Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of legacy preferences would annoy oh, say, 95 percent of white privileged people,e here. Reform of higher education is in the air, says the article. Great. Let’s include a discussion of absurd prices too. Lots of political benefits to a candidate who takes on Big Colleges that way.

You are smoking crack if you think that most posters here were born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Didn't have a chance to read the article, but getting rid of race based affirmative action would be a great step in the right direction as well. The whole legacy thing is just so absurd that I can't imagine even being around someone who wants their kids to go to their alma mater. It's just weird and I don't get the importance.

Anonymous wrote:Let's remind this to the NYT next time they promote racist racial admissions:

"College admission is a zero-sum proposition — for every legacy admitted, another promising applicant is denied the career and economic opportunity that a top degree can provide."

Bit that’s ok for The NY Times so long as it’s writers’ offspring get in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a very liberal Asian, went to an elite uni, and support constitutional affirmative action programs, but something really bothers me that White people have enjoyed legacies for decades but now that more and more people of color are attending elite universities (Asian and increasingly other POC) and their children can benefit from legacies, NOW all of sudden it's time to end them? SO. TYPICAL....

Don't you see your own hypocrisy? You don't want to see legacy admissions ended because you are hoping it will benefit your kids over others. Admit it.

Signed, white person who also attended an elite university but is willing to give that edge up.

How will you do that?

By supporting an end to legacy admissions.

Please make sure, then, that that includes your kids. And that you avoid other areas of privilege, such as leveraging connections. That is, make it real—not theoretical.

Getting rid of legacy preferences would annoy oh, say, 95 percent of white privileged people,e here. Reform of higher education is in the air, says the article. Great. Let’s include a discussion of absurd prices too. Lots of political benefits to a candidate who takes on Big Colleges that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a very liberal Asian, went to an elite uni, and support constitutional affirmative action programs, but something really bothers me that White people have enjoyed legacies for decades but now that more and more people of color are attending elite universities (Asian and increasingly other POC) and their children can benefit from legacies, NOW all of sudden it's time to end them? SO. TYPICAL....

Don't you see your own hypocrisy? You don't want to see legacy admissions ended because you are hoping it will benefit your kids over others. Admit it.

Signed, white person who also attended an elite university but is willing to give that edge up.

How will you do that?

By supporting an end to legacy admissions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a very liberal Asian, went to an elite uni, and support constitutional affirmative action programs, but something really bothers me that White people have enjoyed legacies for decades but now that more and more people of color are attending elite universities (Asian and increasingly other POC) and their children can benefit from legacies, NOW all of sudden it's time to end them? SO. TYPICAL....

Don't you see your own hypocrisy? You don't want to see legacy admissions ended because you are hoping it will benefit your kids over others. Admit it.

Signed, white person who also attended an elite university but is willing to give that edge up.

How will you do that?

Anonymous wrote:I went to Smith and would love my daughters to go there. I don't see anything wrong with the legacy. As I understand it, if two candidates are the same, they lean towards the legacy. There is something to be said of tradition. And, can you imagine how wonderful it would be to share an alma mater?

Not if it’s Smith.

Anonymous wrote:Typical of the NY times. Play the Social Justice Warrior role, without getting simple facts straight. The only way Legacy admit rate can be seen as egregious is IF and ONLY IF their profiles in terms of qualifications look worse than a typical admitted students. A lot of research actually shows that is not the case.

The fact also is that SAT scores have no correlations to wealth. Rich black kids score worse than poor white kids and poor Asian kids often score better than rich white kids.

Also legacy is material only in the top 20 or so schools, so the study that compared whether alum giving would decrease if legacy was eliminated and found that it would not is useless. They would need to eliminate schools like Texas A&M and other schools in the 40-100 range and then redo the study. Then they would discover that it would make a big difference. Colleges are not stupid.

This is total hit piece with no logic, but lots of shaming tactics.

The most egregious cases are always this way though - think of the Trumps, Kushners, Bushes etc. of the world. End that nonsense. No more special treatment for the children of the wealthy political or media elite.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a very liberal Asian, went to an elite uni, and support constitutional affirmative action programs, but something really bothers me that White people have enjoyed legacies for decades but now that more and more people of color are attending elite universities (Asian and increasingly other POC) and their children can benefit from legacies, NOW all of sudden it's time to end them? SO. TYPICAL....

Don't you see your own hypocrisy? You don't want to see legacy admissions ended because you are hoping it will benefit your kids over others. Admit it.

Signed, white person who also attended an elite university but is willing to give that edge up.

The irony of railing against anti-meritocratic legacy admits whilst casually explaining away affirmative action. The article’s focus on admit rates whist ignoring the qualifications of the legacy cohort is intellectually dishonest. As one might suspect given their privileged upbringing, legacy applicants are highly qualified candidates and it should be no surprise that their admit rate is higher than average. The difference in quant metrics of legacy vs. average admit is minimal and is dwarfed by the negative differential of affirmative action applicants.

Citing a study where 100 schools with different admission standards is not only disingenuous but also misleading. In most of these schools admission is not competitive enough for legacy to make a material difference, so including their alum donation into the picture to determine the affect of removing legacy admissions on the college is ridiculous. It is not very hard to get into Texas A&M even without legacy, so why would a Texas A&M alum parent really care?

Notice how the admit rate comparison study quoted is restricted to 30 schools (the only schools where legacy may make a material difference), but alum giving effect is now cited with a study that included 100 schools to get the result they want. The NY times must think its viewers are stupid

Also shame on the NY times for easily accepting government intrusion via denial of grants to private colleges if they continue legacy, but not supporting the same approach for schools that favor Affirmative action.

These are private schools. If you favor using the power of Government for one set of social issues, you better expect that when the power changes in DC, it will be applied to other social issues as well.

Anonymous wrote:I went to Smith and would love my daughters to go there. I don't see anything wrong with the legacy. As I understand it, if two candidates are the same, they lean towards the legacy. There is something to be said of tradition. And, can you imagine how wonderful it would be to share an alma mater?

Tradition is how class differences are maintained. Not good. Your daughter should not get a leg up just because you went there.

Typical of the NY times. Play the Social Justice Warrior role, without getting simple facts straight. The only way Legacy admit rate can be seen as egregious is IF and ONLY IF their profiles in terms of qualifications look worse than a typical admitted students. A lot of research actually shows that is not the case.

The fact also is that SAT scores have no correlations to wealth. Rich black kids score worse than poor white kids and poor Asian kids often score better than rich white kids.

Also legacy is material only in the top 20 or so schools, so the study that compared whether alum giving would decrease if legacy was eliminated and found that it would not is useless. They would need to eliminate schools like Texas A&M and other schools in the 40-100 range and then redo the study. Then they would discover that it would make a big difference. Colleges are not stupid.

This is total hit piece with no logic, but lots of shaming tactics.

Anonymous wrote:I went to Smith and would love my daughters to go there. I don't see anything wrong with the legacy. As I understand it, if two candidates are the same, they lean towards the legacy. There is something to be said of tradition. And, can you imagine how wonderful it would be to share an alma mater?

Certainly someone from Smith can make a better argument than that.

Anonymous wrote:I went to Smith and would love my daughters to go there. I don't see anything wrong with the legacy. As I understand it, if two candidates are the same, they lean towards the legacy. There is something to be said of tradition. And, can you imagine how wonderful it would be to share an alma mater?

If she happens to be the best one to admit, then she should be in. But not because Mommy went.