Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonderful. I hope it’s banned everywhere. It’s a joke.

+1.

+1 I started a thread about how legacy is basically racist because it mostly helps rich white people. I got slammed for that thread, probably by legacies.

I stated something similar to her:

"we are supposed to live in a democracy, not an aristocracy,".. "To me, it's one of the most blatant examples of unfairness and inequality,"

Of course, the people at the top want to continue with it because it benefits them.

The argument is not that different to what liberals say about how white men support Trump because they are afraid of losing power as a group.

When did colleges ever claim that admissions is entirely meritocratic or "democratic"? They can and do value all sorts of things that you might think are unfair or irrelevant. As long as they're not engaging in unlawful discrimination, what's your argument against that?

Anonymous wrote:What a waste of time. I feel like this is distracting from the actual problems.

I'm an alum interviewer for a selective school and I can tell you it's hard to get in even if you are a legacy. They are rejected more than they are accepted. If they get in with a 4.0 and 1500 where they otherwise wouldn't (and in my experience, they aren't), who gives a sh*t?

then why bother with legacy, and why are you an interviewer there?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonderful. I hope it’s banned everywhere. It’s a joke.

+1.

+1 I started a thread about how legacy is basically racist because it mostly helps rich white people. I got slammed for that thread, probably by legacies.

I stated something similar to her:

"we are supposed to live in a democracy, not an aristocracy,".. "To me, it's one of the most blatant examples of unfairness and inequality,"

Of course, the people at the top want to continue with it because it benefits them.

The argument is not that different to what liberals say about how white men support Trump because they are afraid of losing power as a group.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neither federal nor state governments can ban colleges and universities from determning the criteria they want to build their student community, as long as they don't discriminate against protected classes. I can't believe the reach you all want government to have over our everyday lives. It's insane.

But applicants are being discriminated.
that's the p applicants that's the probelm.

Public schools might get baned.
Private colleges and universities at least start paying tax then.

No, they're not. Applicants are not being discriminated against based on their race, color, sex, religion, national origin, veteran status, or sexual orientation just because a big donor's son, who in just about every case is probably every bit as qualified, gets admitted. Now, I would argue that applicants are discriminated against based on mental disability. So if this is where you all want to base your logic on, let's start letting in kids like my brilliant ADHD kid who can't get into Harvard because his grades aren't high enough. He's truly, objectively brilliant and smarter than 99% of the people in the US (this is been shown time and again through testing), but his grades aren't the best because high school is hell for a smart kid with severe ADHD. Why should he be discriminated against based on his documented disability?

You don't mark ADHD on application.
How do you get discriminated.
They ask you you mark your race.

DP. And they give a preference based on race. How are members of protected racial classes being discriminated against?

PP’s point is that using grades as a criteria discriminates against qualified applicants with certain disabilities. They of course ask for grades.

"give a preference based on race" = racial discrimination

Racial preference based on belonging to a protected class. If you are arguing for admissions to be 100% based on grades and test scores, you should say that. But that’s much different than the topic of this thread, which is specific legacy preference.

No I'm arguing for admissions to be not based on any type of discriminations including legay and race.

There could be an argument that any criteria other than grades and test scores is discriminatory.

if the criteria is race then it's clearly racial discrimination.

But this thread is about legacy preference. So why do you keep bringing up racial discrimination?

NP. Well minorities now have legacy preferences in greater numbers, just in time for it to be banned and for non-whites not to be able to take advantage as whites were for generations. So it is related.

I'm the immediate pp responding--I agree that both legacy preference and racial preference for protected racial groups should be maintained. The other pp wants to ban both of those preferences, though apparently that pp is OK with other preferences remaining in place, which does not make any sense.

Early Decision is the new proxy to signal that you're a full-pay legacy rich white kid with middling scores and maybe an athlete. If you're not applying ED, you don't have a chance.

ED is going to make up a larger and larger portion of incoming classes. It's all the kids who don't need financial aid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neither federal nor state governments can ban colleges and universities from determning the criteria they want to build their student community, as long as they don't discriminate against protected classes. I can't believe the reach you all want government to have over our everyday lives. It's insane.

But applicants are being discriminated.
that's the p applicants that's the probelm.

Public schools might get baned.
Private colleges and universities at least start paying tax then.

No, they're not. Applicants are not being discriminated against based on their race, color, sex, religion, national origin, veteran status, or sexual orientation just because a big donor's son, who in just about every case is probably every bit as qualified, gets admitted. Now, I would argue that applicants are discriminated against based on mental disability. So if this is where you all want to base your logic on, let's start letting in kids like my brilliant ADHD kid who can't get into Harvard because his grades aren't high enough. He's truly, objectively brilliant and smarter than 99% of the people in the US (this is been shown time and again through testing), but his grades aren't the best because high school is hell for a smart kid with severe ADHD. Why should he be discriminated against based on his documented disability?

You don't mark ADHD on application.
How do you get discriminated.
They ask you you mark your race.

DP. And they give a preference based on race. How are members of protected racial classes being discriminated against?

PP’s point is that using grades as a criteria discriminates against qualified applicants with certain disabilities. They of course ask for grades.

"give a preference based on race" = racial discrimination

Racial preference based on belonging to a protected class. If you are arguing for admissions to be 100% based on grades and test scores, you should say that. But that’s much different than the topic of this thread, which is specific legacy preference.

No I'm arguing for admissions to be not based on any type of discriminations including legay and race.

There could be an argument that any criteria other than grades and test scores is discriminatory.

if the criteria is race then it's clearly racial discrimination.

But this thread is about legacy preference. So why do you keep bringing up racial discrimination?

NP. Well minorities now have legacy preferences in greater numbers, just in time for it to be banned and for non-whites not to be able to take advantage as whites were for generations. So it is related.

What a waste of time. I feel like this is distracting from the actual problems.

I'm an alum interviewer for a selective school and I can tell you it's hard to get in even if you are a legacy. They are rejected more than they are accepted. If they get in with a 4.0 and 1500 where they otherwise wouldn't (and in my experience, they aren't), who gives a sh*t?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neither federal nor state governments can ban colleges and universities from determning the criteria they want to build their student community, as long as they don't discriminate against protected classes. I can't believe the reach you all want government to have over our everyday lives. It's insane.

But applicants are being discriminated.
that's the p applicants that's the probelm.

Public schools might get baned.
Private colleges and universities at least start paying tax then.

No, they're not. Applicants are not being discriminated against based on their race, color, sex, religion, national origin, veteran status, or sexual orientation just because a big donor's son, who in just about every case is probably every bit as qualified, gets admitted. Now, I would argue that applicants are discriminated against based on mental disability. So if this is where you all want to base your logic on, let's start letting in kids like my brilliant ADHD kid who can't get into Harvard because his grades aren't high enough. He's truly, objectively brilliant and smarter than 99% of the people in the US (this is been shown time and again through testing), but his grades aren't the best because high school is hell for a smart kid with severe ADHD. Why should he be discriminated against based on his documented disability?

You don't mark ADHD on application.
How do you get discriminated.
They ask you you mark your race.

DP. And they give a preference based on race. How are members of protected racial classes being discriminated against?

PP’s point is that using grades as a criteria discriminates against qualified applicants with certain disabilities. They of course ask for grades.

"give a preference based on race" = racial discrimination

Racial preference based on belonging to a protected class. If you are arguing for admissions to be 100% based on grades and test scores, you should say that. But that’s much different than the topic of this thread, which is specific legacy preference.

No I'm arguing for admissions to be not based on any type of discriminations including legay and race.

There could be an argument that any criteria other than grades and test scores is discriminatory.

if the criteria is race then it's clearly racial discrimination.

But this thread is about legacy preference. So why do you keep bringing up racial discrimination?

Yes both should be banned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neither federal nor state governments can ban colleges and universities from determning the criteria they want to build their student community, as long as they don't discriminate against protected classes. I can't believe the reach you all want government to have over our everyday lives. It's insane.

But applicants are being discriminated.
that's the p applicants that's the probelm.

Public schools might get baned.
Private colleges and universities at least start paying tax then.

No, they're not. Applicants are not being discriminated against based on their race, color, sex, religion, national origin, veteran status, or sexual orientation just because a big donor's son, who in just about every case is probably every bit as qualified, gets admitted. Now, I would argue that applicants are discriminated against based on mental disability. So if this is where you all want to base your logic on, let's start letting in kids like my brilliant ADHD kid who can't get into Harvard because his grades aren't high enough. He's truly, objectively brilliant and smarter than 99% of the people in the US (this is been shown time and again through testing), but his grades aren't the best because high school is hell for a smart kid with severe ADHD. Why should he be discriminated against based on his documented disability?

You don't mark ADHD on application.
How do you get discriminated.
They ask you you mark your race.

DP. And they give a preference based on race. How are members of protected racial classes being discriminated against?

PP’s point is that using grades as a criteria discriminates against qualified applicants with certain disabilities. They of course ask for grades.

"give a preference based on race" = racial discrimination

Racial preference based on belonging to a protected class. If you are arguing for admissions to be 100% based on grades and test scores, you should say that. But that’s much different than the topic of this thread, which is specific legacy preference.

No I'm arguing for admissions to be not based on any type of discriminations including legay and race.

There could be an argument that any criteria other than grades and test scores is discriminatory.

if the criteria is race then it's clearly racial discrimination.

But this thread is about legacy preference. So why do you keep bringing up racial discrimination?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neither federal nor state governments can ban colleges and universities from determning the criteria they want to build their student community, as long as they don't discriminate against protected classes. I can't believe the reach you all want government to have over our everyday lives. It's insane.

But applicants are being discriminated.
that's the p applicants that's the probelm.

Public schools might get baned.
Private colleges and universities at least start paying tax then.

No, they're not. Applicants are not being discriminated against based on their race, color, sex, religion, national origin, veteran status, or sexual orientation just because a big donor's son, who in just about every case is probably every bit as qualified, gets admitted. Now, I would argue that applicants are discriminated against based on mental disability. So if this is where you all want to base your logic on, let's start letting in kids like my brilliant ADHD kid who can't get into Harvard because his grades aren't high enough. He's truly, objectively brilliant and smarter than 99% of the people in the US (this is been shown time and again through testing), but his grades aren't the best because high school is hell for a smart kid with severe ADHD. Why should he be discriminated against based on his documented disability?

You don't mark ADHD on application.
How do you get discriminated.
They ask you you mark your race.

DP. And they give a preference based on race. How are members of protected racial classes being discriminated against?

PP’s point is that using grades as a criteria discriminates against qualified applicants with certain disabilities. They of course ask for grades.

"give a preference based on race" = racial discrimination

Racial preference based on belonging to a protected class. If you are arguing for admissions to be 100% based on grades and test scores, you should say that. But that’s much different than the topic of this thread, which is specific legacy preference.

No I'm arguing for admissions to be not based on any type of discriminations including legay and race.

There could be an argument that any criteria other than grades and test scores is discriminatory.

if the criteria is race then it's clearly racial discrimination.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if it is banned, colleges can continue this practice. How would anyone be able to prove they took a legacy because they are a legacy. The college could put any reason down for accepting a student.

Just like discrimination laws.
There will be a lot of law suits if they still practice the discrimination.

But it would be very hard to prove.

Yes any discrimination law suit is hard to prove, but if you get caught, the penalty will be severe, so better watch out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if it is banned, colleges can continue this practice. How would anyone be able to prove they took a legacy because they are a legacy. The college could put any reason down for accepting a student.

Just like discrimination laws.
There will be a lot of law suits if they still practice the discrimination.

But it would be very hard to prove.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neither federal nor state governments can ban colleges and universities from determning the criteria they want to build their student community, as long as they don't discriminate against protected classes. I can't believe the reach you all want government to have over our everyday lives. It's insane.

But applicants are being discriminated.
that's the p applicants that's the probelm.

Public schools might get baned.
Private colleges and universities at least start paying tax then.

No, they're not. Applicants are not being discriminated against based on their race, color, sex, religion, national origin, veteran status, or sexual orientation just because a big donor's son, who in just about every case is probably every bit as qualified, gets admitted. Now, I would argue that applicants are discriminated against based on mental disability. So if this is where you all want to base your logic on, let's start letting in kids like my brilliant ADHD kid who can't get into Harvard because his grades aren't high enough. He's truly, objectively brilliant and smarter than 99% of the people in the US (this is been shown time and again through testing), but his grades aren't the best because high school is hell for a smart kid with severe ADHD. Why should he be discriminated against based on his documented disability?

You don't mark ADHD on application.
How do you get discriminated.
They ask you you mark your race.

DP. And they give a preference based on race. How are members of protected racial classes being discriminated against?

PP’s point is that using grades as a criteria discriminates against qualified applicants with certain disabilities. They of course ask for grades.

"give a preference based on race" = racial discrimination

Racial preference based on belonging to a protected class. If you are arguing for admissions to be 100% based on grades and test scores, you should say that. But that’s much different than the topic of this thread, which is specific legacy preference.

No I'm arguing for admissions to be not based on any type of discriminations including legay and race.

There could be an argument that any criteria other than grades and test scores is discriminatory.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neither federal nor state governments can ban colleges and universities from determning the criteria they want to build their student community, as long as they don't discriminate against protected classes. I can't believe the reach you all want government to have over our everyday lives. It's insane.

But applicants are being discriminated.
that's the p applicants that's the probelm.

Public schools might get baned.
Private colleges and universities at least start paying tax then.

No, they're not. Applicants are not being discriminated against based on their race, color, sex, religion, national origin, veteran status, or sexual orientation just because a big donor's son, who in just about every case is probably every bit as qualified, gets admitted. Now, I would argue that applicants are discriminated against based on mental disability. So if this is where you all want to base your logic on, let's start letting in kids like my brilliant ADHD kid who can't get into Harvard because his grades aren't high enough. He's truly, objectively brilliant and smarter than 99% of the people in the US (this is been shown time and again through testing), but his grades aren't the best because high school is hell for a smart kid with severe ADHD. Why should he be discriminated against based on his documented disability?

You don't mark ADHD on application.
How do you get discriminated.
They ask you you mark your race.

DP. And they give a preference based on race. How are members of protected racial classes being discriminated against?

PP’s point is that using grades as a criteria discriminates against qualified applicants with certain disabilities. They of course ask for grades.

"give a preference based on race" = racial discrimination

Racial preference based on belonging to a protected class. If you are arguing for admissions to be 100% based on grades and test scores, you should say that. But that’s much different than the topic of this thread, which is specific legacy preference.

No I'm arguing for admissions to be not based on any type of discriminations including legay and race.

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't matter. Now that test optional is the new standard and colleges describe a "holistic process", they will take whomever they want with even more opacity.

The process is completely broken.

Don't you think that will lead to more lawsuits? Isn't that what led to the Harvard-Asian lawsuit where they had an opaque process but during discovery it was found that Asians were discriminated against just because they were Asian?

How would a new process work? What kind of notes would the college admissions team write to indicate that a particular applicant is say, Asian or Rich White? Use a code? Wouldn't that be discovered eventually and subject the college to more lawsuits?

10 years or so after race is gone as a criteria, someone else will sue these guys alleging discrimination. Discovery will show that there was indeed discrimination. Not that difficult to prove these days with the extensive paper/electronic trail that's available.

Colleges could of course go the simpler route of going for-profit, pay up the taxes they owe and most of us wouldn't give two sh*ts about how they pick their cohorts..