Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Serious question. Why would an alumn give money to his/her school if there is no way it will help your child even in some small way don’t the road? Isn’t this going to kill alumni giving?.
Yes
Doesn't seerm to slow down the giving from MIT alum. But MIT alums tend to believe in merit more than others.
+1
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:There are so, so many bitter and sour grapes kids and their parents on this thread.
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but, you're still not getting in. Yale not immediately ushering in the triple legacy applicant upcoming in 2028 doesn't clear the decks for you.
And your envy is nonproductive and ugly
Are you in favor of banning legacies or opposed? This seems ridiculously dramatic but I can’t figure out what side your drama is coming from.
I am merely observing that 80% of the posts on this thread are downright gleeful. Borderline Schadenfreude even.
HA! Now you overly privileged lucky people will have one less thing you can count on! Take that!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Serious question. Why would an alumn give money to his/her school if there is no way it will help your child even in some small way don’t the road? Isn’t this going to kill alumni giving?.
Plus how can the state mandate what private schools do?
I only have to my Alma mater in hopes of my kids getting admitted. Otherwise I’d rather donate to help local kids get thru hs and into college, not help an elite university with funding
That’s… sad. My alma mater is MIT* and I give because it’s a great school doing great things. And I also donate to various scholarship funds.
* MIT has not factored in legacy for years
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Serious question. Why would an alumn give money to his/her school if there is no way it will help your child even in some small way don’t the road? Isn’t this going to kill alumni giving?.
Plus how can the state mandate what private schools do?
I only have to my Alma mater in hopes of my kids getting admitted. Otherwise I’d rather donate to help local kids get thru hs and into college, not help an elite university with funding
That’s… sad. My alma mater is MIT* and I give because it’s a great school doing great things. And I also donate to various scholarship funds.
* MIT has not factored in legacy for years
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't see this surviving a lawsuit.
Do you even have a theory for why it wouldn't survive a lawsuit?
A private school that has a religious affiliation could say that legacy admission preference is a conditionally protected religious practice. They will win this case given the current composition of SCOTUS.
Anonymous wrote:I don't think this will change the incoming class that much. A lot of legacy kids are good students. If two parents went to Stanford, the odds of them having a bright kid are high. Plus, they will most likely have the resources for education.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't think this will change the incoming class that much. A lot of legacy kids are good students. If two parents went to Stanford, the odds of them having a bright kid are high. Plus, they will most likely have the resources for education.
At Stanford, this is going to change a lot. Legacy is huge with Stanford.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:iAnonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Serious question. Why would an alumn give money to his/her school if there is no way it will help your child even in some small way don’t the road? Isn’t this going to kill alumni giving?.
Plus how can the state mandate what private schools do?
I only have to my Alma mater in hopes of my kids getting admitted. Otherwise I’d rather donate to help local kids get thru hs and into college, not help an elite university with funding
California underwrites need based scholarships for instate students - they can pull that funding.
Pell grant funding? Please explain. If so, it’s less than it’s ever been. USC has a robust endowment.
If USC has such a robust endowment then legacy donations really shouldn't matter.
Plus, it's a bad look for USC and Stanford, in a very liberal state.
I guess conservatives care about elitism and hoarding opportunities.
It's not conservatives that are whining about this. It's the entitled liberals that are whining, conservatives barely believe in college anymore and the ones that do want their kids to get an engineering degree at a state school or something.
Well a pp stated that they are glad they live in a red state where they would not ban legacy, not that there are many private colleges in red states that most people would consider elite.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Serious question. Why would an alumn give money to his/her school if there is no way it will help your child even in some small way don’t the road? Isn’t this going to kill alumni giving?.
Yes
Doesn't seerm to slow down the giving from MIT alum. But MIT alums tend to believe in merit more than others.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Serious question. Why would an alumn give money to his/her school if there is no way it will help your child even in some small way don’t the road? Isn’t this going to kill alumni giving?.
Plus how can the state mandate what private schools do?
I only have to my Alma mater in hopes of my kids getting admitted. Otherwise I’d rather donate to help local kids get thru hs and into college, not help an elite university with funding
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:There are so, so many bitter and sour grapes kids and their parents on this thread.
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but, you're still not getting in. Yale not immediately ushering in the triple legacy applicant upcoming in 2028 doesn't clear the decks for you.
And your envy is nonproductive and ugly
Are you in favor of banning legacies or opposed? This seems ridiculously dramatic but I can’t figure out what side your drama is coming from.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think this is great.
Even if this gets appealed down the line, it is now against the zeitgeist to have legacy admissions. Tide is turning and will turn elsewhere too.
Now that there have been more diverse admissions for decades, legacy doesn’t carry the weight anymore.
Admissions have all the tools to identify connected families, from expensive sports to social networks, that relying on “legacy” isn’t even needed anymore.
Read up on how they started promoting athletics when Jewish students started earning admissions on academic achievement.
Right of course legacy admissions are banned just as the pool of legacies is more diverse than ever.
This is what is absolutely insidious about the whole game. I have to believe this is by design.
Look at the class of 1990s at any selective school. They're pretty white.
It's because people only think of "legacy" as rich white people. It's a very emotional and close-minded way of thinking.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't see this surviving a lawsuit.
Do you even have a theory for why it wouldn't survive a lawsuit?
Anonymous wrote:I don't think this will change the incoming class that much. A lot of legacy kids are good students. If two parents went to Stanford, the odds of them having a bright kid are high. Plus, they will most likely have the resources for education.