Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony of railing against anti-meritocratic legacy admits whilst casually explaining away affirmative action. The article’s focus on admit rates whist ignoring the qualifications of the legacy cohort is intellectually dishonest. As one might suspect given their privileged upbringing, legacy applicants are highly qualified candidates and it should be no surprise that their admit rate is higher than average. The difference in quant metrics of legacy vs. average admit is minimal and is dwarfed by the negative differential of affirmative action applicants.

Your argument makes no sense. If legacy students are already so qualified, why exactly do they need an advantage. Why should they be given special consideration. There is no need for concern if legacy is eliminated because these kids will most likely hold their own in the general pool of applicants

You don’t understand how legacy works. Admissions at highly selective schools is almost a lottery.....they could fill their entire freshman class with 99% applicants. Legacy allows applicants to distinguish themselves from the droves of other qualified students. AA grants significant handicaps to URM applicants....that’s a different game whether you agree with it or not.

I think schools should get rid of both legacy and affirmative action, but the former at least makes sense and is less pernicious than the latter.

Legacies are the major contributers in donations. Without them, there will be much less financial aids, and then there will be much fewer opportunities for the kids from middle class and poor families. You ok with that?

Are you trying to pretend that these schools actually admit as many less wealthy applicants as they can?
Or that they admit more than the occasional token poor

It is obvious that legacy status benefits the wealthy, not the less so
It is also obvious that legacy donations do not keep the school running

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a very liberal Asian, went to an elite uni, and support constitutional affirmative action programs, but something really bothers me that White people have enjoyed legacies for decades but now that more and more people of color are attending elite universities (Asian and increasingly other POC) and their children can benefit from legacies, NOW all of sudden it's time to end them? SO. TYPICAL....

This is exactly the logic of China, India, Brazil, etc. You people in the west had enjoyed the industry revolution and the wealthy from it, which resulted in the modern pollution to the environment. Now we are going through that stage and you start to ask us to stop and we need to save the environment. No, it's our turn to pollute to make it even. Guess Africa is waiting in the wings to make the same argument after that. This is why it's so difficult for the global environment protection. A bunch of short sights that only see me, me, me, now, now, now.

Except continuing legacy admissions doesn’t result in all of us living on boats.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a very liberal Asian, went to an elite uni, and support constitutional affirmative action programs, but something really bothers me that White people have enjoyed legacies for decades but now that more and more people of color are attending elite universities (Asian and increasingly other POC) and their children can benefit from legacies, NOW all of sudden it's time to end them? SO. TYPICAL....

This is exactly the logic of China, India, Brazil, etc. You people in the west had enjoyed the industry revolution and the wealthy from it, which resulted in the modern pollution to the environment. Now we are going through that stage and you start to ask us to stop and we need to save the environment. No, it's our turn to pollute to make it even. Guess Africa is waiting in the wings to make the same argument after that. This is why it's so difficult for the global environment protection. A bunch of short sights that only see me, me, me, now, now, now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony of railing against anti-meritocratic legacy admits whilst casually explaining away affirmative action. The article’s focus on admit rates whist ignoring the qualifications of the legacy cohort is intellectually dishonest. As one might suspect given their privileged upbringing, legacy applicants are highly qualified candidates and it should be no surprise that their admit rate is higher than average. The difference in quant metrics of legacy vs. average admit is minimal and is dwarfed by the negative differential of affirmative action applicants.

Your argument makes no sense. If legacy students are already so qualified, why exactly do they need an advantage. Why should they be given special consideration. There is no need for concern if legacy is eliminated because these kids will most likely hold their own in the general pool of applicants

You don’t understand how legacy works. Admissions at highly selective schools is almost a lottery.....they could fill their entire freshman class with 99% applicants. Legacy allows applicants to distinguish themselves from the droves of other qualified students. AA grants significant handicaps to URM applicants....that’s a different game whether you agree with it or not.

I think schools should get rid of both legacy and affirmative action, but the former at least makes sense and is less pernicious than the latter.

Legacies are the major contributers in donations. Without them, there will be much less financial aids, and then there will be much fewer opportunities for the kids from middle class and poor families. You ok with that?

So good to see some people recognizing that this obsession is with a TINY number of schools. There are thousands of colleges. Why do these articles talk about what a SMALL FEW do as if everyone is doing it? All the schools outside of the top 50 or so are admitting almost all their applicants.

I won’t defend legacy because I don’t generally dig it (though the poster above makes a good point) but I’d like to point out another legacy benefit that (I think) hasn’t been mentioned. Legacies enroll more often than non-legacies and so they are a safer admission bet. There’s a built-in belief in the institution based on family history. Helps yield and the often horrible adcom miscalculations (see: Oberlin, VT, etc.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Smith and would love my daughters to go there. I don't see anything wrong with the legacy. As I understand it, if two candidates are the same, they lean towards the legacy. There is something to be said of tradition. And, can you imagine how wonderful it would be to share an alma mater?

If she happens to be the best one to admit, then she should be in. But not because Mommy went.

What is Mommy has been making big donations over the years to her alma mater? Some of that money will stop flowing.

People -do- care about where you go to college if it is the difference between a generally accepted and well-recognized school, and a cash cow. The first one requires effort because acceptance requires more than money while the second requires only money. Although IMO some cash cows can actually produce value. I used to have a very negative opinion of the University of Phoenix but having worked with some graduates of the school my opinion of the school is improving rapidly.

Anonymous wrote:We disagree that legacy is a bad thing. We have no problem with it. If family members have a history and heritage of attending and supporting a school then that should be rewarded in the admissions process, especially private schools.

FWIW we have 4 kids in college. Our kids do NOT go to our Big 10 school and instead go to 3 different Ivies where, obviously, they didn't receive any preferential admissions treatment since they are not legacies.

OMG, this nerd family isnt exactly humble, bragging on dcum LOL. College is a cakewalk and nobody cares where you went to college. It's almost as bad as bragging about how you were a football star in high school.

Anonymous wrote:We disagree that legacy is a bad thing. We have no problem with it. If family members have a history and heritage of attending and supporting a school then that should be rewarded in the admissions process, especially private schools.

FWIW we have 4 kids in college. Our kids do NOT go to our Big 10 school and instead go to 3 different Ivies where, obviously, they didn't receive any preferential admissions treatment since they are not legacies.

That's a fair point.

One the NYT should appreciate as they continue to be managed by one same legacy family since the 19th Century.

We disagree that legacy is a bad thing. We have no problem with it. If family members have a history and heritage of attending and supporting a school then that should be rewarded in the admissions process, especially private schools.

FWIW we have 4 kids in college. Our kids do NOT go to our Big 10 school and instead go to 3 different Ivies where, obviously, they didn't receive any preferential admissions treatment since they are not legacies.

Anonymous wrote:I was shocked to read in the editorial that Harvard’s legacy admit rate is over 30% while its regular admit rate is only 5-6 %.
That is crazy. I never realized what a huge advantage legacy confers.

That is true. But the regular admit rate is that low because there are a lot of people who don't have a prayer in hell of getting in and apply as a Hail Mary. Why not? I wonder if you compared a group of legacy applicants and a group non-legacy applicants with same stats (SATs, GPA, same ECs), would the difference be so stark? Or would be a 30% admit rate vs. a 20% admit rate?

Every Harvard alum I know is kind of thinking their kid is going to get in. And the kids are generally realllllly smart. When I remind them that they are more likely not to get in (2 out of 3 rejected), they're all like "oh sh**, you're right."

What does the right loves its banks mean? Not being snarky, just don't get the point.

Anonymous wrote:+1 This is all window-dressing. That a college "has to" admit a legacy is a function of its own financial mismanagement rather than a deep source of unfairness. Attacking legacies is a distraction -- the man behind the curtain is really bloated administrations and a tuition bubble that won't last forever. But let's focus on a symptom so we can feel virtuous in the meantime.

Why won’t it last forever? So long as credential crazed parents exist, tuitions will keep going up. The only ways to get schools to reduce bloat and tuition is through public shaming and the threat of the loss of federal funds. Yet no politician does this. To the left, it would be seen as wrong to go after left leaning colleges. And the right loves its banks. It’s a racket.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was shocked to read in the editorial that Harvard’s legacy admit rate is over 30% while its regular admit rate is only 5-6 %.
That is crazy. I never realized what a huge advantage legacy confers.

If the legacy is AA, it's close to 100%.

Yes, it's crazy.

Who cares about non-legacy whites.

Uh - almost every other institution in this country. This whiny, weepy hand-wringing over your lot in life is pathetic. Life isn't fair to you one time (and frankly, the reason it's unfair is only partially because you are white but mostly because you were evidently were stupid in high school) and your reaction that it's the end of the world and time to burn it all to the ground.