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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, the legacies I know who were rejected were more than qualified. One example: friends who are double legacy at Harvard, all three kids are at Yale instead because they didn't get into Harvard. All the legacies I know rejected from their parents school ended up at an equally elite school - so yes, those kids were qualified for the legacy school. I just don't think it's as easy as as "oh, she got in because of legacy, or she didn't get in because they didn't donate."

Legacy doesn't mean a guaranteed admit. Legacy does mean that the applicant is hooked, which is another way of saying the applicant is considered more favorably than those who lack a hook. Once you have the general stats for admission, would you rather be considered in the massive pile of applications where it is essentially a lottery OR would you rather be considered with a smaller pile of ones that are getting more time, a second look, more reasons for someone to champion your acceptance, etc?

The smaller pile, of course. I guess my point is that even in that smaller pile, it's competitive and not an easy admit. Lots of qualified legacies who are rejected and later end up at other HYPS.

Yes, enjoy arguing with yourself as no one is saying it’s easy to get into an elite university. They’re just saying it’s easier to get into an elite university as a legacy, which is not the same thing as it being easy

+1 Why is this confusing? I do not doubt that legacies who get in are generally worthy admits. I also don’t blame anyone for taking advantage of an opportunity available to them.

Just acknowledge it.

Why does anyone need to acknowledge it? Is this required for everyone? “I got in but I had a tutor for math in 9th grade, a private coach for track and my parents could afford to pay for a summer program so that’s why got accepted.” Everyone’s got some advantage over someone else - some are just better than others.

Why wouldn’t you acknowledge it when talking to people who didn’t get in? I’m honestly gobsmacked by this attitude. This would be the first thing I would say, but I really hate lording it over people.

Why do I have total confidence that you apply this only to legacies and not to of the advantages your kids have?

I don’t know? You can’t imagine what it’s like to be someone with humility and concern for other people?

And that’s the only way to show it? You don’t seem to have much concern for the kid by defending the rude ones.

Let me guess you expected minorities to say “yes I only got in because I’m a minority”

No.

Why not? Because it’s rude?

Underrepresented minorities deserve any leg up they get in admissions, and it is still not a level playing field. It is far easier to be a white applicant when you account for a lifetime of advantages.

But you knew that.

But whether it’s “deserved” or not has no bearing on the truth and whether it impacted your admission at the time. So to be consistent if someone came up to them and said something your preferred response would have been to acknowledge it.

And you know that.

These aren’t the same. Legacies start out ahead and then get an extra boost. URMs and FGLI start out behind.

For purposes of this thread it’s exactly the same. Recognizing the boost and being performatively appreciative of it.

Nope. One boost is compensatory. The other is additive and is in no way designed to level the playing field.

That’s a motivation for the boost. But both are boosts and the logic of the forum demands both be acknowledged every time

That's . . . not correct, logically speaking.

Logic for the forum says if it’s true that you got some kind of boost you must acknowledge it whenever you talk about your acceptance. Explain how it’s different

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, the legacies I know who were rejected were more than qualified. One example: friends who are double legacy at Harvard, all three kids are at Yale instead because they didn't get into Harvard. All the legacies I know rejected from their parents school ended up at an equally elite school - so yes, those kids were qualified for the legacy school. I just don't think it's as easy as as "oh, she got in because of legacy, or she didn't get in because they didn't donate."

Legacy doesn't mean a guaranteed admit. Legacy does mean that the applicant is hooked, which is another way of saying the applicant is considered more favorably than those who lack a hook. Once you have the general stats for admission, would you rather be considered in the massive pile of applications where it is essentially a lottery OR would you rather be considered with a smaller pile of ones that are getting more time, a second look, more reasons for someone to champion your acceptance, etc?

The smaller pile, of course. I guess my point is that even in that smaller pile, it's competitive and not an easy admit. Lots of qualified legacies who are rejected and later end up at other HYPS.

Yes, enjoy arguing with yourself as no one is saying it’s easy to get into an elite university. They’re just saying it’s easier to get into an elite university as a legacy, which is not the same thing as it being easy

+1 Why is this confusing? I do not doubt that legacies who get in are generally worthy admits. I also don’t blame anyone for taking advantage of an opportunity available to them.

Just acknowledge it.

Why does anyone need to acknowledge it? Is this required for everyone? “I got in but I had a tutor for math in 9th grade, a private coach for track and my parents could afford to pay for a summer program so that’s why got accepted.” Everyone’s got some advantage over someone else - some are just better than others.

Why wouldn’t you acknowledge it when talking to people who didn’t get in? I’m honestly gobsmacked by this attitude. This would be the first thing I would say, but I really hate lording it over people.

Why do I have total confidence that you apply this only to legacies and not to of the advantages your kids have?

I don’t know? You can’t imagine what it’s like to be someone with humility and concern for other people?

And that’s the only way to show it? You don’t seem to have much concern for the kid by defending the rude ones.

Let me guess you expected minorities to say “yes I only got in because I’m a minority”

No.

Why not? Because it’s rude?

Underrepresented minorities deserve any leg up they get in admissions, and it is still not a level playing field. It is far easier to be a white applicant when you account for a lifetime of advantages.

But you knew that.

But whether it’s “deserved” or not has no bearing on the truth and whether it impacted your admission at the time. So to be consistent if someone came up to them and said something your preferred response would have been to acknowledge it.

And you know that.

These aren’t the same. Legacies start out ahead and then get an extra boost. URMs and FGLI start out behind.

For purposes of this thread it’s exactly the same. Recognizing the boost and being performatively appreciative of it.

That’s a take and it’s a weird one, but I guess it’s a take I’d expect for someone opposed to affirmative action policies.

Uh maybe I support both and kids not being dicks to each other

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, the legacies I know who were rejected were more than qualified. One example: friends who are double legacy at Harvard, all three kids are at Yale instead because they didn't get into Harvard. All the legacies I know rejected from their parents school ended up at an equally elite school - so yes, those kids were qualified for the legacy school. I just don't think it's as easy as as "oh, she got in because of legacy, or she didn't get in because they didn't donate."

Legacy doesn't mean a guaranteed admit. Legacy does mean that the applicant is hooked, which is another way of saying the applicant is considered more favorably than those who lack a hook. Once you have the general stats for admission, would you rather be considered in the massive pile of applications where it is essentially a lottery OR would you rather be considered with a smaller pile of ones that are getting more time, a second look, more reasons for someone to champion your acceptance, etc?

The smaller pile, of course. I guess my point is that even in that smaller pile, it's competitive and not an easy admit. Lots of qualified legacies who are rejected and later end up at other HYPS.

Yes, enjoy arguing with yourself as no one is saying it’s easy to get into an elite university. They’re just saying it’s easier to get into an elite university as a legacy, which is not the same thing as it being easy

+1 Why is this confusing? I do not doubt that legacies who get in are generally worthy admits. I also don’t blame anyone for taking advantage of an opportunity available to them.

Just acknowledge it.

Why does anyone need to acknowledge it? Is this required for everyone? “I got in but I had a tutor for math in 9th grade, a private coach for track and my parents could afford to pay for a summer program so that’s why got accepted.” Everyone’s got some advantage over someone else - some are just better than others.

Why wouldn’t you acknowledge it when talking to people who didn’t get in? I’m honestly gobsmacked by this attitude. This would be the first thing I would say, but I really hate lording it over people.

Why do I have total confidence that you apply this only to legacies and not to of the advantages your kids have?

I don’t know? You can’t imagine what it’s like to be someone with humility and concern for other people?

And that’s the only way to show it? You don’t seem to have much concern for the kid by defending the rude ones.

Let me guess you expected minorities to say “yes I only got in because I’m a minority”

No.

Why not? Because it’s rude?

Underrepresented minorities deserve any leg up they get in admissions, and it is still not a level playing field. It is far easier to be a white applicant when you account for a lifetime of advantages.

But you knew that.

But whether it’s “deserved” or not has no bearing on the truth and whether it impacted your admission at the time. So to be consistent if someone came up to them and said something your preferred response would have been to acknowledge it.

And you know that.

These aren’t the same. Legacies start out ahead and then get an extra boost. URMs and FGLI start out behind.

For purposes of this thread it’s exactly the same. Recognizing the boost and being performatively appreciative of it.

Nope. One boost is compensatory. The other is additive and is in no way designed to level the playing field.

That’s a motivation for the boost. But both are boosts and the logic of the forum demands both be acknowledged every time

That's . . . not correct, logically 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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, the legacies I know who were rejected were more than qualified. One example: friends who are double legacy at Harvard, all three kids are at Yale instead because they didn't get into Harvard. All the legacies I know rejected from their parents school ended up at an equally elite school - so yes, those kids were qualified for the legacy school. I just don't think it's as easy as as "oh, she got in because of legacy, or she didn't get in because they didn't donate."

Legacy doesn't mean a guaranteed admit. Legacy does mean that the applicant is hooked, which is another way of saying the applicant is considered more favorably than those who lack a hook. Once you have the general stats for admission, would you rather be considered in the massive pile of applications where it is essentially a lottery OR would you rather be considered with a smaller pile of ones that are getting more time, a second look, more reasons for someone to champion your acceptance, etc?

The smaller pile, of course. I guess my point is that even in that smaller pile, it's competitive and not an easy admit. Lots of qualified legacies who are rejected and later end up at other HYPS.

Yes, enjoy arguing with yourself as no one is saying it’s easy to get into an elite university. They’re just saying it’s easier to get into an elite university as a legacy, which is not the same thing as it being easy

+1 Why is this confusing? I do not doubt that legacies who get in are generally worthy admits. I also don’t blame anyone for taking advantage of an opportunity available to them.

Just acknowledge it.

Why does anyone need to acknowledge it? Is this required for everyone? “I got in but I had a tutor for math in 9th grade, a private coach for track and my parents could afford to pay for a summer program so that’s why got accepted.” Everyone’s got some advantage over someone else - some are just better than others.

Why wouldn’t you acknowledge it when talking to people who didn’t get in? I’m honestly gobsmacked by this attitude. This would be the first thing I would say, but I really hate lording it over people.

Why do I have total confidence that you apply this only to legacies and not to of the advantages your kids have?

I don’t know? You can’t imagine what it’s like to be someone with humility and concern for other people?

And that’s the only way to show it? You don’t seem to have much concern for the kid by defending the rude ones.

Let me guess you expected minorities to say “yes I only got in because I’m a minority”

No.

Why not? Because it’s rude?

Underrepresented minorities deserve any leg up they get in admissions, and it is still not a level playing field. It is far easier to be a white applicant when you account for a lifetime of advantages.

But you knew that.

But whether it’s “deserved” or not has no bearing on the truth and whether it impacted your admission at the time. So to be consistent if someone came up to them and said something your preferred response would have been to acknowledge it.

And you know that.

These aren’t the same. Legacies start out ahead and then get an extra boost. URMs and FGLI start out behind.

For purposes of this thread it’s exactly the same. Recognizing the boost and being performatively appreciative of it.

That’s a take and it’s a weird one, but I guess it’s a take I’d expect for someone opposed to affirmative action policies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Behind the back and - per the post that started this whole 50-page Thread of the Year - spoken to students to their faces.

Exactly. What you think and what you say to someone's face are two very different things. Yet so many people here fail to understand that. The stupidity and lack of decency and class of so many people here is off the charts.

The students deserve some grace because they’re 17/18 and many are facing disappointment unlike any they’ve experienced before. They’re kids.

But I find it hard to believe any of us parents would walk up to someone we work with who was promoted “unfairly” in our minds (when we weren’t) and tell them they didn’t deserve it/only got it because of x, y, z reason. Or if they did, I find it hard to believe that results in anything remotely positive.

These are hard lessons at a young age. But they’re important ones - for these kids and for us.

Everyone agrees that the kid was (a) truthful and (b) rude. The thread is so long because every time someone says that the kid was rude but you should give him grace anyway, someone else jumps in to say no, do not teach your child to be gracious, this friend must be punished and shunned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Behind the back and - per the post that started this whole 50-page Thread of the Year - spoken to students to their faces.

Exactly. What you think and what you say to someone's face are two very different things. Yet so many people here fail to understand that. The stupidity and lack of decency and class of so many people here is off the charts.

The students deserve some grace because they’re 17/18 and many are facing disappointment unlike any they’ve experienced before. They’re kids.

But I find it hard to believe any of us parents would walk up to someone we work with who was promoted “unfairly” in our minds (when we weren’t) and tell them they didn’t deserve it/only got it because of x, y, z reason. Or if they did, I find it hard to believe that results in anything remotely positive.

These are hard lessons at a young age. But they’re important ones - for these kids and for us.

Everyone agrees that the kid was (a) truthful and (b) rude. The thread is so long because every time someone says that the kid was rude but you should give him grace anyway, someone else jumps in to say no, do not teach your child to be gracious, this friend must be punished and shunned.