Anonymous wrote:Schools rely on alumni for fundraising. How will this affect a school's donations if there is no such legacy preference? Doesn't this fundraising help financial aide?

they did a study of some university that no longer used legacy, and found that their donations weren't noticeably impacted.

What about doughnut whole families? They get no financial aid, but don't have enough to pay full for these expensive ivys without dipping into retirement accounts or taking out loans.

Wow what an annoying post. I have a lot of privilege and I sure hope I don’t sound like this.

Anonymous wrote:
Three reasons why you're wrong:

1. Universities are MUCH MORE SELECTIVE THAN BEFORE. A generation ago, entry into the Ivy League was much easier than today. Most middle-aged people who went to Ivies would not get in today. So there is no reason for their children to have preference.

2. Nature and nurture do not work how you think: even if their parents were supremely able in every way, why do you think their children would automatically be the same way? Why would you not rather judge each student on their own merits instead of making general assumptions that kids of Ivy graduates must naturally be more worthy than others?

3. Racism. Previous generations of students were chosen among a much smaller population, nearly all of them white, and if you go back farther in time, nearly all of them male and Christian. So granting privileges to their descendants perpetuates an unfair ratio of admittance that disadvantages all the excellent candidates from other groups that did not have a change before due to ethnic, religious and gender pressures.

^
THIS

Anonymous wrote:Schools rely on alumni for fundraising. How will this affect a school's donations if there is no such legacy preference? Doesn't this fundraising help financial aide?

.

PP again. Aid. Financial aid. duh

Schools rely on alumni for fundraising. How will this affect a school's donations if there is no such legacy preference? Doesn't this fundraising help financial aide?

Anonymous wrote:I see what seems like a lot of posts from people strongly opposed to “legacy admissions” and I’m curious about this position. I agree that unqualified applicants should not be admitted to any schools. Do you assume that no legacy applicants are qualified for admission to the school their parent attended? That seems odd to me given how important parental expectations are for success in school and life.

Do you mean that no kids should be permitted to apply to the schools their parents attended? How would it even work, when the common app asks for parental information (and that appears to be the basis for first generation applicants)? And how is it different from school that look at demonstrated interest? Why should legacy kids’ interest in attending the school they are familiar with, have a personal/family connection to, and likely grew up knowing about, visiting, rooting for its sports teams, etc not be allowed to follow that interest?

Genuinely curious, I promise.

I am against legacy-status for every other school where my kid is not a legacy!

I have zero issue with kids applying to schools their parents went to, and totally get why some kids might be interested in doing this for a variety of reasons.

I think universities giving heavy preference to legacy applicants over non-legacy applicants has a negative social impact when it comes to admissions to elite schools. The reason why is that an education at an elite institution can be transformative for people, and has the most potential to transform the lives of people who do not currently have connections to elite academia. The more legacy admits to these schools, the more it consolidates the benefits of these schools in families that already have these benefits. I'm not saying they aren't doing something good with them, but for every legacy admit, that's one non-legacy applicant who is rejected. I think we lose something in not seeing those non-legacy admits attend these schools.

If the legacy admit is more qualified, then that will show up in the process without a legacy preference and they will earn their spot.

If the legacy admit and the non-legacy admit are equally qualified, I think there are greater social benefits to admitting the non-legacy students, even if there are certain benefits to the legacy student and the institution in admitting the legacy student.

If you give advantage to the legacy student, we ignore the societal benefits of seeing more families gain access to elite education, especially since we're already talking about highly qualified applicants here.

I would like to see more smart, hardworking students with middle class and/or rural backgrounds, and just more applicants with very limited professional and academic connections, gain access to these institutions. I think it would benefit all of us in the form of a more diverse professional class. Not just racially diverse, but diverse in backgrounds. I view legacy preference as an obstacle to that.

Anonymous wrote:In my experience, kids aren't given preference to schools because their parents attended the school. They are given preference when the parent gives money to the school.

This was certainly true for SCEA this year to Ivy - the ones that got accepted were a combination of legacy and big money and VIP (not necessarily the same parent as the legacy). Remains to be seen regarding RD.

Anonymous wrote:In my experience, kids aren't given preference to schools because their parents attended the school. They are given preference when the parent gives money to the school.

You're confusing legacy with development. They are two distinct categories in admissions, and both are still used today.

I think that PLENTY of applicants are turned aside that would do perfectly fine at top institutions. And I am ok with a school choosing to have diversity even if it means students not taking students with just the highest on-paper stats like GPA/SAT-ACT. This includes URM and I can even live with athletes. But not with legacy.

Legacy students should not be given any sort of preference. There should be no box to indicate legacy and they should be considered the same as anyone else.

Our family has one school that already does this (no legacy question and no legacy boost) and we are happy about it. The other school still has heavy legacy pull but our oldest DC didn't choose to apply there based on regional preferences.

If institutions fear they will lose donations based on removal of legacy, then they are just feeding into the machine that allows those with $ get ahead. People should give money because they want to support the institution, not because of what favors they may get for their own children later. And, if these institutions really cared about diversity, they should walk the walk.

I say this as someone who gives the least amount of money to the undergrad institution that still has legacy. We give more support to the other undergrad institution and even MORE to the universities where we did graduate programs (and give directly to the academic department). We support the missions of those schools and programs more than the school that still has legacy.

I’m ok with legacy prioritizing at private schools. I don’t think it should be used for any public school.

Anonymous wrote:Whatever school OP attended needs to do better with critical thinking curriculum.

lol this!
And how many kids whose parents graduated from one of the Ivy schools visit their parents alma mater that often/ talk about the school's legacy and meaning in their lives/ root for their sports teams??
Demonstrated interest indeed.

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.

Same as those who cannot fathom losing their skin-color privilege.

In my experience, kids aren't given preference to schools because their parents attended the school. They are given preference when the parent gives money to the school.

Three reasons why you're wrong:

1. Universities are MUCH MORE SELECTIVE THAN BEFORE. A generation ago, entry into the Ivy League was much easier than today. Most middle-aged people who went to Ivies would not get in today. So there is no reason for their children to have preference.

2. Nature and nurture do not work how you think: even if their parents were supremely able in every way, why do you think their children would automatically be the same way? Why would you not rather judge each student on their own merits instead of making general assumptions that kids of Ivy graduates must naturally be more worthy than others?

3. Racism. Previous generations of students were chosen among a much smaller population, nearly all of them white, and if you go back farther in time, nearly all of them male and Christian. So granting privileges to their descendants perpetuates an unfair ratio of admittance that disadvantages all the excellent candidates from other groups that did not have a change before due to ethnic, religious and gender pressures.