Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Posters in here want students to do the Native American land acknowledgement spiel with their legacy status. Sorry. Not going to happen. Kids worked hard and got in. Shame about those that didn’t, but there’s a college for everyone.

No, we just want people to stop pretending there isn’t a benefit to it when we all know there is.

More generally, we want people in positions of privilege to stop pretending that they earned everything by themselves and have the perspective to understand the privilege they were born into.

Anonymous wrote:I was a first generation college attendee. No kids.
What strikes me from browsing this thread is that some nonlegacy parents seem to assume a legacy "took" their kid's spot. Kid can't help where parents went. Are they not supposed to apply there?

Anonymous wrote:Posters in here want students to do the Native American land acknowledgement spiel with their legacy status. Sorry. Not going to happen. Kids worked hard and got in. Shame about those that didn’t, but there’s a college for everyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. The onus is not on the people whose argument the data currently support to come up with more recent data for no discernible reason.

Except for the fact that anyone with half a brain knows that admissions has changed dramatically post COVID.

If you don’t have recent data and you admittedly don’t, stop pretending you have data. We al know legacy was a bigger help in 2005 than 2025.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. The onus is not on the people whose argument the data currently support to come up with more recent data for no discernible reason.

Anonymous wrote:

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: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,
Adding also full-pay status, applying ED)

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

This. It’s not about if legacy is an advantage or not, it’s about not being gracious when someone shares good news.

Anonymous wrote:

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,
Adding also full-pay status, applying ED)

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

This. It’s not about if legacy is an advantage or not, it’s about not being gracious when someone shares good news.

Anonymous wrote:This is all a subset of American society as a whole. The privileged like to believe that they are the beneficiaries of hard work, when in reality they were born on second or third base into a system that benefits them. They argue that others simply have to work harder to have what they have. Look at the PP attacking other parents for not striving hard in high school to give their own kids legacy preference. But the systems are rigged. It's not a meritocracy. The privileged recognize this privately but don't like it spoken aloud, and they certainly do not like having it pointed out by someone who is not benefitting from the rigged systems. That person is brushed off as a "sore loser" or "rude."

The college admissions process is often the first time that many kids realize that it's not all about merit (and arguably, there is a certain privilege in this being the first dose of reality for those kids). So yeah, some of them are going to be upset and say the quiet part out loud.

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,
Adding also full-pay status, applying ED)

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:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What is truly horrifying is the greed and arrogance of the legacy parents that is on clear display here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What is truly horrifying is the greed and arrogance of the legacy parents that is on clear display here.

Anonymous wrote:

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.