Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But it's up to the private school to decide. Legacy admissions means the future alumni are more likely to donate and continue to support the university. Sure, it's not fair, but life is not fair. Many people get jobs based on who they know---is that fair? No, but networking is a way of life. Some people are automatically born into a better network, others have to work harder to build it. THat's happened for generations and isn't likely to end.

That’s what all people say when it benefits them. MIT and Amherst and JHU and the UC system for example have gotten rid of legacy preference and seem to be doing just fine financially. And federal funds are used by the schools. So not completely private.

Completely private. Government funding of that sort does not convert private universities into state actors.

These schools all abide by federal rules and guidelines set forth in order to continue receiving federal funding. So no, they are quasi-public institutions. They receive financial benefit from taxpayers, follow a few simple rules to keep the funding, and gate-keep the tax-payers.

Private universities are not quasi-public.

Yes, they are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They will get into schools they’re qualified to attend. Maybe it will be selective, maybe it won’t. Imagine if there were no special side doors or loop holes or handshake deals- some of these kids would have to go to average schools. They’re not all smart.

You are overestimating the impact of legacy at the most selective schools.

Wrong. The legacy bonus is equivalent to having an SAT score that's 64 to 160 points at some elite schools.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/12/us/SAT-bonus-ivy-league.html

Over six admission cycles, Harvard admitted legacy applicants at a rate of 34 percent — 5.7 times higher than for nonlegacy applicants, according to a study by Peter S. Arcidiacono, an economist at Duke and expert witness for the plaintiffs, working with two other academics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But it's up to the private school to decide. Legacy admissions means the future alumni are more likely to donate and continue to support the university. Sure, it's not fair, but life is not fair. Many people get jobs based on who they know---is that fair? No, but networking is a way of life. Some people are automatically born into a better network, others have to work harder to build it. THat's happened for generations and isn't likely to end.

That’s what all people say when it benefits them. MIT and Amherst and JHU and the UC system for example have gotten rid of legacy preference and seem to be doing just fine financially. And federal funds are used by the schools. So not completely private.

Completely private. Government funding of that sort does not convert private universities into state actors.

These schools all abide by federal rules and guidelines set forth in order to continue receiving federal funding. So no, they are quasi-public institutions. They receive financial benefit from taxpayers, follow a few simple rules to keep the funding, and gate-keep the tax-payers.

Are farmers quasi-public?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But it's up to the private school to decide. Legacy admissions means the future alumni are more likely to donate and continue to support the university. Sure, it's not fair, but life is not fair. Many people get jobs based on who they know---is that fair? No, but networking is a way of life. Some people are automatically born into a better network, others have to work harder to build it. THat's happened for generations and isn't likely to end.

That’s what all people say when it benefits them. MIT and Amherst and JHU and the UC system for example have gotten rid of legacy preference and seem to be doing just fine financially. And federal funds are used by the schools. So not completely private.

Completely private. Government funding of that sort does not convert private universities into state actors.

These schools all abide by federal rules and guidelines set forth in order to continue receiving federal funding. So no, they are quasi-public institutions. They receive financial benefit from taxpayers, follow a few simple rules to keep the funding, and gate-keep the tax-payers.

Private universities are not quasi-public.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But it's up to the private school to decide. Legacy admissions means the future alumni are more likely to donate and continue to support the university. Sure, it's not fair, but life is not fair. Many people get jobs based on who they know---is that fair? No, but networking is a way of life. Some people are automatically born into a better network, others have to work harder to build it. THat's happened for generations and isn't likely to end.

That’s what all people say when it benefits them. MIT and Amherst and JHU and the UC system for example have gotten rid of legacy preference and seem to be doing just fine financially. And federal funds are used by the schools. So not completely private.

Completely private. Government funding of that sort does not convert private universities into state actors.

These schools all abide by federal rules and guidelines set forth in order to continue receiving federal funding. So no, they are quasi-public institutions. They receive financial benefit from taxpayers, follow a few simple rules to keep the funding, and gate-keep the tax-payers.

Privates need a good supply of full pay students to support the school. Early Decision legacies are usually a sure bet and help fulfill the that need.

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.

They should be barred from federal research and financial aid funding then.

These are private institutions, why not raise money from their alumni rather than sucking off the tax payer's teat, while simultaneously showing the middle finger to tax-payers with discriminatory admissions policies.

I'm sure Harvard, Yale and Stanford would be fine without federal research funds. For a decade, maybe, before their research rankings crater and so does their prestige. They can be like Williams and Amherst.

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.

yes then pay full tax like any other private companies.

Someone always posts this making it clear they do not understand why nonprofit educational institutions have special tax status.

Go on, explain why.

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.

I'd prefer to craft a class with students that earned a place at the school and want to attend rather than students who slipped in through mommy or daddy's name and attend that school only because their mommy or daddy wants them to attend that school.

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.

Not even close to the same. Legacy preference will work at one school. Affirmative action will work at virtually every school.

That is actually a good point that I never thought of. Legacy families often fund scholarships for others. Where do people think scholarship $$$ comes from?

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.

yes then pay full tax like any other private companies.

Someone always posts this making it clear they do not understand why nonprofit educational institutions have special tax status.

There are lots of good schools. Everyone doesn’t have to go to the same 10. Thus, legacy is fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacy is a problem, but kids getting into schools because of sports is an even bigger problem. Those two student populations take a significant number of spots at top schools. A kid could be busting their ass, and an athlete who has a weaker transcript & test scores will get it.

If it's that easy, teach your kid how to play lacrosse.

My kid used athletic talent to access high academic college. I can't control that that is the system, so we played that game, but it's a silly criteria to use to help gain admittance to a place for academic pursuits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They will get into schools they’re qualified to attend. Maybe it will be selective, maybe it won’t. Imagine if there were no special side doors or loop holes or handshake deals- some of these kids would have to go to average schools. They’re not all smart.

You are overestimating the impact of legacy at the most selective schools.

You are underestimating it.

You are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacy is a problem, but kids getting into schools because of sports is an even bigger problem. Those two student populations take a significant number of spots at top schools. A kid could be busting their ass, and an athlete who has a weaker transcript & test scores will get it.

If it's that easy, teach your kid how to play lacrosse.

Not that easy and you know it. Also it’s another way to differentiate those with a lot of money.