Anonymous wrote:It’s been all of four months since Stanford walked away from millions in state funding in order to preserve its legacy preference. If that preference is as meaningless as you claim, why not take the millions?

Legacy parents won’t allow pesky facts to get in the way of their myth-building.

Anonymous wrote:I have not read the whole thread, I suspect I would not be surprised.

The only polite things to say when someone tells you where they got in are

Congratulations!
They will be very lucky to have you!
What a wonderful choice (insert some random thing you know about the school)
What do you plan to study there?

Things that are not OK:

Eww who wants to go there

You only got in because you are (rich, poor, race, religion, legacy, non-academic talent)

Oh your kid got in for English? My kid was deferred for Engineering there, which js clearly much harder.

I’ve heard they love a sob story there. You probably got in because (insert someone’s trauma)

Their admissions are so hard to predict.

I am sure if my kid went to (private or public, whichever the kid didn’t go to) they would have gotten in

Exactly. The fact that this is not the primary topic being discussed here is unbelievable. The fact that one kid said this to another kid is horrifying. It shows zero class. You can think what you want. You can discuss it with others. But you just say congratulations and move on. To make a comment like that is incredibly low class and rude.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Advantage, yes. Significant advantage, no.

When a school rejects 98% of qualified applicants, every advantage is significant.

+1

These legacies who don’t understand even a little bit of statistical analysis need to call up their vaunted colleges and complain about how badly educated they were.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whose the crazy person who thinks legacy is a huge boost?

Um, anyone who has read any of the widely available statistical analyses done on data that is now public? Are you numerically illiterate?

We aren’t talking about the historical data over the past few decades, recent data shows that legacy nothing more than a tiebreaker, if that.

Even if what you are saying was true (which it is not for a double legacy), you seem to have some logic problems. When we know a double legacy kid got in, that is why. The fact that many legacies don’t get in is immaterial. If anything, it points to the difficulty of admission generally; this only underscores the point that the double legacy who did get in would have been rejected “but for” legacy status.

+1

One thing that has been eye-opening in this thread is the rank numerical illiteracy on display from the legacy parents.

Ego-preserving blindness.

Yes, but they are simultaneously claiming they are really smart and their kids are also really smart. So while you are clearly correct, it’s still something to see.

It is curious to see people who claim they are really smart demonstrate such profound numerical illiteracy.

You keep saying this, yet have no recent data. Weird.

Again with the lack of numerical literacy. I will explain slowly, since your university obviously did a remarkably poor job educating you.

You are making an assertion, namely that legacy has no or minimal impact on admissions. Let’s call that your hypothesis. Your hypothesis is contradictory to presently accepted analytical consensus and numerous existing studies from well-respected institutions and academics.

Normally, when one proposes a hypothesis that contradicts established precedent, one brings forth data to demonstrate why the hypothesis correctly contradicts the existing understanding. This is considered part of the “scientific method,” which is clearly not something you understand. (I would do some reading up on the basics of scientific inquiry if I were you.)

What is insufficient when one is proposing a new hypothesis that contradicts the existing, data-supported consensus is to say “I don’t have any data but I know it’s true.” This, at best, is a theory. It is perfectly fine to have theories — some of the best science comes out of a hunch. But without supporting data and proof, your theory will not develop further.

Your theory is that legacy admissions are no longer a factor in admissions. This is an enormous departure from existing data analysis. Therefore, under the basics of the scientific method, it is up to you to produce hard evidence as to why prior understanding is wrong and your theory is correct.

Bring forward your data. Then we can talk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The jealousy of legacies here is off the charts and sad. They are only viewed in a bad way and no one can admit that there are greater than zero legacies who are really smart and "deserve" to be there regardless of their parents. Smart people have smart kids, full stop. I went to an Ivy+ (not as a legacy) and the smartest person I knew was a legacy. Enrolled a year younger than the rest of us (turned 21 after we graduated). 4.0 in STEM. Now making a fortune in corporate America. Should they feel inferior because some DCUM losers say so?

Perhaps people could channel their energy towards parenting and doing good deeds for society rather than whining and jealousy. It is not a good look.

and perhaps those who have generational advantages should acknowledge that having been born on third base is about luck.

Why? No one has to acknowledge anything.

I have not read the whole thread, I suspect I would not be surprised.

The only polite things to say when someone tells you where they got in are

Congratulations!
They will be very lucky to have you!
What a wonderful choice (insert some random thing you know about the school)
What do you plan to study there?

Things that are not OK:

Eww who wants to go there

You only got in because you are (rich, poor, race, religion, legacy, non-academic talent)

Oh your kid got in for English? My kid was deferred for Engineering there, which js clearly much harder.

I’ve heard they love a sob story there. You probably got in because (insert someone’s trauma)

Their admissions are so hard to predict.

I am sure if my kid went to (private or public, whichever the kid didn’t go to) they would have gotten in

Anonymous wrote:Advantage, yes. Significant advantage, no.

When a school rejects 98% of qualified applicants, every advantage is significant.

Advantage, yes. Significant advantage, no.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be proud of your acceptance and don’t let anyone downplay it because of legacy status. Jealous parents and kids will try to knock your admissions. Just smile and celebrate more. If they are friends they will be happy for you. If not, let them cry harder.

It’s always so interesting to see parents who probably consider themselves good liberals become absolutely Ayn Randian when faced with the mere idea of leveling the playing field.

Why are you so obsessed not letting your kids understand just how much they benefit from a significantly uneven playing field?

Enjoying that boogeyman you created to scare yourself?

Why can’t your kids handle hearing the truth of their admissions? It isn’t a statement of their moral worth. It is just facing reality.

Reality is if my kid got in they got in. because of the work they did.

All of you they only got in because of "legacy" are ignorant when it comes to college admission.

"legacy" in college admissions

means mommy or daddy bought a building.

BS that is donor admission, different thing. And you clearly know it because the one thing you haven't argued in this whole back and forth is that your kid didn't check the legacy box and fill in the info with your legacy info. . . .

It’s been all of four months since Stanford walked away from millions in state funding in order to preserve its legacy preference. If that preference is as meaningless as you claim, why not take the millions?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be proud of your acceptance and don’t let anyone downplay it because of legacy status. Jealous parents and kids will try to knock your admissions. Just smile and celebrate more. If they are friends they will be happy for you. If not, let them cry harder.

It’s always so interesting to see parents who probably consider themselves good liberals become absolutely Ayn Randian when faced with the mere idea of leveling the playing field.

Why are you so obsessed not letting your kids understand just how much they benefit from a significantly uneven playing field?

Enjoying that boogeyman you created to scare yourself?

Why can’t your kids handle hearing the truth of their admissions? It isn’t a statement of their moral worth. It is just facing reality.

Reality is if my kid got in they got in. because of the work they did.

All of you they only got in because of "legacy" are ignorant when it comes to college admission.

"legacy" in college admissions means mommy or daddy bought a building.

Anonymous wrote:The jealousy of legacies here is off the charts and sad. They are only viewed in a bad way and no one can admit that there are greater than zero legacies who are really smart and "deserve" to be there regardless of their parents. Smart people have smart kids, full stop. I went to an Ivy+ (not as a legacy) and the smartest person I knew was a legacy. Enrolled a year younger than the rest of us (turned 21 after we graduated). 4.0 in STEM. Now making a fortune in corporate America. Should they feel inferior because some DCUM losers say so?

Perhaps people could channel their energy towards parenting and doing good deeds for society rather than whining and jealousy. It is not a good look.

No one is saying OP's kid isn't smart, didn't work hard or didn't have the stats. OP is demanding that the rest of the applicants from his school pretend he didn't also have an advantage that they did not have, i.e. legacy status. That is the problem. It appears in this instance that his legacy status worked exactly as expected, when presented with two (and possibly more) similarly qualified candidates from the same school, one of whom had legacy status, the legacy got the spot.

I am not an opponent of legacy admissions, I understand why schools maintain it. As the mom of a totally unhooked kid at an Ivy the legacy families in our area have been helpful. They host the summer parties, answer questions, share info on random weird traditions, recommend hotels etc. But they and their kids don't pretend that they didn't benefit from legacy admissions. By the way OP other students will know in college, your name badge at drop off/ family weekend and graduation etc. will have your grad year etc. and there are usually a special events at all of those for the legacy families. If you and your kid don't want to be identified he'll need to apply and attend a different school. . . .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whose the crazy person who thinks legacy is a huge boost?

Um, anyone who has read any of the widely available statistical analyses done on data that is now public? Are you numerically illiterate?

We aren’t talking about the historical data over the past few decades, recent data shows that legacy nothing more than a tiebreaker, if that.

Even if what you are saying was true (which it is not for a double legacy), you seem to have some logic problems. When we know a double legacy kid got in, that is why. The fact that many legacies don’t get in is immaterial. If anything, it points to the difficulty of admission generally; this only underscores the point that the double legacy who did get in would have been rejected “but for” legacy status.

+1

One thing that has been eye-opening in this thread is the rank numerical illiteracy on display from the legacy parents.

Ego-preserving blindness.

Yes, but they are simultaneously claiming they are really smart and their kids are also really smart. So while you are clearly correct, it’s still something to see.

It is curious to see people who claim they are really smart demonstrate such profound numerical illiteracy.

You keep saying this, yet have no recent data. Weird.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be proud of your acceptance and don’t let anyone downplay it because of legacy status. Jealous parents and kids will try to knock your admissions. Just smile and celebrate more. If they are friends they will be happy for you. If not, let them cry harder.

It’s always so interesting to see parents who probably consider themselves good liberals become absolutely Ayn Randian when faced with the mere idea of leveling the playing field.

Why are you so obsessed not letting your kids understand just how much they benefit from a significantly uneven playing field?

Enjoying that boogeyman you created to scare yourself?

Why can’t your kids handle hearing the truth of their admissions? It isn’t a statement of their moral worth. It is just facing reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whose the crazy person who thinks legacy is a huge boost?

Um, anyone who has read any of the widely available statistical analyses done on data that is now public? Are you numerically illiterate?

We aren’t talking about the historical data over the past few decades, recent data shows that legacy nothing more than a tiebreaker, if that.

Even if what you are saying was true (which it is not for a double legacy), you seem to have some logic problems. When we know a double legacy kid got in, that is why. The fact that many legacies don’t get in is immaterial. If anything, it points to the difficulty of admission generally; this only underscores the point that the double legacy who did get in would have been rejected “but for” legacy status.

+1

One thing that has been eye-opening in this thread is the rank numerical illiteracy on display from the legacy parents.

Ego-preserving blindness.

Yes, but they are simultaneously claiming they are really smart and their kids are also really smart. So while you are clearly correct, it’s still something to see.

It is curious to see people who claim they are really smart demonstrate such profound numerical illiteracy.