Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a waste of time. I feel like this is distracting from the actual problems.

I'm an alum interviewer for a selective school and I can tell you it's hard to get in even if you are a legacy. They are rejected more than they are accepted. If they get in with a 4.0 and 1500 where they otherwise wouldn't (and in my experience, they aren't), who gives a sh*t?

then why bother with legacy, and why are you an interviewer there?

Not sure what you are saying. I don't have a problem with legacy preference. I don't think it is a meaningful problem.

I'm responding to your "who gives a sh*t"? If you don't give a sh1t why are you an interviewer?

Ok, so, what that meant was if a legacy admit is otherwise qualified and gets a bump because they're legacy who cares. It's not like they are getting in over people more qualified than them. In my experience. That was my point. Obviously.

Holy F! What “experience of yours” are you saying. Explain. It better be with objective and rational supporting evidence. Else, your other end is speaking.

NP. Why do you seem to think admissions should be based solely on GPA and test scores? If legacy admits fall in the range of qualified students based on their grades and test scores, why do you have a problem with that? Do you have the same problem with recruited athletes? What about applicants with other types of distinctive and desirable extracurriculars?

Schools are looking for the value each student might add to their community. They decide what's important to them, as long as the students are within a range of GPA, rigor and (maybe) test scores. I'm sure you can understand that having a family like Bush or Kennedy (or Bezos, Gates, Koch or Kraft etc) can provide additional benefits to a school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a waste of time. I feel like this is distracting from the actual problems.

I'm an alum interviewer for a selective school and I can tell you it's hard to get in even if you are a legacy. They are rejected more than they are accepted. If they get in with a 4.0 and 1500 where they otherwise wouldn't (and in my experience, they aren't), who gives a sh*t?

then why bother with legacy, and why are you an interviewer there?

Not sure what you are saying. I don't have a problem with legacy preference. I don't think it is a meaningful problem.

I'm responding to your "who gives a sh*t"? If you don't give a sh1t why are you an interviewer?

Ok, so, what that meant was if a legacy admit is otherwise qualified and gets a bump because they're legacy who cares. It's not like they are getting in over people more qualified than them. In my experience. That was my point. Obviously.

Holy F! What “experience of yours” are you saying. Explain. It better be with objective and rational supporting evidence. Else, your other end is speaking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonderful. I hope it’s banned everywhere. It’s a joke.

+1.

+1 I started a thread about how legacy is basically racist because it mostly helps rich white people. I got slammed for that thread, probably by legacies.

I stated something similar to her:

"we are supposed to live in a democracy, not an aristocracy,".. "To me, it's one of the most blatant examples of unfairness and inequality,"

Of course, the people at the top want to continue with it because it benefits them.

The argument is not that different to what liberals say about how white men support Trump because they are afraid of losing power as a group.

When did colleges ever claim that admissions is entirely meritocratic or "democratic"? They can and do value all sorts of things that you might think are unfair or irrelevant. As long as they're not engaging in unlawful discrimination, what's your argument against that?

Typical response from a legacy admit.

It's not illegal, but it's wrong. As stated, it benefits mostly rich white people.

You only want the US to be a "democracy" when it comes to some things, but apparently, not when it comes to your little snowflake who probably couldn't make it into an ivy without legacy.

Legacy was originally used by elite institutions much like holistic admission was -- to keep the undesirables out.

The whole "pull yourself up by your boostraps" only applies to the middle/lower class. For rich people, they have legacy to prop them up.

The US has also always respected the ability of private institutions to govern themselves, why do you think government should be able to tell a private group who to admit?

It's not about who they have to admit, but what criteria it's using.

Same difference

of course, to legacies.

But, one can only assume that universities refuse to release legacy admit profiles because they know their stats aren't that great.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/23/elite-schools-ivy-league-legacy-admissions-harvard-wealthier-whiter

Students at some of those universities petitioned for the universities to release the data. Unsurprisingly, they didn't.

I bet they are hiding the fact that legacy admits largely don't have that impressive stats, especially considering their background.

You can claim that private institutions can do whatever it wants, but that doesn't mean that what they are doing is right. Legacies benefit rich white people the most. That's it. It was a practice rooted in racism, and [/b]it is still that way today.

When did your subjective view of what is right or fair ever properly enter the equation as something that is relevant? Again, it’s not up to outsiders to define a university’s mission for it.

As to the second bolded statement, that is simply not true today.

It's not just "my view". [b]The only people who want to keep legacy admissions are legacy admits, ie, mostly rich white people.




And it is still true that the vast majority of legacy admits are white, UMC. % of Minorities combined is still less than % whites who get preferential treatment.



If education is supposed to be the great equalizer, these education institutions aren't doing that.

That’s where you are mistaken. It’s the universities who want to keep legacy preference in admissions. And they are the only ones who matter, because they have the prerogative to define their mission in the manner that they want.

Oh, so those alumni would be fine with the universities getting rid of legacy admissions, and they will continue to donate alot to them even if they get rid of it?

You said: "the only people who want to keep legacy admissions are legacy admits, ie, mostly rich white people."

Your assertion that they are the only people who want to keep legacy preference is incorrect. The universities want to keep it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly unconstitutional

This. The first amendment guarantees freedom of association.

Just not provide any state funding. Solves the problem of “unconstitutional “.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a waste of time. I feel like this is distracting from the actual problems.

I'm an alum interviewer for a selective school and I can tell you it's hard to get in even if you are a legacy. They are rejected more than they are accepted. If they get in with a 4.0 and 1500 where they otherwise wouldn't (and in my experience, they aren't), who gives a sh*t?

then why bother with legacy, and why are you an interviewer there?

Not sure what you are saying. I don't have a problem with legacy preference. I don't think it is a meaningful problem.

I'm responding to your "who gives a sh*t"? If you don't give a sh1t why are you an interviewer?

Ok, so, what that meant was if a legacy admit is otherwise qualified and gets a bump because they're legacy who cares. It's not like they are getting in over people more qualified than them. In my experience. That was my point. Obviously.

Can't say for certain, though, right.. because that's just *your* experience. We've seen the likes of GWB get in due to legacy. And did you see the personal essay written by JFK? Wow, that's a high caliber essay, right there.. not.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/23/elite-schools-ivy-league-legacy-admissions-harvard-wealthier-whiter

petition to show the data was denied by the universities. Big surprise. If the qualifications of legacies are so great, why wouldn't the universities release them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonderful. I hope it’s banned everywhere. It’s a joke.

+1.

+1 I started a thread about how legacy is basically racist because it mostly helps rich white people. I got slammed for that thread, probably by legacies.

I stated something similar to her:

"we are supposed to live in a democracy, not an aristocracy,".. "To me, it's one of the most blatant examples of unfairness and inequality,"

Of course, the people at the top want to continue with it because it benefits them.

The argument is not that different to what liberals say about how white men support Trump because they are afraid of losing power as a group.

When did colleges ever claim that admissions is entirely meritocratic or "democratic"? They can and do value all sorts of things that you might think are unfair or irrelevant. As long as they're not engaging in unlawful discrimination, what's your argument against that?

Typical response from a legacy admit.

It's not illegal, but it's wrong. As stated, it benefits mostly rich white people.

You only want the US to be a "democracy" when it comes to some things, but apparently, not when it comes to your little snowflake who probably couldn't make it into an ivy without legacy.

Legacy was originally used by elite institutions much like holistic admission was -- to keep the undesirables out.

The whole "pull yourself up by your boostraps" only applies to the middle/lower class. For rich people, they have legacy to prop them up.

The US has also always respected the ability of private institutions to govern themselves, why do you think government should be able to tell a private group who to admit?

It's not about who they have to admit, but what criteria it's using.

Same difference

of course, to legacies.

But, one can only assume that universities refuse to release legacy admit profiles because they know their stats aren't that great.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/23/elite-schools-ivy-league-legacy-admissions-harvard-wealthier-whiter

Students at some of those universities petitioned for the universities to release the data. Unsurprisingly, they didn't.

I bet they are hiding the fact that legacy admits largely don't have that impressive stats, especially considering their background.

You can claim that private institutions can do whatever it wants, but that doesn't mean that what they are doing is right. Legacies benefit rich white people the most. That's it. It was a practice rooted in racism, and [/b]it is still that way today.

When did your subjective view of what is right or fair ever properly enter the equation as something that is relevant? Again, it’s not up to outsiders to define a university’s mission for it.

As to the second bolded statement, that is simply not true today.

It's not just "my view". [b]The only people who want to keep legacy admissions are legacy admits, ie, mostly rich white people.




And it is still true that the vast majority of legacy admits are white, UMC. % of Minorities combined is still less than % whites who get preferential treatment.



If education is supposed to be the great equalizer, these education institutions aren't doing that.

That’s where you are mistaken. It’s the universities who want to keep legacy preference in admissions. And they are the only ones who matter, because they have the prerogative to define their mission in the manner that they want.

Oh, so those alumni would be fine with the universities getting rid of legacy admissions, and they will continue to donate alot to them even if they get rid of it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonderful. I hope it’s banned everywhere. It’s a joke.

+1.

+1 I started a thread about how legacy is basically racist because it mostly helps rich white people. I got slammed for that thread, probably by legacies.

I stated something similar to her:

"we are supposed to live in a democracy, not an aristocracy,".. "To me, it's one of the most blatant examples of unfairness and inequality,"

Of course, the people at the top want to continue with it because it benefits them.

The argument is not that different to what liberals say about how white men support Trump because they are afraid of losing power as a group.

When did colleges ever claim that admissions is entirely meritocratic or "democratic"? They can and do value all sorts of things that you might think are unfair or irrelevant. As long as they're not engaging in unlawful discrimination, what's your argument against that?

Typical response from a legacy admit.

It's not illegal, but it's wrong. As stated, it benefits mostly rich white people.

You only want the US to be a "democracy" when it comes to some things, but apparently, not when it comes to your little snowflake who probably couldn't make it into an ivy without legacy.

Legacy was originally used by elite institutions much like holistic admission was -- to keep the undesirables out.

The whole "pull yourself up by your boostraps" only applies to the middle/lower class. For rich people, they have legacy to prop them up.

The US has also always respected the ability of private institutions to govern themselves, why do you think government should be able to tell a private group who to admit?

It's not about who they have to admit, but what criteria it's using.

Same difference

of course, to legacies.

But, one can only assume that universities refuse to release legacy admit profiles because they know their stats aren't that great.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/23/elite-schools-ivy-league-legacy-admissions-harvard-wealthier-whiter

Students at some of those universities petitioned for the universities to release the data. Unsurprisingly, they didn't.

I bet they are hiding the fact that legacy admits largely don't have that impressive stats, especially considering their background.

You can claim that private institutions can do whatever it wants, but that doesn't mean that what they are doing is right. Legacies benefit rich white people the most. That's it. It was a practice rooted in racism, and [/b]it is still that way today.

When did your subjective view of what is right or fair ever properly enter the equation as something that is relevant? Again, it’s not up to outsiders to define a university’s mission for it.

As to the second bolded statement, that is simply not true today.

It's not just "my view". [b]The only people who want to keep legacy admissions are legacy admits, ie, mostly rich white people.




And it is still true that the vast majority of legacy admits are white, UMC. % of Minorities combined is still less than % whites who get preferential treatment.



If education is supposed to be the great equalizer, these education institutions aren't doing that.

That’s where you are mistaken. It’s the universities who want to keep legacy preference in admissions. And they are the only ones who matter, because they have the prerogative to define their mission in the manner that they want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a waste of time. I feel like this is distracting from the actual problems.

I'm an alum interviewer for a selective school and I can tell you it's hard to get in even if you are a legacy. They are rejected more than they are accepted. If they get in with a 4.0 and 1500 where they otherwise wouldn't (and in my experience, they aren't), who gives a sh*t?

then why bother with legacy, and why are you an interviewer there?

Not sure what you are saying. I don't have a problem with legacy preference. I don't think it is a meaningful problem.

I'm responding to your "who gives a sh*t"? If you don't give a sh1t why are you an interviewer?

Ok, so, what that meant was if a legacy admit is otherwise qualified and gets a bump because they're legacy who cares. It's not like they are getting in over people more qualified than them. In my experience. That was my point. Obviously.

One thing is clear: elite institutions care more about money and keeping the powerbase white than providing equal opportunity.

Another thing is clear: liberal elites are "liberal" in name only. They are just like white male Trump supporters who are afraid of eroding power within their group.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonderful. I hope it’s banned everywhere. It’s a joke.

+1.

+1 I started a thread about how legacy is basically racist because it mostly helps rich white people. I got slammed for that thread, probably by legacies.

I stated something similar to her:

"we are supposed to live in a democracy, not an aristocracy,".. "To me, it's one of the most blatant examples of unfairness and inequality,"

Of course, the people at the top want to continue with it because it benefits them.

The argument is not that different to what liberals say about how white men support Trump because they are afraid of losing power as a group.

When did colleges ever claim that admissions is entirely meritocratic or "democratic"? They can and do value all sorts of things that you might think are unfair or irrelevant. As long as they're not engaging in unlawful discrimination, what's your argument against that?

Typical response from a legacy admit.

It's not illegal, but it's wrong. As stated, it benefits mostly rich white people.

You only want the US to be a "democracy" when it comes to some things, but apparently, not when it comes to your little snowflake who probably couldn't make it into an ivy without legacy.

Legacy was originally used by elite institutions much like holistic admission was -- to keep the undesirables out.

The whole "pull yourself up by your boostraps" only applies to the middle/lower class. For rich people, they have legacy to prop them up.

The US has also always respected the ability of private institutions to govern themselves, why do you think government should be able to tell a private group who to admit?

It's not about who they have to admit, but what criteria it's using.

Same difference

of course, to legacies.

But, one can only assume that universities refuse to release legacy admit profiles because they know their stats aren't that great.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/23/elite-schools-ivy-league-legacy-admissions-harvard-wealthier-whiter

Students at some of those universities petitioned for the universities to release the data. Unsurprisingly, they didn't.

I bet they are hiding the fact that legacy admits largely don't have that impressive stats, especially considering their background.

You can claim that private institutions can do whatever it wants, but that doesn't mean that what they are doing is right. Legacies benefit rich white people the most. That's it. It was a practice rooted in racism, and [/b]it is still that way today.[b]

When did your subjective view of what is right or fair ever properly enter the equation as something that is relevant? Again, it’s not up to outsiders to define a university’s mission for it.

As to the second bolded statement, that is simply not true today.

It's not just "my view". The only people who want to keep legacy admissions are legacy admits, ie, mostly rich white people.




And it is still true that the vast majority of legacy admits are white, UMC. % of Minorities combined is still less than % whites who get preferential treatment.



If education is supposed to be the great equalizer, these education institutions aren't doing that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonderful. I hope it’s banned everywhere. It’s a joke.

+1.

+1 I started a thread about how legacy is basically racist because it mostly helps rich white people. I got slammed for that thread, probably by legacies.

I stated something similar to her:

"we are supposed to live in a democracy, not an aristocracy,".. "To me, it's one of the most blatant examples of unfairness and inequality,"

Of course, the people at the top want to continue with it because it benefits them.

The argument is not that different to what liberals say about how white men support Trump because they are afraid of losing power as a group.

When did colleges ever claim that admissions is entirely meritocratic or "democratic"? They can and do value all sorts of things that you might think are unfair or irrelevant. As long as they're not engaging in unlawful discrimination, what's your argument against that?

Typical response from a legacy admit.

It's not illegal, but it's wrong. As stated, it benefits mostly rich white people.

You only want the US to be a "democracy" when it comes to some things, but apparently, not when it comes to your little snowflake who probably couldn't make it into an ivy without legacy.

Legacy was originally used by elite institutions much like holistic admission was -- to keep the undesirables out.

The whole "pull yourself up by your boostraps" only applies to the middle/lower class. For rich people, they have legacy to prop them up.

The US has also always respected the ability of private institutions to govern themselves, why do you think government should be able to tell a private group who to admit?

The government tells private companies not to discriminate and forbids them asking race or anything like that on job applications or resumes.

Then pass a constitutional amendment because the XIV says nothing about legacy status and the first governs the ability to associate freely without government interference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonderful. I hope it’s banned everywhere. It’s a joke.

+1.

+1 I started a thread about how legacy is basically racist because it mostly helps rich white people. I got slammed for that thread, probably by legacies.

I stated something similar to her:

"we are supposed to live in a democracy, not an aristocracy,".. "To me, it's one of the most blatant examples of unfairness and inequality,"

Of course, the people at the top want to continue with it because it benefits them.

The argument is not that different to what liberals say about how white men support Trump because they are afraid of losing power as a group.

When did colleges ever claim that admissions is entirely meritocratic or "democratic"? They can and do value all sorts of things that you might think are unfair or irrelevant. As long as they're not engaging in unlawful discrimination, what's your argument against that?

Typical response from a legacy admit.

It's not illegal, but it's wrong. As stated, it benefits mostly rich white people.

You only want the US to be a "democracy" when it comes to some things, but apparently, not when it comes to your little snowflake who probably couldn't make it into an ivy without legacy.

Legacy was originally used by elite institutions much like holistic admission was -- to keep the undesirables out.

The whole "pull yourself up by your boostraps" only applies to the middle/lower class. For rich people, they have legacy to prop them up.

The US has also always respected the ability of private institutions to govern themselves, why do you think government should be able to tell a private group who to admit?

It's not about who they have to admit, but what criteria it's using.

Same difference

of course, to legacies.

But, one can only assume that universities refuse to release legacy admit profiles because they know their stats aren't that great.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/23/elite-schools-ivy-league-legacy-admissions-harvard-wealthier-whiter

Students at some of those universities petitioned for the universities to release the data. Unsurprisingly, they didn't.

I bet they are hiding the fact that legacy admits largely don't have that impressive stats, especially considering their background.

You can claim that private institutions can do whatever it wants, but that doesn't mean that what they are doing is right. Legacies benefit rich white people the most. That's it. It was a practice rooted in racism, and [/b]it is still that way today.[b]

When did your subjective view of what is right or fair ever properly enter the equation as something that is relevant? Again, it’s not up to outsiders to define a university’s mission for it.

As to the second bolded statement, that is simply not true today.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonderful. I hope it’s banned everywhere. It’s a joke.

+1.

+1 I started a thread about how legacy is basically racist because it mostly helps rich white people. I got slammed for that thread, probably by legacies.

I stated something similar to her:

"we are supposed to live in a democracy, not an aristocracy,".. "To me, it's one of the most blatant examples of unfairness and inequality,"

Of course, the people at the top want to continue with it because it benefits them.

The argument is not that different to what liberals say about how white men support Trump because they are afraid of losing power as a group.

When did colleges ever claim that admissions is entirely meritocratic or "democratic"? They can and do value all sorts of things that you might think are unfair or irrelevant. As long as they're not engaging in unlawful discrimination, what's your argument against that?

Typical response from a legacy admit.

It's not illegal, but it's wrong. As stated, it benefits mostly rich white people.

You only want the US to be a "democracy" when it comes to some things, but apparently, not when it comes to your little snowflake who probably couldn't make it into an ivy without legacy.

Legacy was originally used by elite institutions much like holistic admission was -- to keep the undesirables out.

The whole "pull yourself up by your boostraps" only applies to the middle/lower class. For rich people, they have legacy to prop them up.

The US has also always respected the ability of private institutions to govern themselves, why do you think government should be able to tell a private group who to admit?

It's not about who they have to admit, but what criteria it's using.

Same difference

of course, to legacies.

But, one can only assume that universities refuse to release legacy admit profiles because they know their stats aren't that great.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/23/elite-schools-ivy-league-legacy-admissions-harvard-wealthier-whiter

Students at some of those universities petitioned for the universities to release the data. Unsurprisingly, they didn't.

I bet they are hiding the fact that legacy admits largely don't have that impressive stats, especially considering their background.

You can claim that private institutions can do whatever it wants, but that doesn't mean that what they are doing is right. Legacies benefit rich white people the most. That's it. It was a practice rooted in racism, and it is still that way today.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonderful. I hope it’s banned everywhere. It’s a joke.

+1.

+1 I started a thread about how legacy is basically racist because it mostly helps rich white people. I got slammed for that thread, probably by legacies.

I stated something similar to her:

"we are supposed to live in a democracy, not an aristocracy,".. "To me, it's one of the most blatant examples of unfairness and inequality,"

Of course, the people at the top want to continue with it because it benefits them.

The argument is not that different to what liberals say about how white men support Trump because they are afraid of losing power as a group.

When did colleges ever claim that admissions is entirely meritocratic or "democratic"? They can and do value all sorts of things that you might think are unfair or irrelevant. As long as they're not engaging in unlawful discrimination, what's your argument against that?

Typical response from a legacy admit.

It's not illegal, but it's wrong. As stated, it benefits mostly rich white people.

You only want the US to be a "democracy" when it comes to some things, but apparently, not when it comes to your little snowflake who probably couldn't make it into an ivy without legacy.

Legacy was originally used by elite institutions much like holistic admission was -- to keep the undesirables out.

The whole "pull yourself up by your boostraps" only applies to the middle/lower class. For rich people, they have legacy to prop them up.

The US has also always respected the ability of private institutions to govern themselves, why do you think government should be able to tell a private group who to admit?

It's not about who they have to admit, but what criteria it's using.

Same difference