they will likely have a bit of a boost regardless of which race they are.

Anonymous wrote:Op here very interesting regarding the club tryouts! I think my kid would make the club team but who knows!

Tough to say definitively as it depends on the sport and the school. Making a club team at Cornell (14k undergrads) is likely tougher than making it at Dartmouth (4800 undergrads). Their are some ringers out there too.... DD's club team had former D3 players who had transferred in, as well as kids who quit the D1 varsity team but were still looking to play competively.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here - We have 2 Ivy early choices and one is ED and one SCEA (not Princeton or Harvard unfortunately as I did hear those have the biggest boost).

Child is good enough to be recruited at schools that aren't an academic match. The Ivy's have upped their sports level so just isn't quite there. Top academic d 3 indicated child could walk on if they get in but no coach support for app process - child is debating going for Ivy and doing the sport club in college or walk on at D3...not sure if high academic d3 will be a harder admit or legacy at Ivy is a harder admit but we want to choose correctly for early.

My kid was similar. Applied ED as legacy to an Ivy, was admitted, and went on to be captain of nationally competitive club team there. Absolutely loved the club experience.

My kid chose Ivy and Club as well- RD though

Club is not easy to make. Only 2 Freshman out of 100+ though. You get many kids that were recruits or could have played doing club because of time

PP here with kid who applied ED to an Ivy. Absolutely correct. The club team took only 2 of 45 at freshman tryouts.

Understand the desire to remain anonymous but curious what club sports you are referring to?

Womens soccer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?

I don't want to speak for another poster, but I don't think they are saying it benefits non-whites more than whites. I think they are saying that it does not only benefit whites - non-whites are increasingly receiving more and more benefit from it because for the last 40 years, there was a general trend of increasing numbers of minorities at top schools and now their kids are applying. If they don't want to take advantage of it, their loss.

+1. The majority of my Princeton classmates whose kids have been admitted in recent years (sample size of 7-8) are non-white.

My spouse, siblings, and I are seeing the same among our Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Penn/Wharton classmates’ kids. I don’t think the poster who keeps saying legacy still primarily benefits white applicants went to any of these schools.

Sadly, your self-reported HYPS/Penn degree was granted in vain if you don’t know the difference between your anecdote and rigorous data analysis.

No one in my family thinks our diplomas make us better than anyone else, yet you covet them for your non-legacy DC. That’s what’s truly sad.

I guess all you can do is throw out things you think are insults when you have no evidence behind your arguments. And you may want to tell your psychiatrist about your ability to discern the educational pedigrees of random internet posters. They may want to up your meds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?

I don't want to speak for another poster, but I don't think they are saying it benefits non-whites more than whites. I think they are saying that it does not only benefit whites - non-whites are increasingly receiving more and more benefit from it because for the last 40 years, there was a general trend of increasing numbers of minorities at top schools and now their kids are applying. If they don't want to take advantage of it, their loss.

+1. The majority of my Princeton classmates whose kids have been admitted in recent years (sample size of 7-8) are non-white.

My spouse, siblings, and I are seeing the same among our Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Penn/Wharton classmates’ kids. I don’t think the poster who keeps saying legacy still primarily benefits white applicants went to any of these schools.

Sadly, your self-reported HYPS/Penn degree was granted in vain if you don’t know the difference between your anecdote and rigorous data analysis.

No one in my family thinks our diplomas make us better than anyone else, yet you covet them for your non-legacy DC. That’s what’s truly sad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?

I never said that but you cited the work of a paper that didn't work out so well because Arcidicano's work only gave the "right" answer if the model left out the personal factor which it did saying they it was a biased factor. Legacy benefits whites more because they are the largest proportion of the legacy pool, not because they are white. The proportion is dropping but the benefits will still favor whites by numbers until the proportion of whites at a school drops below 50% and then this change persists for a long enough period of time that there is a group of legacies which aren't majority white whose children are applying to a school. The benefits of a legacy tag are pretty equal for anyone who is a legacy regardless of race and actually on an individual level may disproportionaltely benefit Asian legacy applicants because they are the group that had the largest increase in admittance benefit for any single factor which was the personal rating.

So non-white applicants today should be "understanding" of an unfair admissions advantage for whites simply because of historical reasons? Many white people were not particularly sympathetic to affirmative action that was designed to address historical inequities and injustices, yet many white people are happy to defend their own privilege and tell non-whites to wait a few decades so they too can have an unfair advantage over an equivalent applicant.

I did not say or imply anything of the sort. I just pointed out that legacy benefits were actually race neutral on their benefits within the legacy pool and pointed out that within that pool they might actually give Asian applicants a slightly higher boot than that received by others within that pool. Personally I think that the ultimate result of SFFA v Harvard was unfortunate; I am not in favor of eliminating affirmative action but rather reforming it to eliminate its benefit for High SES candidates of any race.

I get tired of people dragging out and citing the Arcidicano paper because it is crap. It was designed to achieve specific result and the only way that they could achieve that result was by dropping a real factor in Harvards admissions rubric (personal). David Card's rebuttal did a very thorough job of dismantling Arcidicano's work.

The Arcicadiano paper did several regression analyses to isolate the effects of different factors and their relation to race.
The personal score (the most subjective factor) was being used by harvard admissions to counter the large gaps in objective criteria between racial groups

The alumni interviewers did not produce significant variance in personal scores by race.
The admissions committee gave high personal scores twice as frequently to URM over asians.
The personal score is how they exercise the discrimination.

Card's rebuttal was not much of a rebuttal. He also predicted a huge drop in URM admissions without explicit consideration of race.

All of the Arcidicano models excluded the personal rating because the model didn't work if it was included.

"The personal score (the most subjective factor) was being used by Harvard admissions to counter the large gaps in objective criteria between racial groups"

This would have required extensive coordination across admissions staff and was not found to be true.

"The admissions committee gave high personal scores twice as frequently to URM over Asians."

This is true and there are multiple reasons that aren't explained by Asian discrimination

"The personal score is how they exercise the discrimination."

This is your belief but it was not the finding of the courts whom assuredly had a better view of the entire story than you or I.

"Card's rebuttal was not much of a rebuttal." He also predicted a huge drop in URM admissions without explicit consideration of race.

Interesting conclusion which doesn't really fly in the face of the actual result at trial. Cards analysis was very thorough in highlighting that Harvard used a holistic admissions process and that Arcidicano's model was an inadequate representation of the facts. Cards analysis also showed that best paths to admissions "success" was to be either supra (achieving a 1) in any of the 4 factors or being a very high performing (getting 2's) in all 4 factors. One thing that did come out of his work is that well rounded athletes (strong but not recruited) have an advantage because they are the only candidates who can achieve 4 2's which provides a roughly 50% greater chance of admission than a strong non-athletic candidate who typically would get three 2's and something lower in the athletic category.

It remains to be seen what the long term elimination of affirmative action is and the accuracy of his prediction remains to be seen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?

I don't want to speak for another poster, but I don't think they are saying it benefits non-whites more than whites. I think they are saying that it does not only benefit whites - non-whites are increasingly receiving more and more benefit from it because for the last 40 years, there was a general trend of increasing numbers of minorities at top schools and now their kids are applying. If they don't want to take advantage of it, their loss.

+1. The majority of my Princeton classmates whose kids have been admitted in recent years (sample size of 7-8) are non-white.

My spouse, siblings, and I are seeing the same among our Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Penn/Wharton classmates’ kids. I don’t think the poster who keeps saying legacy still primarily benefits white applicants went to any of these schools.

Sadly, your self-reported HYPS/Penn degree was granted in vain if you don’t know the difference between your anecdote and rigorous data analysis.

Your data is stale and irrelevant now that affirmative action is banned. Eliminating legacy when affirmative action was legal would have boosted diversity. Now that affirmative action is illegal, legacy admission actually increases representation of URMs by boosting the odds of admitting the children of alumni that benefited from affirmative action. This group of alumni has a higher % URM than the cohort of with competitive SAT scores for Ivies.

I think it’s offensive that liberals want to eliminate legacy admission now that it is actually beneficial to minorities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Stop citing this useless study. Athletes and legacies are completely different. Athletes are mostly dumber than the average applicant. Legacies are mostly smarter than the average applicant. Any study that lumps them together (done to make legacies look bad) has zero validity.

Please cite the study that supports your opinion that legacy admissions benefit non-whites more than whites.

I never made a claim about who legacy admission benefits more. I am stating that maintaining legacy admission actually boost racial diversity in comparison to the counterfactual scenario of eliminating legacy admission, now that affirmative action is banned. If you look at the racial background
of the cohort that scored a 1400+ on the SAT (in recent years), the demographics are as follows. 43% white, 38% Asian, 7% Hispanic, 1.6% Black. Compare this the demographics of HYP in the year 2000 and, 57% white, 20% Asian, 8% Hispanic, and 6% Black. So the cohort of legacy children from the class of 2000 will actually have a higher % of Black and Hispanic kids than the cohort of kids with 1400+ SAT scores. Throw in a slight boost to admissions odds for geographically underrepresented areas, and you can still get some additional racial diversity indirectly as a side-effect of your policy to promote geographic representation. Conclusion: eliminating legacy admission will actually make future cohorts of elite colleges less racially diverse now that affirmative action is illegal. Also, legacy students help with yield management and they are generally full pay, so it makes it financially feasible for colleges to subsidize tuition for a larger number of low-income students. Yes, it may not be fair. However, it is a very pragmatic policy that has meaningful benefits by allowing colleges to admit more low-income students, boosts black and Hispanic representation in a post-affirmative action environment and encourages donations.

Perfectly put. Excellent combination of data and common sense. Unfortunately the two are rarely used together these days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?

I don't want to speak for another poster, but I don't think they are saying it benefits non-whites more than whites. I think they are saying that it does not only benefit whites - non-whites are increasingly receiving more and more benefit from it because for the last 40 years, there was a general trend of increasing numbers of minorities at top schools and now their kids are applying. If they don't want to take advantage of it, their loss.

+1. The majority of my Princeton classmates whose kids have been admitted in recent years (sample size of 7-8) are non-white.

My spouse, siblings, and I are seeing the same among our Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Penn/Wharton classmates’ kids. I don’t think the poster who keeps saying legacy still primarily benefits white applicants went to any of these schools.

Sadly, your self-reported HYPS/Penn degree was granted in vain if you don’t know the difference between your anecdote and rigorous data analysis.

Your data is stale and irrelevant now that affirmative action is banned. Eliminating legacy when affirmative action was legal would have boosted diversity. Now that affirmative action is illegal, legacy admission actually increases representation of URMs by boosting the odds of admitting the children of alumni that benefited from affirmative action. This group of alumni has a higher % URM than the cohort of with competitive SAT scores for Ivies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?

I don't want to speak for another poster, but I don't think they are saying it benefits non-whites more than whites. I think they are saying that it does not only benefit whites - non-whites are increasingly receiving more and more benefit from it because for the last 40 years, there was a general trend of increasing numbers of minorities at top schools and now their kids are applying. If they don't want to take advantage of it, their loss.

+1. The majority of my Princeton classmates whose kids have been admitted in recent years (sample size of 7-8) are non-white.

My spouse, siblings, and I are seeing the same among our Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Penn/Wharton classmates’ kids. I don’t think the poster who keeps saying legacy still primarily benefits white applicants went to any of these schools.

Sadly, your self-reported HYPS/Penn degree was granted in vain if you don’t know the difference between your anecdote and rigorous data analysis.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?

I don't want to speak for another poster, but I don't think they are saying it benefits non-whites more than whites. I think they are saying that it does not only benefit whites - non-whites are increasingly receiving more and more benefit from it because for the last 40 years, there was a general trend of increasing numbers of minorities at top schools and now their kids are applying. If they don't want to take advantage of it, their loss.

+1. The majority of my Princeton classmates whose kids have been admitted in recent years (sample size of 7-8) are non-white.

My spouse, siblings, and I are seeing the same among our Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Penn/Wharton classmates’ kids. I don’t think the poster who keeps saying legacy still primarily benefits white applicants went to any of these schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?

I never said that but you cited the work of a paper that didn't work out so well because Arcidicano's work only gave the "right" answer if the model left out the personal factor which it did saying they it was a biased factor. Legacy benefits whites more because they are the largest proportion of the legacy pool, not because they are white. The proportion is dropping but the benefits will still favor whites by numbers until the proportion of whites at a school drops below 50% and then this change persists for a long enough period of time that there is a group of legacies which aren't majority white whose children are applying to a school. The benefits of a legacy tag are pretty equal for anyone who is a legacy regardless of race and actually on an individual level may disproportionaltely benefit Asian legacy applicants because they are the group that had the largest increase in admittance benefit for any single factor which was the personal rating.

I’ve posted some of this before, but perhaps not all: currently at Stanford, ~40% of legacy applicants and ~50% of legacy admits are of color. Legacy applicants as a group have higher stats than non-legacy applicants. Legacy kids make up ~10% of the class. Even if Stanford formally eliminates legacy preference next admissions cycle as the state of CA has mandated (and which I 100% support), there may not be any meaningful change to this percentage.

No idea about Ivies, but Stanford has been mentioned on this thread and the numbers above are not speculation but facts, provided directly by the university in November 2024.

What's your source for this? I've never seen data for Stanford, but a law professor at Stanford noted in an interview that legacy admits are more likely to be white and affluent.

“Insider’s View” webinar with Howard Wolf, Stanford Vice President for Alumni Affairs

So no rigorous study, just a university employee who maybe said something on a webinar that you don't even link to, but we're to accept this as fact while you tell us to disregard NBER reviewed research studies that don't support your worldview.

Arcidicano's paper is not "reviewed". It is classified as a working paper precisely to avoid review.

Arcidiacono is an economics professor at Duke. Working papers are not working papers to avoid review--they're typically made public to engender discussion and feedback prior to formal publication.

But if you want to dismiss a published paper by an economics professor which found that whites were the primary beneficiary of legacy admissions, and that legacy admissions offered a considerable advantage relative to similarly qualified applicants (which is not the only published paper to draw that conclusion) as invalid, while telling us to accept the "data" you say a Stanford development officer stated in a non-public forum for alumni as "fact," there's not much point arguing with these #alternative facts.

Only commenting on the bold above because I'm not the Stanford poster, I'm "the other guy".

Like all of the other fans of this paper who cite it as gospel you are pretty selective with what you point out and like all of the others you omit the fact that Arcidicono's paper was created with a specific goal (support of SFFA in this case) and it only worked because they purposely dropped the personal factor in Harvard's admissions Rubric. If they did not do so their model failed. David Card (Berkeley Professor and Nobel Prize winner) provided the rebuttal analysis which clearly demonstrated the flaws underlying Arcidiacono's model; Harvard won at trial and on appeal. Fans of the paper like to state that Harvard "lost" the case but they didn't. They won the case, they won again on appeal and the win wasn't appealed to the Supreme court. Affirmative action was ultimately struck down with an equal protection clause argument at the Supreme Court.

The paper was never submitted to peer review at NBER but it was subsequently submitted and accepted by the Journal of Labor Economics so it had a review just not what you cited.

The bottom line on this is that you are looking at "alternative facts" not I. Arcidiacono's model only worked because he created a model for a purpose which was to attempt to prove discrimination and when a more complete model was used his argument failed. Fans of the paper Never refer to Cards rebuttal paper which is actually the superior document.

I don't care a whit about legacy preferences, I went to a non selective public. But, I do care about people time and time trotting this paper out as "proof" of something that it didn't actually prove.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

For Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

Stop citing this useless study. Athletes and legacies are completely different. Athletes are mostly dumber than the average applicant. Legacies are mostly smarter than the average applicant. Any study that lumps them together (done to make legacies look bad) has zero validity.

Please cite the study that supports your opinion that legacy admissions benefit non-whites more than whites.

I never made a claim about who legacy admission benefits more. I am stating that maintaining legacy admission actually boost racial diversity in comparison to the counterfactual scenario of eliminating legacy admission, now that affirmative action is banned. If you look at the racial background
of the cohort that scored a 1400+ on the SAT (in recent years), the demographics are as follows. 43% white, 38% Asian, 7% Hispanic, 1.6% Black. Compare this the demographics of HYP in the year 2000 and, 57% white, 20% Asian, 8% Hispanic, and 6% Black. So the cohort of legacy children from the class of 2000 will actually have a higher % of Black and Hispanic kids than the cohort of kids with 1400+ SAT scores. Throw in a slight boost to admissions odds for geographically underrepresented areas, and you can still get some additional racial diversity indirectly as a side-effect of your policy to promote geographic representation. Conclusion: eliminating legacy admission will actually make future cohorts of elite colleges less racially diverse now that affirmative action is illegal. Also, legacy students help with yield management and they are generally full pay, so it makes it financially feasible for colleges to subsidize tuition for a larger number of low-income students. Yes, it may not be fair. However, it is a very pragmatic policy that has meaningful benefits by allowing colleges to admit more low-income students, boosts black and Hispanic representation in a post-affirmative action environment and encourages donations.