Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Another First Amendment lawyer here. It’s not. Cite a case. You think if Congress passed a law that colleges could not admit avowed socialists without forfeiting their federal funds, that that law would be constitutional?

In fact, I think this Court would bend over backwards to allow for all manner of McCarthyist prohibitions on socialists.

And if you are really any kind of lawyer you surely see the absurdity of your analogy, which is in fact not analogous at all. No one is talking about banning legacy kids from college; merely having to show some merit to gain admittance like the rest of the world.

Why do we have to show anything? We're not like the rest of the word. You Americans are so drunk on this illusory meritocracy Kool-Aid and still believe that all people are born with equal opportunities. Look around who gets promoted at work, too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Another First Amendment lawyer here. It’s not. Cite a case. You think if Congress passed a law that colleges could not admit avowed socialists without forfeiting their federal funds, that that law would be constitutional?

In fact, I think this Court would bend over backwards to allow for all manner of McCarthyist prohibitions on socialists.

And if you are really any kind of lawyer you surely see the absurdity of your analogy, which is in fact not analogous at all. No one is talking about banning legacy kids from college; merely having to show some merit to gain admittance like the rest of the world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Another First Amendment lawyer here. It’s not. Cite a case. You think if Congress passed a law that colleges could not admit avowed socialists without forfeiting their federal funds, that that law would be constitutional?

In fact, I think this Court would bend over backwards to allow for all manner of McCarthyist prohibitions on socialists.

And if you are really any kind of lawyer you surely see the absurdity of your analogy, which is in fact not analogous at all. No one is talking about banning legacy kids from college; merely having to show some merit to gain admittance like the rest of the world.

Anonymous wrote:

Another First Amendment lawyer here. It’s not. Cite a case. You think if Congress passed a law that colleges could not admit avowed socialists without forfeiting their federal funds, that that law would be constitutional?

Anonymous wrote:The tears of everyone melting down about this are delicious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For a private institution? Is that possible?

Yes. If the privates do not want it, they can refuse federal funding.

There are also constitutional limits on federal imposition of conditions under its spending power. This bill could be held to exceed those limits to the extent it violates universities' First Amendment rights to freely associate in a manner that doesn't violate the civil rights laws.

First Amendment lawyer here. This is hilarious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For a private institution? Is that possible?

Yes. If the privates do not want it, they can refuse federal funding.

There are also constitutional limits on federal imposition of conditions under its spending power. This bill could be held to exceed those limits to the extent it violates universities' First Amendment rights to freely associate in a manner that doesn't violate the civil rights laws.

Anonymous wrote:There's no way this would pass, right? Applies to any institution that participates in federal student aid programs, and includes the option of a waiver for HBCUs. Is that even constitutional?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/democratic-lawmakers-propose-ban-legacy-admissions-colleges-n1288396

Why would the Democrats do this juuuust at the point when increasing numbers of POC will start to benefit from legacy preferences? It's like they're determined to lose my (POC) vote.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I spent 20 years paying $100,000 in student loans from the 1990s. I feel like getting a legacy preference for my kid is the least the school could do for all the blood and sweat it cost me. Most of my 20 years of payments were just interest. I finally gave up and used home equity to pay it off figuring I wanted to be free before age 50. So legacy status isn't always about being rich and fabulous.

But it is unfair.

It's unfair I spent half my career paying for my college tuition. But ok.

Know one forced to go to that school. But OK, you don’t seem to understand that and want legacy entitlement preserved for you/your children.

I don’t understand why Pp who presumably was paying off federal loans as I did thinks there is any link between that and legacy status owed him by his schools. The only way to ensure legacy status at top schools is by giving large amounts regularly-something DW and I cannot do. We don’t have seven figures to give to Harvard (and if we did would find a way to give it to the poor). That’s what legacy status is about - getting the parents to give more and more dollars to the school. It has zero to do with how many dollars you owe in federal subsidized or unsubsidized loans. Harvard doesn’t even know my loan status decades after.

This is not legacy status. Everyone that went has legacy status -donations or not. Development status is different.

No, the two are linked. My kid was a legacy at Harvard but we can't afford to give that much money. didn't get in. My roommate and her husband, however, are filthy rich and gave millions. Their kid (lower stats) did get in. So if you are going to claim legacy status and hope to get your child into your alma mater, they are going to look at your record of giving. It may not matter as much with third-tier slacs but it certainly plays a role with SLACs, Ivies and other institutions that want donations. And "Development" is going forward only. So if a very wealthy person's child (but not legacy) applies to an institution, the admissions office might mark the file "development case" if they think - or the parent has hinted - that they will give a building, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I spent 20 years paying $100,000 in student loans from the 1990s. I feel like getting a legacy preference for my kid is the least the school could do for all the blood and sweat it cost me. Most of my 20 years of payments were just interest. I finally gave up and used home equity to pay it off figuring I wanted to be free before age 50. So legacy status isn't always about being rich and fabulous.

But it is unfair.

It's unfair I spent half my career paying for my college tuition. But ok.

Know one forced to go to that school. But OK, you don’t seem to understand that and want legacy entitlement preserved for you/your children.

I don’t understand why Pp who presumably was paying off federal loans as I did thinks there is any link between that and legacy status owed him by his schools. The only way to ensure legacy status at top schools is by giving large amounts regularly-something DW and I cannot do. We don’t have seven figures to give to Harvard (and if we did would find a way to give it to the poor). That’s what legacy status is about - getting the parents to give more and more dollars to the school. It has zero to do with how many dollars you owe in federal subsidized or unsubsidized loans. Harvard doesn’t even know my loan status decades after.

This is not legacy status. Everyone that went has legacy status -donations or not. Development status is different.

Anonymous wrote:I spent 20 years paying $100,000 in student loans from the 1990s. I feel like getting a legacy preference for my kid is the least the school could do for all the blood and sweat it cost me. Most of my 20 years of payments were just interest. I finally gave up and used home equity to pay it off figuring I wanted to be free before age 50. So legacy status isn't always about being rich and fabulous.