Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very clear : nothing positive for the vast majority of families and students.

Families and students don't run the universities so that's irrelevant.

Maybe not easy to change, but doesn’t mean it’s good for families and students. It’s not irrelevant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very clear : nothing positive for the vast majority of families and students.

No, it is not clear, it is your opinion. I am fine with legacy admissions.
You all want to strip what make these schools special, and when they are no longer special, you are going to move on to the next set of schools that are prestigious.

If legacy students are truly talented, they will be admitted to top universities on their own merits. So what exactly is the problem with eliminating legacy admissions? Unless, of course, one believes they are not actually that talented.

What's next? The government inserting itself into corporate hiring decisions?

No, open and transparent admissions. In the same way you got your job in a competitive process. Or you got a “legacy” job through connections?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very clear : nothing positive for the vast majority of families and students.

So what? Athletic admissions offers nothing positive either. Same with international students. Or Questbridge. Whether it benefits you is a weird yardstick to choose

This.

And for the person saying it should be a transparent process like with private company hiring, wut? Companies can hire who they want.

Companies can't discriminate by race, gender, religion, etc, but they don't have to hire based on some governmental definition of merit. In fact, companies often reject candidates as OVER-qualified.

Companies typically don’t hire based on the last name. Just they hire the most talented person. Otherwise they can generate lower profits.

I’m not sure which is worse, your understanding of how legacy works or how companies hire.

Yeah most companies I’ve worked for have a lot of people hiring friends and family, also true for major American companies. Do you have any idea how many Fords work or have worked for Ford Motor Company? Life isn’t fair, colleges that rely on donations like having wealthy legacy families and it doesn’t mean the students aren’t qualified, it means you really don’t understand what they value.

Yeah, ask meta, google, Microsoft, and Apple why the hire it workers from India and not with last name gates. Think about sundar pichai and not tech support people.

They hire IT workers from India because they’re cheap. I promise you the executives at every one of those companies are getting their own kids whatever internships and first jobs their connections allow. Do you really know nothing about how the world works? Do you ever interact with real humans outside of trolling on this website?

Yeah, I am sure Sundar Pichai from google is super cheap.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very clear : nothing positive for the vast majority of families and students.

So what? Athletic admissions offers nothing positive either. Same with international students. Or Questbridge. Whether it benefits you is a weird yardstick to choose

This.

And for the person saying it should be a transparent process like with private company hiring, wut? Companies can hire who they want.

Companies can't discriminate by race, gender, religion, etc, but they don't have to hire based on some governmental definition of merit. In fact, companies often reject candidates as OVER-qualified.

Companies typically don’t hire based on the last name. Just they hire the most talented person. Otherwise they can generate lower profits.

I’m not sure which is worse, your understanding of how legacy works or how companies hire.

Yeah most companies I’ve worked for have a lot of people hiring friends and family, also true for major American companies. Do you have any idea how many Fords work or have worked for Ford Motor Company? Life isn’t fair, colleges that rely on donations like having wealthy legacy families and it doesn’t mean the students aren’t qualified, it means you really don’t understand what they value.

Yeah, ask meta, google, Microsoft, and Apple why the hire it workers from India and not with last name gates. Think about sundar pichai and not tech support people.

They hire IT workers from India because they’re cheap. I promise you the executives at every one of those companies are getting their own kids whatever internships and first jobs their connections allow. Do you really know nothing about how the world works? Do you ever interact with real humans outside of trolling on this website?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very clear : nothing positive for the vast majority of families and students.

So what? Athletic admissions offers nothing positive either. Same with international students. Or Questbridge. Whether it benefits you is a weird yardstick to choose

This.

And for the person saying it should be a transparent process like with private company hiring, wut? Companies can hire who they want.

Companies can't discriminate by race, gender, religion, etc, but they don't have to hire based on some governmental definition of merit. In fact, companies often reject candidates as OVER-qualified.

Companies typically don’t hire based on the last name. Just they hire the most talented person. Otherwise they can generate lower profits.

I’m not sure which is worse, your understanding of how legacy works or how companies hire.

Yeah most companies I’ve worked for have a lot of people hiring friends and family, also true for major American companies. Do you have any idea how many Fords work or have worked for Ford Motor Company? Life isn’t fair, colleges that rely on donations like having wealthy legacy families and it doesn’t mean the students aren’t qualified, it means you really don’t understand what they value.

Yeah, ask meta, google, Microsoft, and Apple why the hire it workers from India and not with last name gates. Think about sundar pichai and not tech support people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very clear : nothing positive for the vast majority of families and students.

So what? Athletic admissions offers nothing positive either. Same with international students. Or Questbridge. Whether it benefits you is a weird yardstick to choose

This.

And for the person saying it should be a transparent process like with private company hiring, wut? Companies can hire who they want.

Companies can't discriminate by race, gender, religion, etc, but they don't have to hire based on some governmental definition of merit. In fact, companies often reject candidates as OVER-qualified.

Companies typically don’t hire based on the last name. Just they hire the most talented person. Otherwise they can generate lower profits.

I’m not sure which is worse, your understanding of how legacy works or how companies hire.

Yeah most companies I’ve worked for have a lot of people hiring friends and family, also true for major American companies. Do you have any idea how many Fords work or have worked for Ford Motor Company? Life isn’t fair, colleges that rely on donations like having wealthy legacy families and it doesn’t mean the students aren’t qualified, it means you really don’t understand what they value.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very clear : nothing positive for the vast majority of families and students.

So what? Athletic admissions offers nothing positive either. Same with international students. Or Questbridge. Whether it benefits you is a weird yardstick to choose

This.

And for the person saying it should be a transparent process like with private company hiring, wut? Companies can hire who they want.

Companies can't discriminate by race, gender, religion, etc, but they don't have to hire based on some governmental definition of merit. In fact, companies often reject candidates as OVER-qualified.

Companies typically don’t hire based on the last name. Just they hire the most talented person. Otherwise they can generate lower profits.

I’m not sure which is worse, your understanding of how legacy works or how companies hire.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very clear : nothing positive for the vast majority of families and students.

So what? Athletic admissions offers nothing positive either. Same with international students. Or Questbridge. Whether it benefits you is a weird yardstick to choose

This.

And for the person saying it should be a transparent process like with private company hiring, wut? Companies can hire who they want.

Companies can't discriminate by race, gender, religion, etc, but they don't have to hire based on some governmental definition of merit. In fact, companies often reject candidates as OVER-qualified.

Companies typically don’t hire based on the last name. Just they hire the most talented person. Otherwise they can generate lower profits.

I’m not sure which is worse, your understanding of how legacy works or how companies hire.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very clear : nothing positive for the vast majority of families and students.

So what? Athletic admissions offers nothing positive either. Same with international students. Or Questbridge. Whether it benefits you is a weird yardstick to choose

This.

And for the person saying it should be a transparent process like with private company hiring, wut? Companies can hire who they want.

Companies can't discriminate by race, gender, religion, etc, but they don't have to hire based on some governmental definition of merit. In fact, companies often reject candidates as OVER-qualified.

Companies typically don’t hire based on the last name. Just they hire the most talented person. Otherwise they can generate lower profits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very clear : nothing positive for the vast majority of families and students.

So what? Athletic admissions offers nothing positive either. Same with international students. Or Questbridge. Whether it benefits you is a weird yardstick to choose

This.

And for the person saying it should be a transparent process like with private company hiring, wut? Companies can hire who they want.

Companies can't discriminate by race, gender, religion, etc, but they don't have to hire based on some governmental definition of merit. In fact, companies often reject candidates as OVER-qualified.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very clear : nothing positive for the vast majority of families and students.

So what? Athletic admissions offers nothing positive either. Same with international students. Or Questbridge. Whether it benefits you is a weird yardstick to choose

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very clear : nothing positive for the vast majority of families and students.

Families and students don't run the universities so that's irrelevant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very clear : nothing positive for the vast majority of families and students.

No, it is not clear, it is your opinion. I am fine with legacy admissions.
You all want to strip what make these schools special, and when they are no longer special, you are going to move on to the next set of schools that are prestigious.

If legacy students are truly talented, they will be admitted to top universities on their own merits. So what exactly is the problem with eliminating legacy admissions? Unless, of course, one believes they are not actually that talented.

What's next? The government inserting itself into corporate hiring decisions?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very clear : nothing positive for the vast majority of families and students.

No, it is not clear, it is your opinion. I am fine with legacy admissions.
You all want to strip what make these schools special, and when they are no longer special, you are going to move on to the next set of schools that are prestigious.

If legacy students are truly talented, they will be admitted to top universities on their own merits. So what exactly is the problem with eliminating legacy admissions? Unless, of course, one believes they are not actually that talented.