Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot believe how many people on this thread are defending legacy preferences. So much for pretending that this country is a meritocracy. Try to think beyond your own kids and grandchildren. The world would be a better place if we could think beyond our tiny insular family bubble

I think affirmative action, the recent admissions scandal, the anti-Asian discrimination, and athlete recruitment make it very clear that college admissions is far from a meritocracy. In this hunger games environment, every parent is grabbing whatever advantage they have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot believe how many people on this thread are defending legacy preferences. So much for pretending that this country is a meritocracy. Try to think beyond your own kids and grandchildren. The world would be a better place if we could think beyond our tiny insular family bubble

I think affirmative action, the recent admissions scandal, the anti-Asian discrimination, and athlete recruitment make it very clear that college admissions is far from a meritocracy. In this hunger games environment, every parent is grabbing whatever advantage they have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot believe how many people on this thread are defending legacy preferences. So much for pretending that this country is a meritocracy. Try to think beyond your own kids and grandchildren. The world would be a better place if we could think beyond our tiny insular family bubble

I think affirmative action, the recent admissions scandal, the anti-Asian discrimination, and athlete recruitment make it very clear that college admissions is far from a meritocracy. In this hunger games environment, every parent is grabbing whatever advantage they have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of legacy preferences would annoy oh, say, 95 percent of white privileged people,e here. Reform of higher education is in the air, says the article. Great. Let’s include a discussion of absurd prices too. Lots of political benefits to a candidate who takes on Big Colleges that way.

You are smoking crack if you think that most posters here were born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Didn't have a chance to read the article, but getting rid of race based affirmative action would be a great step in the right direction as well. The whole legacy thing is just so absurd that I can't imagine even being around someone who wants their kids to go to their alma mater. It's just weird and I don't get the importance.

No one is getting rid of race based affirmative action.

Anonymous wrote:I cannot believe how many people on this thread are defending legacy preferences. So much for pretending that this country is a meritocracy. Try to think beyond your own kids and grandchildren. The world would be a better place if we could think beyond our tiny insular family bubble

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.

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?

Anonymous wrote:
It is also obvious that legacy donations do not keep the school running

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Details Details who cares about Details.

We want to burn the house.

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?

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....

Don't you see your own hypocrisy? You don't want to see legacy admissions ended because you are hoping it will benefit your kids over others. Admit it.

Signed, white person who also attended an elite university but is willing to give that edge up.

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely true. Ask John’s Hopkins.