Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man, the proponents of legacy admissions on this thread are really not looking good.

Yup. They can’t make an argument or use data, so they go onto being racist and complaining about URMs. And their kids probably inherited some of these traits.

I don't have a problem with the URM. I support priority admission for URM, athlete, and legacy, as well as children of exceptional abilities, as these kids are all special. I don't understand why the dime-a-dozen feels entitled to a spot.

This, yes! The bolded exemplifies the exact people who are complaining about legacy.

You and the PP should be disqualified on the basis of stupidity alone. I can’t believe people with working brain cells would write the nonsense above.

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of legacy preference does absolutely nothing. The same pool of privileged applicants will just spread themselves across the range of selective schools instead of getting funneled into the ones their parents attended. It won't create additional opportunities for another else when viewed in the aggregate.

+100%
Hunter Biden and his progeny would get accepted to an elite school right now!
Who is going to say no to Joe?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you that are okay with legacy preference, are you okay with affirmative action? Same thing but in reverse.

I am ok with both.

+2. DC1 is the 3rd generation at Brown, where DH's grandmother established a scholarship. I can see why the school would want us versus someone who sent 25 copy/paste applications to whatever US News ranked at the top that year.

I'm neutral on legacy admissions, but you are clueless. The whole reason why someone HAS to send 25 copy/paste applications is because they don't have your advantage.

+1 I guess their Ivy league education wasn't enough to give ^PP critical thinking skills. To the ^PP: your post reeks of privilege and stupidity.

And this is why your kids will not get admitted. I'm asking a simple question - why are you applying to an elite college with legacy preference - and you can't even answer that.

Yes, you are a genius and all the many different people posting on this thread won't have their kids admitted. Sure. Yes, you're the epitome of a legacy parent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you that are okay with legacy preference, are you okay with affirmative action? Same thing but in reverse.

I am ok with both.

+2. DC1 is the 3rd generation at Brown, where DH's grandmother established a scholarship. I can see why the school would want us versus someone who sent 25 copy/paste applications to whatever US News ranked at the top that year.

I'm neutral on legacy admissions, but you are clueless. The whole reason why someone HAS to send 25 copy/paste applications is because they don't have your advantage.

+1 I guess their Ivy league education wasn't enough to give ^PP critical thinking skills. To the ^PP: your post reeks of privilege and stupidity.

There's actually a strong student movement at Brown to eliminate legacy privileges and let legacy students compete on an even playing field as other students that has substantial alumni support. I'm guessing Grandbaby Brown isn't a part of that.

https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2021/10/students-call-for-end-to-legacy-admissions

Nell Salzman ’22 supports the campaign as she believes it promotes diversity and “feels weird” about being a legacy herself. She shared that last weekend, when her parents came to visit, they discussed the effort. “We just talked about how strange it feels that this is part of college admissions and how wrong it is,” she said. “People should be judged for other things and looked at holistically instead of based on what their parents did.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man, the proponents of legacy admissions on this thread are really not looking good.

Yup. They can’t make an argument or use data, so they go onto being racist and complaining about URMs. And their kids probably inherited some of these traits.

NP- Both sides in this discussion aren't really looking good. They are equally jabbing the other and not providing much useful information so maybe both sides need to have a seat, look in the mirror and quit the virtue signaling.

Nah, don’t “both sides” this. The legacy supporters look much, much worse, and also dumber.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you that are okay with legacy preference, are you okay with affirmative action? Same thing but in reverse.

I am ok with both.

+2. DC1 is the 3rd generation at Brown, where DH's grandmother established a scholarship. I can see why the school would want us versus someone who sent 25 copy/paste applications to whatever US News ranked at the top that year.

I'm neutral on legacy admissions, but you are clueless. The whole reason why someone HAS to send 25 copy/paste applications is because they don't have your advantage.

+1 I guess their Ivy league education wasn't enough to give ^PP critical thinking skills. To the ^PP: your post reeks of privilege and stupidity.

And this is why your kids will not get admitted. I'm asking a simple question - why are you applying to an elite college with legacy preference - and you can't even answer that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you that are okay with legacy preference, are you okay with affirmative action? Same thing but in reverse.

I am ok with both.

+2. DC1 is the 3rd generation at Brown, where DH's grandmother established a scholarship. I can see why the school would want us versus someone who sent 25 copy/paste applications to whatever US News ranked at the top that year.

I'm neutral on legacy admissions, but you are clueless. The whole reason why someone HAS to send 25 copy/paste applications is because they don't have your advantage.

+1 I guess their Ivy league education wasn't enough to give ^PP critical thinking skills. To the ^PP: your post reeks of privilege and stupidity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man, the proponents of legacy admissions on this thread are really not looking good.

Yup. They can’t make an argument or use data, so they go onto being racist and complaining about URMs. And their kids probably inherited some of these traits.

I don't have a problem with the URM. I support priority admission for URM, athlete, and legacy, as well as children of exceptional abilities, as these kids are all special. I don't understand why the dime-a-dozen feels entitled to a spot.

Because those people think a school just wants the best students when most schools want students who will contribute while on campus, become successful after graduation and continue to be part of the community

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man, the proponents of legacy admissions on this thread are really not looking good.

Yup. They can’t make an argument or use data, so they go onto being racist and complaining about URMs. And their kids probably inherited some of these traits.

I don't have a problem with the URM. I support priority admission for URM, athlete, and legacy, as well as children of exceptional abilities, as these kids are all special. I don't understand why the dime-a-dozen feels entitled to a spot.

This, yes! The bolded exemplifies the exact people who are complaining about legacy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man, the proponents of legacy admissions on this thread are really not looking good.

Yup. They can’t make an argument or use data, so they go onto being racist and complaining about URMs. And their kids probably inherited some of these traits.

I don't have a problem with the URM. I support priority admission for URM, athlete, and legacy, as well as children of exceptional abilities, as these kids are all special. I don't understand why the dime-a-dozen feels entitled to a spot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man, the proponents of legacy admissions on this thread are really not looking good.

lol, this thread is a good example of the saying equality feels like oppression when you're accustomed to privilege...

Yup. Families who were once elite don’t take kindly to having their kids shown up by those who earned their place.

No one who is elite cares because this doesn't effect them one iota. This is the professional classes who think that their kids will need a certain kind of education to maintain the lifestyle that they grew up with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did a degree at an Oxbridge school, and my classmates there thought my stories about my legacy undergrad roommate at my Ivy were funny. She went to an elite boarding school, and had a very rich family but had about a 2.7 GPA which is very difficult to do at an Ivy where most people get a 3.0 without trying just because of the ways grading curves are structured. My roommate was not the sharpest tool in the shed, but she was a legacy and she got in. These Oxbridge students who wore gowns and coattails regularly and bowed to the Queen and were part of a 1000 year old college thought it was ridiculously backwards that an American student might get into college with a big boost because their parents had attended the same college before them.

Sure, remember last year when teachers could just assess A levels and boarding school students where all qualified to attend schools they weren't remotely qualified to attend?

sh** happened during CoViD. It wasn’t perfect but it was a once in a century pandemic. What’s America’s excuse for giving people a leg up based on where their parents went to school. My spouse and I have 4 Ivy degrees between us (although I guess the graduate ones don’t count for legacy status for our kids) so we have a lot to lose if legacy preferences go away but I can’t defend my kids having a probability of getting admitted at 5x the rate of a comparable student in the applicant pool. It’s really unmeritocratic

But why does a kid who happened to have been born with a better capacity for doing well in high school than my learning disabled kid have a much better chance of getting in? He isn't a better person. He didn't work harder. He probably won't contribute more to making this world a better place. He was just lucky enough not to be born with a learning disability. Why does he have a better shot at a top school than my kid? Why is that fair?

colleges have no way of observing how hard a kid works to get a grade-they only see the grade. I also don’t know how you think colleges can assess how applicants will or won’t contribute more to making the world a better place. Maybe your kid is great but how would you assess that in an unbiased way beyond the essays, extracurricular and teacher references which they ask for already.

You can't. Which puts him a great disadvantage. Why is that fair? Why does a kid who can easily show it have more of a chance to get into a top school? According to this site, colleges have some sort of moral obligation to build their communities according to the highest GPAs, starting from the top and going down. Fortunately, the people who run those colleges aren't as stupid and narrow minded as the people who think this. They know they need diverse communities and a a strong foundation to stay relevant and solvent. People say "it's not fair" that legacies get an advantage. I say that it's not fair that neurotypical kids get an advantage. You see, fairness doesn't come into play and the stupid people on here complaining about it will never get it. They just think their neurotypical, above average, one-dimensional GPA chases is entitled to something more than others.

The debate about legacy is about a kid getting a substantial edge on admissions to an elite college over a kid with equivalent stats and extracurriculars simply because of who where their parents went to college. I don’t know why you’re complaining that college admissions officers can’t magically see that your special needs kid is better than a neurotypical applicant. Start your own thread if you want to complain about that.

Missing the point. There are many unfair aspects of college admissions. Ones that put some kids at advantages over others. Why does legacy get everybody so stirred up and not other things? The neurotypical kid has an edge on admissions over a kid born without that particular advantage simply because of who he was born to, just like the legacy kid. Why is that any more fair? And not, I really don't feel like starting my own thread. This is actually about the whiny babies who weren't smart enough to get into good colleges and are now mad that they can't get their kids into one either.

Pot meet kettle. We've heard enough whining about your special snowflake here that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

NP here. Yes it does. I think I get the point. People believe that entrance to top schools should be only about high grades and high test scores. Some people are born without those things coming easily or naturally to them, whether it's from being raised in an underserved school, poor upbringing, or from learning disabilities. They are prevented from having the same advantage that normal middle class, upper class, and wealthy children have. The poster I believe is trying to say that advantage and disadvantage comes in all forms. Why is everyone attacking this one single advantage, legacy? And not seeing the unfairness in college admissions overall? It favors people who aren't poor, have access to solid educations and parental support, and who don't have learning disabilities. Why go after the kids who get a legacy advantage and not the kids who were just lucky to be born to two smart parents? Where's the difference? These high stats kids in most cases were also born lucky--in most cases to two smart, probably well-off parents, just like the legacy kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man, the proponents of legacy admissions on this thread are really not looking good.

lol, this thread is a good example of the saying equality feels like oppression when you're accustomed to privilege...

Yup. Families who were once elite don’t take kindly to having their kids shown up by those who earned their place.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people lament legacy advantages, but simultaneously want them for their own kids. Including the politicians.

Fully support it. Private colleges should be able to pick who they want for whatever reasons they want.

+1. Some schools want to be family traditions. Personally, I was crafting a class I would much rather have a kid who wants to be at my school than another kid who applied based on ranking and doesn't really care if they're at much school or another similar school.

Why would you say that?
Nobody goes to college because of family tradition
People apply because it is a good school and ranking reflects that
Family tradition kids to be at that school is the same as that of every other person

There are a lot of SLACs that are family tradition and those kids prefer to be at that school rather than the school down the rode that's a spot higher on the rankings. Most school prefer to have students that want to be there not students that just go to the best school that they get into

My kid was tempted to go to a LAC that is ranked 50-100 because of family over the T30 national university and the T20 slacs he got into because he had heard great stories about it from family members, had been there and liked it, would receive merit aid etc. I encouraged him to go to the higher ranked school because, as much as I like the LAC where my husband I met, I thought the other school was a better fit, but it was a near toss-up for him. Do you like sports teams that your family rooted for in your youth? It's a similar thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man, the proponents of legacy admissions on this thread are really not looking good.

Yup. They can’t make an argument or use data, so they go onto being racist and complaining about URMs. And their kids probably inherited some of these traits.

Someone who drones about kids "inheriting traits" shouldn't be throwing stones about others being racist, bro.

I don’t know who you’re talking to. But there’s definitely more than one person on this thread