Anonymous
Post 01/17/2023 16:24     Subject: Question for those opposed to legacy status
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I donate $100-$250/year -- peanuts. My legacy kid with high enough (>75% for this school) stats/test scores/ECs to "buy a lottery ticket" just got into my alma mater (ED) and will attend. I believe legacy kids bring something special to the table: they grew up knowing the institution, take pride in the school, have an awareness of and appreciation for the school's traditions, and may want to continue where their parent left off. I think admitting qualified legacy kids adds something which isn't recognized in previous posts.

So, like the "in club"?


No, the "carrying on part of what makes this school this school" club. And is 100% qualified, besides. I get it's not a popular opinion, but I believe it's something to consider. Essentially, all else being equal, this can be a small factor. I understand the pp's who talk about how these schools are transformative, since my school experience was for me and I am forever grateful.

so you acknowledge that it was transformative for you but you don't want that same opportunity for other families with no legacy hooks?

How selfish. Let me guess. You vote Dem?
Anonymous
Post 01/17/2023 16:20     Subject: Re:Question for those opposed to legacy status
Anonymous wrote:I am white, from a privileged background, and have parents and grandparents who went to Ivy league schools, Stanford, and other top universities. I don't think legacy status should be considered at all. I mean come on; the truth is the practice does give a leg up to those who are already privileged - aka resource hoarding. It says little to nothing about the applicant themselves. There is just no way to defeat that argument. It is a bs reason to let a kid into a school over another equally qualified applicant (as that is really how its most frequently used). It should not be considered a hook in any way.

I have one question though that I have never been able to find a solution to - how do you encourage alum to donate if it won't help their kid get in? It is the number one reason people donate long term. How do you replace the private scholarships funded for basically the same reason? How do you replace all that money that the school depends on? When most don't have enough to give to have a building named for them, and there is no longer any legacy status bestowed on their kids, how do you get donations from the ordinary graduates?


Schools that got rid of legacy have not had a measurable effect on donations. They are still getting plenty of donations.
Most people give money because they ultimately believe in the school’s mission and values - that is what the big donations are generally about
Anonymous
Post 01/17/2023 16:18     Subject: Question for those opposed to legacy status
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I see what seems like a lot of posts from people strongly opposed to “legacy admissions” and I’m curious about this position. I agree that unqualified applicants should not be admitted to any schools. Do you assume that no legacy applicants are qualified for admission to the school their parent attended? That seems odd to me given how important parental expectations are for success in school and life.

Do you mean that no kids should be permitted to apply to the schools their parents attended? How would it even work, when the common app asks for parental information (and that appears to be the basis for first generation applicants)? And how is it different from school that look at demonstrated interest? Why should legacy kids’ interest in attending the school they are familiar with, have a personal/family connection to, and likely grew up knowing about, visiting, rooting for its sports teams, etc not be allowed to follow that interest?

Genuinely curious, I promise.



Not rocket science. Simply ignore legacy status, focus on merit 100%.

Candidate deserves it? Gets in.

Doesn't deserve it? Doesn't get in.

Who your parents are should be irrelevant.


It's this for me. Other prioritized students arguably bring SOMETHING to the table that is unique, valued, etc. Parental connection is not one of them.
Anonymous
Post 01/17/2023 16:16     Subject: Question for those opposed to legacy status
Anonymous wrote:I donate $100-$250/year -- peanuts. My legacy kid with high enough (>75% for this school) stats/test scores/ECs to "buy a lottery ticket" just got into my alma mater (ED) and will attend. I believe legacy kids bring something special to the table: they grew up knowing the institution, take pride in the school, have an awareness of and appreciation for the school's traditions, and may want to continue where their parent left off. I think admitting qualified legacy kids adds something which isn't recognized in previous posts.


People who are still obsessed with their college days as adults are weird
Anonymous
Post 01/17/2023 16:13     Subject: Re:Question for those opposed to legacy status
I am white, from a privileged background, and have parents and grandparents who went to Ivy league schools, Stanford, and other top universities. I don't think legacy status should be considered at all. I mean come on; the truth is the practice does give a leg up to those who are already privileged - aka resource hoarding. It says little to nothing about the applicant themselves. There is just no way to defeat that argument. It is a bs reason to let a kid into a school over another equally qualified applicant (as that is really how its most frequently used). It should not be considered a hook in any way.

I have one question though that I have never been able to find a solution to - how do you encourage alum to donate if it won't help their kid get in? It is the number one reason people donate long term. How do you replace the private scholarships funded for basically the same reason? How do you replace all that money that the school depends on? When most don't have enough to give to have a building named for them, and there is no longer any legacy status bestowed on their kids, how do you get donations from the ordinary graduates?
Anonymous
Post 01/17/2023 16:00     Subject: Question for those opposed to legacy status
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I donate $100-$250/year -- peanuts. My legacy kid with high enough (>75% for this school) stats/test scores/ECs to "buy a lottery ticket" just got into my alma mater (ED) and will attend. I believe legacy kids bring something special to the table: they grew up knowing the institution, take pride in the school, have an awareness of and appreciation for the school's traditions, and may want to continue where their parent left off. I think admitting qualified legacy kids adds something which isn't recognized in previous posts.

So, like the "in club"?


No, the "carrying on part of what makes this school this school" club. And is 100% qualified, besides. I get it's not a popular opinion, but I believe it's something to consider. Essentially, all else being equal, this can be a small factor. I understand the pp's who talk about how these schools are transformative, since my school experience was for me and I am forever grateful.
Anonymous
Post 01/17/2023 15:58     Subject: Question for those opposed to legacy status
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I donate $100-$250/year -- peanuts. My legacy kid with high enough (>75% for this school) stats/test scores/ECs to "buy a lottery ticket" just got into my alma mater (ED) and will attend. I believe legacy kids bring something special to the table: they grew up knowing the institution, take pride in the school, have an awareness of and appreciation for the school's traditions, and may want to continue where their parent left off. I think admitting qualified legacy kids adds something which isn't recognized in previous posts.

So, like the "in club"?



There's a separate thread on Harvard and that's exactly it. The value of Harvard is joining THE club, through money or connections.
Anonymous
Post 01/17/2023 15:55     Subject: Question for those opposed to legacy status
Anonymous wrote:I donate $100-$250/year -- peanuts. My legacy kid with high enough (>75% for this school) stats/test scores/ECs to "buy a lottery ticket" just got into my alma mater (ED) and will attend. I believe legacy kids bring something special to the table: they grew up knowing the institution, take pride in the school, have an awareness of and appreciation for the school's traditions, and may want to continue where their parent left off. I think admitting qualified legacy kids adds something which isn't recognized in previous posts.

So, like the "in club"?
Anonymous
Post 01/17/2023 15:53     Subject: Question for those opposed to legacy status
Anonymous wrote:I donate $100-$250/year -- peanuts. My legacy kid with high enough (>75% for this school) stats/test scores/ECs to "buy a lottery ticket" just got into my alma mater (ED) and will attend. I believe legacy kids bring something special to the table: they grew up knowing the institution, take pride in the school, have an awareness of and appreciation for the school's traditions, and may want to continue where their parent left off. I think admitting qualified legacy kids adds something which isn't recognized in previous posts.


Even if that were true, and in many cases it's not, and the kid doesn't care much about the institution their parent attended - I know of several! - it still cannot weigh against these reasons cited in an earlier post, repeated below. The institutional knowledge you offer is entirely negligible, or should be, compared to the far more important reasons to select students for admission:

"Three reasons why you're wrong:

1. Universities are MUCH MORE SELECTIVE THAN BEFORE. A generation ago, entry into the Ivy League was much easier than today. Most middle-aged people who went to Ivies would not get in today. So there is no reason for their children to have preference.

2. Nature and nurture do not work how you think: even if their parents were supremely able in every way, why do you think their children would automatically be the same way? Why would you not rather judge each student on their own merits instead of making general assumptions that kids of Ivy graduates must naturally be more worthy than others?

3. Racism. Previous generations of students were chosen among a much smaller population, nearly all of them white, and if you go back farther in time, nearly all of them male and Christian. So granting privileges to their descendants perpetuates an unfair ratio of admittance that disadvantages all the excellent candidates from other groups that did not have a change before due to ethnic, religious and gender pressures."
Anonymous
Post 01/17/2023 15:37     Subject: Question for those opposed to legacy status
I donate $100-$250/year -- peanuts. My legacy kid with high enough (>75% for this school) stats/test scores/ECs to "buy a lottery ticket" just got into my alma mater (ED) and will attend. I believe legacy kids bring something special to the table: they grew up knowing the institution, take pride in the school, have an awareness of and appreciation for the school's traditions, and may want to continue where their parent left off. I think admitting qualified legacy kids adds something which isn't recognized in previous posts.
Anonymous
Post 01/17/2023 15:28     Subject: Question for those opposed to legacy status
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Schools rely on alumni for fundraising. How will this affect a school's donations if there is no such legacy preference? Doesn't this fundraising help financial aide?


I'm a PP above who gives more to the school without legacy status.

People need to seriously reflect if they know they would give less to their alma mater based on the removal of legacy policies.

Likewise, schools need to find a way to cut this tie while still encouraging people to give.


And how do you propose this? Many many people do contribute just in case their kid(s) want to attend. It doesn't help really help for admissions I suspect, unless you are contributing in the 6 figures+ yearly. But for those contributing 2-3K/year in hopes it helps their kid get in, that money is what helps pay for merit and FA awards for others. Donations dwindle, and the colleges that meet "full FA without loans beyond the standard federal $5.5K" will be much smaller. So it's a catch 22.

Yes---we personally gave $2-3K/year for the 7 years before our kids might apply. Last kid had the stats/resume/interest, did ED and got deferred and rejected. Did I give this year? Nope. Plan to redirect that money to local organizations where I have more control/can see exactly where the money is going. Much better ways to support education than a T10 school---I'd prefer to help at the pre-K/ES/MS level locally in the neediest areas to help provide for those kids so when they finish HS they are on track to attend college.




Maybe I am an outlier, but I actually have no problem if schools were explicit that they have X number of spots for anyone willing to donate X$$s or above (first come)...imagine it would be at least 7 figures, maybe 8 figures. Your kid has to meet some minimum qualifications with respect to GPA/Test scores (which you would know ahead of your donation), but you won't be bothered with writing supplementals and all the other BS. At least it would be transparent to the rest of us...who all know that is happening anyway but behind closed doors.

Get rid of legacy and just make it clear that donating $100 or $1000 or even $10,000 per year is not impactful to these schools, so help more deserving groups somewhere else.

Finally, I imagine that admissions can probably throw out 50% of the applications they receive from kids who really have no business applying to that school. For the remainder, maybe create some buckets of kids to create geographic and income and whatever diversity (yeah, I know this is still rife with some problems, but just trying to communicate the idea)...and then just pull names out of the buckets for admission. Admission is kind of a lottery already, so again, just be transparent that it literally will be a lottery.



Anonymous
Post 01/17/2023 15:20     Subject: Question for those opposed to legacy status
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Schools rely on alumni for fundraising. How will this affect a school's donations if there is no such legacy preference? Doesn't this fundraising help financial aide?


I'm a PP above who gives more to the school without legacy status.

People need to seriously reflect if they know they would give less to their alma mater based on the removal of legacy policies.

Likewise, schools need to find a way to cut this tie while still encouraging people to give.


And how do you propose this? Many many people do contribute just in case their kid(s) want to attend. It doesn't help really help for admissions I suspect, unless you are contributing in the 6 figures+ yearly. But for those contributing 2-3K/year in hopes it helps their kid get in, that money is what helps pay for merit and FA awards for others. Donations dwindle, and the colleges that meet "full FA without loans beyond the standard federal $5.5K" will be much smaller. So it's a catch 22.

Yes---we personally gave $2-3K/year for the 7 years before our kids might apply. Last kid had the stats/resume/interest, did ED and got deferred and rejected. Did I give this year? Nope. Plan to redirect that money to local organizations where I have more control/can see exactly where the money is going. Much better ways to support education than a T10 school---I'd prefer to help at the pre-K/ES/MS level locally in the neediest areas to help provide for those kids so when they finish HS they are on track to attend college.




Perfect - joke is on you then. You gave for the wrong reasons.
Anonymous
Post 01/17/2023 15:16     Subject: Re:Question for those opposed to legacy status
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I have zero issue with kids applying to schools their parents went to, and totally get why some kids might be interested in doing this for a variety of reasons.

I think universities giving heavy preference to legacy applicants over non-legacy applicants has a negative social impact when it comes to admissions to elite schools. The reason why is that an education at an elite institution can be transformative for people, and has the most potential to transform the lives of people who do not currently have connections to elite academia. The more legacy admits to these schools, the more it consolidates the benefits of these schools in families that already have these benefits. I'm not saying they aren't doing something good with them, but for every legacy admit, that's one non-legacy applicant who is rejected. I think we lose something in not seeing those non-legacy admits attend these schools.

If the legacy admit is more qualified, then that will show up in the process without a legacy preference and they will earn their spot.

If the legacy admit and the non-legacy admit are equally qualified, I think there are greater social benefits to admitting the non-legacy students, even if there are certain benefits to the legacy student and the institution in admitting the legacy student.

If you give advantage to the legacy student, we ignore the societal benefits of seeing more families gain access to elite education, especially since we're already talking about highly qualified applicants here.

I would like to see more smart, hardworking students with middle class and/or rural backgrounds, and just more applicants with very limited professional and academic connections, gain access to these institutions. I think it would benefit all of us in the form of a more diverse professional class. Not just racially diverse, but diverse in backgrounds. I view legacy preference as an obstacle to that.


But if all things are equal, why would a private university not be able to choose the legacy over the same equally qualified candidate? If the parents/grandparents already give $$$, it's more likely they will continue to give and even more likely they will give more if the kid attends. It's just another part of the admissions process.

Given that most schools still don't admit all qualified legacy candidates (I doubt legacies are more than 20% at most schools--Harvard is only 14%), and the ones they do admit are largely "qualified", why not? Sure is it fair? well nothing in life is "Fair".
The really rich and famous kids would still get in due to name recognition, even if we eliminated "legacy" unless the admission process goes "name blind".

Fact still remains that at Elite universities, 95% of applicants are "qualified", yet the admission rates are only 5-10%, 9-9.5 out of 10 students wont gain admission.


We get it, you don't want to lose your "special in-club" card.
Anonymous
Post 01/17/2023 15:10     Subject: Question for those opposed to legacy status
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I see what seems like a lot of posts from people strongly opposed to “legacy admissions” and I’m curious about this position. I agree that unqualified applicants should not be admitted to any schools. Do you assume that no legacy applicants are qualified for admission to the school their parent attended? That seems odd to me given how important parental expectations are for success in school and life.

Do you mean that no kids should be permitted to apply to the schools their parents attended? How would it even work, when the common app asks for parental information (and that appears to be the basis for first generation applicants)? And how is it different from school that look at demonstrated interest? Why should legacy kids’ interest in attending the school they are familiar with, have a personal/family connection to, and likely grew up knowing about, visiting, rooting for its sports teams, etc not be allowed to follow that interest?

Genuinely curious, I promise.



Not rocket science. Simply ignore legacy status, focus on merit 100%.

Candidate deserves it? Gets in.

Doesn't deserve it? Doesn't get in.

Who your parents are should be irrelevant.



Except ... you're using terms like "deserve it." How do you determine who "deserves it?"

What do you do when you have 500 spots and there are 10,000 qualified applicants?

That's when these other criteria become valid, including legacy, affirmative action, etc. Schools build cohorts and communities. They aren't some reward for high achievement.


No, legacy does NOT have to be a criteria for admission. There are many other ways to rank candidates.
Anonymous
Post 01/17/2023 15:07     Subject: Question for those opposed to legacy status
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Schools rely on alumni for fundraising. How will this affect a school's donations if there is no such legacy preference? Doesn't this fundraising help financial aide?


I'm a PP above who gives more to the school without legacy status.

People need to seriously reflect if they know they would give less to their alma mater based on the removal of legacy policies.

Likewise, schools need to find a way to cut this tie while still encouraging people to give.


And how do you propose this? Many many people do contribute just in case their kid(s) want to attend. It doesn't help really help for admissions I suspect, unless you are contributing in the 6 figures+ yearly. But for those contributing 2-3K/year in hopes it helps their kid get in, that money is what helps pay for merit and FA awards for others. Donations dwindle, and the colleges that meet "full FA without loans beyond the standard federal $5.5K" will be much smaller. So it's a catch 22.

Yes---we personally gave $2-3K/year for the 7 years before our kids might apply. Last kid had the stats/resume/interest, did ED and got deferred and rejected. Did I give this year? Nope. Plan to redirect that money to local organizations where I have more control/can see exactly where the money is going. Much better ways to support education than a T10 school---I'd prefer to help at the pre-K/ES/MS level locally in the neediest areas to help provide for those kids so when they finish HS they are on track to attend college.