Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see what seems like a lot of posts from people strongly opposed to “legacy admissions” and I’m curious about this position. I agree that unqualified applicants should not be admitted to any schools. Do you assume that no legacy applicants are qualified for admission to the school their parent attended? That seems odd to me given how important parental expectations are for success in school and life.

Do you mean that no kids should be permitted to apply to the schools their parents attended? How would it even work, when the common app asks for parental information (and that appears to be the basis for first generation applicants)? And how is it different from school that look at demonstrated interest? Why should legacy kids’ interest in attending the school they are familiar with, have a personal/family connection to, and likely grew up knowing about, visiting, rooting for its sports teams, etc not be allowed to follow that interest?

Genuinely curious, I promise.

Not rocket science. Simply ignore legacy status, focus on merit 100%.

Candidate deserves it? Gets in.

Doesn't deserve it? Doesn't get in.

Who your parents are should be irrelevant.

Except ... you're using terms like "deserve it." How do you determine who "deserves it?"

What do you do when you have 500 spots and there are 10,000 qualified applicants?

That's when these other criteria become valid, including legacy, affirmative action, etc. Schools build cohorts and communities. They aren't some reward for high achievement.

How do you think any, say, sports team would do it?

From those 10,000 qualified applicants you'd find the 500 most qualified.

What do you mean by "most qualified?" Is the person with and 800 Math and 600 Verbal of the SAT more qualified than the person with 700 in each section? Does the person who took AP Latin get a boost over the person who took AP Spanish? If someone took AP Spanish but it turns out they are native speakers at home and just took it for the easy A, they are less qualified now than the kid who sat next to them in class and only got a B plus? Is a kid who got extra credit in his science class and boosted his grade, but his who's mom is a Engineering professor at the local college and basically did his project for him more "qualified" than the kid who didn't enter the science fair because he didn't have time because he was babysitting his siblings after school because his mom was sick? What's more qualified, an A in BC calc in 12tt grade or a B+ in BC calc in 11th grade but that an A in multivariable in 12th grade? Is a kid who plays piano but not in school more qualified than the kid who plays violin in the school orchestra? Is the kid who started high school not speaking any English but managed to get Bs in all his English classes less qualified than the native speaker who got B pluses in the same class? Do you say "oh this year our most qualified applicants were all female psychology majors so sorry math and lit and language professors, no students for you."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see what seems like a lot of posts from people strongly opposed to “legacy admissions” and I’m curious about this position. I agree that unqualified applicants should not be admitted to any schools. Do you assume that no legacy applicants are qualified for admission to the school their parent attended? That seems odd to me given how important parental expectations are for success in school and life.

Do you mean that no kids should be permitted to apply to the schools their parents attended? How would it even work, when the common app asks for parental information (and that appears to be the basis for first generation applicants)? And how is it different from school that look at demonstrated interest? Why should legacy kids’ interest in attending the school they are familiar with, have a personal/family connection to, and likely grew up knowing about, visiting, rooting for its sports teams, etc not be allowed to follow that interest?

Genuinely curious, I promise.

Not rocket science. Simply ignore legacy status, focus on merit 100%.

Candidate deserves it? Gets in.

Doesn't deserve it? Doesn't get in.

Who your parents are should be irrelevant.

It's this for me. Other prioritized students arguably bring SOMETHING to the table that is unique, valued, etc. Parental connection is not one of them.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am white, from a privileged background, and have parents and grandparents who went to Ivy league schools, Stanford, and other top universities. I don't think legacy status should be considered at all. I mean come on; the truth is the practice does give a leg up to those who are already privileged - aka resource hoarding. It says little to nothing about the applicant themselves. There is just no way to defeat that argument. It is a bs reason to let a kid into a school over another equally qualified applicant (as that is really how its most frequently used). It should not be considered a hook in any way.

I have one question though that I have never been able to find a solution to - how do you encourage alum to donate if it won't help their kid get in? It is the number one reason people donate long term. How do you replace the private scholarships funded for basically the same reason? How do you replace all that money that the school depends on? When most don't have enough to give to have a building named for them, and there is no longer any legacy status bestowed on their kids, how do you get donations from the ordinary graduates?

Schools that got rid of legacy have not had a measurable effect on donations. They are still getting plenty of donations.
Most people give money because they ultimately believe in the school’s mission and values - that is what the big donations are generally about

+1 Not only that, but they could lower the cost and so they don't need to provide that much aide.

Oxbridge is half the cost of Harvard, but it's still an elite college. And they don't look at legacies.

We have a friend in the UK whose kid went to Oxbridge. We were talking to them about how college works here, the cost, the legacy hooks, etc.. and they were just floored.

The US college system of today is beyond absurd. We are encouraging our kids to study abroad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see what seems like a lot of posts from people strongly opposed to “legacy admissions” and I’m curious about this position. I agree that unqualified applicants should not be admitted to any schools. Do you assume that no legacy applicants are qualified for admission to the school their parent attended? That seems odd to me given how important parental expectations are for success in school and life.

Do you mean that no kids should be permitted to apply to the schools their parents attended? How would it even work, when the common app asks for parental information (and that appears to be the basis for first generation applicants)? And how is it different from school that look at demonstrated interest? Why should legacy kids’ interest in attending the school they are familiar with, have a personal/family connection to, and likely grew up knowing about, visiting, rooting for its sports teams, etc not be allowed to follow that interest?

Genuinely curious, I promise.

Not rocket science. Simply ignore legacy status, focus on merit 100%.

Candidate deserves it? Gets in.

Doesn't deserve it? Doesn't get in.

Who your parents are should be irrelevant.

It's this for me. Other prioritized students arguably bring SOMETHING to the table that is unique, valued, etc. Parental connection is not one of them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see what seems like a lot of posts from people strongly opposed to “legacy admissions” and I’m curious about this position. I agree that unqualified applicants should not be admitted to any schools. Do you assume that no legacy applicants are qualified for admission to the school their parent attended? That seems odd to me given how important parental expectations are for success in school and life.

Do you mean that no kids should be permitted to apply to the schools their parents attended? How would it even work, when the common app asks for parental information (and that appears to be the basis for first generation applicants)? And how is it different from school that look at demonstrated interest? Why should legacy kids’ interest in attending the school they are familiar with, have a personal/family connection to, and likely grew up knowing about, visiting, rooting for its sports teams, etc not be allowed to follow that interest?

Genuinely curious, I promise.

Not rocket science. Simply ignore legacy status, focus on merit 100%.

Candidate deserves it? Gets in.

Doesn't deserve it? Doesn't get in.

Who your parents are should be irrelevant.

Except ... you're using terms like "deserve it." How do you determine who "deserves it?"

What do you do when you have 500 spots and there are 10,000 qualified applicants?

That's when these other criteria become valid, including legacy, affirmative action, etc. Schools build cohorts and communities. They aren't some reward for high achievement.

No, legacy does NOT have to be a criteria for admission. There are many other ways to rank candidates.

Sure there are many ways to rank candidates. Why can’t a school choose to use this one? What ways do you think should be used?

dp..how about something not related to winning the parent lottery and being born to privilege?

Anonymous wrote:I am white, from a privileged background, and have parents and grandparents who went to Ivy league schools, Stanford, and other top universities. I don't think legacy status should be considered at all. I mean come on; the truth is the practice does give a leg up to those who are already privileged - aka resource hoarding. It says little to nothing about the applicant themselves. There is just no way to defeat that argument. It is a bs reason to let a kid into a school over another equally qualified applicant (as that is really how its most frequently used). It should not be considered a hook in any way.

I have one question though that I have never been able to find a solution to - how do you encourage alum to donate if it won't help their kid get in? It is the number one reason people donate long term. How do you replace the private scholarships funded for basically the same reason? How do you replace all that money that the school depends on? When most don't have enough to give to have a building named for them, and there is no longer any legacy status bestowed on their kids, how do you get donations from the ordinary graduates?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am white, from a privileged background, and have parents and grandparents who went to Ivy league schools, Stanford, and other top universities. I don't think legacy status should be considered at all. I mean come on; the truth is the practice does give a leg up to those who are already privileged - aka resource hoarding. It says little to nothing about the applicant themselves. There is just no way to defeat that argument. It is a bs reason to let a kid into a school over another equally qualified applicant (as that is really how its most frequently used). It should not be considered a hook in any way.

I have one question though that I have never been able to find a solution to - how do you encourage alum to donate if it won't help their kid get in? It is the number one reason people donate long term. How do you replace the private scholarships funded for basically the same reason? How do you replace all that money that the school depends on? When most don't have enough to give to have a building named for them, and there is no longer any legacy status bestowed on their kids, how do you get donations from the ordinary graduates?

Schools that got rid of legacy have not had a measurable effect on donations. They are still getting plenty of donations.
Most people give money because they ultimately believe in the school’s mission and values - that is what the big donations are generally about

+1 Not only that, but they could lower the cost and so they don't need to provide that much aide.

Oxbridge is half the cost of Harvard, but it's still an elite college. And they don't look at legacies.

We have a friend in the UK whose kid went to Oxbridge. We were talking to them about how college works here, the cost, the legacy hooks, etc.. and they were just floored.

For a STEM student, Cambridge is about $45,000 plus another 12k in college fees and that doesn't include room and board. That's almost exactly what Harvard costs for full pay students

https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/files/publications/undergraduate_tuition_fees_2023-24.pdf

? you are looking at international students. Our friend didn't pay that much for "oxbridge" (hope that pp is satisfied now).

Any science major is 37,000 pounds a year. In addition, you have to be a member of a college which is an additional 10,000 pounds.

CS is 11,670 per year for residents (under Home Students). It's 37K for international, under "international".

We are talking resident costs, not international student costs.

What are you reading?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am white, from a privileged background, and have parents and grandparents who went to Ivy league schools, Stanford, and other top universities. I don't think legacy status should be considered at all. I mean come on; the truth is the practice does give a leg up to those who are already privileged - aka resource hoarding. It says little to nothing about the applicant themselves. There is just no way to defeat that argument. It is a bs reason to let a kid into a school over another equally qualified applicant (as that is really how its most frequently used). It should not be considered a hook in any way.

I have one question though that I have never been able to find a solution to - how do you encourage alum to donate if it won't help their kid get in? It is the number one reason people donate long term. How do you replace the private scholarships funded for basically the same reason? How do you replace all that money that the school depends on? When most don't have enough to give to have a building named for them, and there is no longer any legacy status bestowed on their kids, how do you get donations from the ordinary graduates?

Schools that got rid of legacy have not had a measurable effect on donations. They are still getting plenty of donations.
Most people give money because they ultimately believe in the school’s mission and values - that is what the big donations are generally about

+1 Not only that, but they could lower the cost and so they don't need to provide that much aide.

Oxbridge is half the cost of Harvard, but it's still an elite college. And they don't look at legacies.

We have a friend in the UK whose kid went to Oxbridge. We were talking to them about how college works here, the cost, the legacy hooks, etc.. and they were just floored.

For a STEM student, Cambridge is about $45,000 plus another 12k in college fees and that doesn't include room and board. That's almost exactly what Harvard costs for full pay students

https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/files/publications/undergraduate_tuition_fees_2023-24.pdf

? you are looking at international students. Our friend didn't pay that much for "oxbridge" (hope that pp is satisfied now).

Any science major is 37,000 pounds a year. In addition, you have to be a member of a college which is an additional 10,000 pounds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am white, from a privileged background, and have parents and grandparents who went to Ivy league schools, Stanford, and other top universities. I don't think legacy status should be considered at all. I mean come on; the truth is the practice does give a leg up to those who are already privileged - aka resource hoarding. It says little to nothing about the applicant themselves. There is just no way to defeat that argument. It is a bs reason to let a kid into a school over another equally qualified applicant (as that is really how its most frequently used). It should not be considered a hook in any way.

I have one question though that I have never been able to find a solution to - how do you encourage alum to donate if it won't help their kid get in? It is the number one reason people donate long term. How do you replace the private scholarships funded for basically the same reason? How do you replace all that money that the school depends on? When most don't have enough to give to have a building named for them, and there is no longer any legacy status bestowed on their kids, how do you get donations from the ordinary graduates?

Schools that got rid of legacy have not had a measurable effect on donations. They are still getting plenty of donations.
Most people give money because they ultimately believe in the school’s mission and values - that is what the big donations are generally about

+1 Not only that, but they could lower the cost and so they don't need to provide that much aide.

Oxbridge is half the cost of Harvard, but it's still an elite college. And they don't look at legacies.

We have a friend in the UK whose kid went to Oxbridge. We were talking to them about how college works here, the cost, the legacy hooks, etc.. and they were just floored.

For a STEM student, Cambridge is about $45,000 plus another 12k in college fees and that doesn't include room and board. That's almost exactly what Harvard costs for full pay students

https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/files/publications/undergraduate_tuition_fees_2023-24.pdf

? you are looking at international students. Our friend didn't pay that much for "oxbridge" (hope that pp is satisfied now).

Any science major is 37,000 pounds a year. In addition, you have to be a member of a college which is an additional 10,000 pounds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am white, from a privileged background, and have parents and grandparents who went to Ivy league schools, Stanford, and other top universities. I don't think legacy status should be considered at all. I mean come on; the truth is the practice does give a leg up to those who are already privileged - aka resource hoarding. It says little to nothing about the applicant themselves. There is just no way to defeat that argument. It is a bs reason to let a kid into a school over another equally qualified applicant (as that is really how its most frequently used). It should not be considered a hook in any way.

I have one question though that I have never been able to find a solution to - how do you encourage alum to donate if it won't help their kid get in? It is the number one reason people donate long term. How do you replace the private scholarships funded for basically the same reason? How do you replace all that money that the school depends on? When most don't have enough to give to have a building named for them, and there is no longer any legacy status bestowed on their kids, how do you get donations from the ordinary graduates?

Schools that got rid of legacy have not had a measurable effect on donations. They are still getting plenty of donations.
Most people give money because they ultimately believe in the school’s mission and values - that is what the big donations are generally about

+1 Not only that, but they could lower the cost and so they don't need to provide that much aide.

Oxbridge is half the cost of Harvard, but it's still an elite college. And they don't look at legacies.

We have a friend in the UK whose kid went to Oxbridge. We were talking to them about how college works here, the cost, the legacy hooks, etc.. and they were just floored.

Oxbridge isn’t a college. You’re trying to sound smart and worldly but failing spectacularly.

I know what oxbridge is. I just choose not to spell it out or indicate which uni they went to.

You're an idiot to assume.

You literally wrote “it’s still an elite college” with it’s indicating Oxbridge. You’re the idiot here.

wow, you're probably arrogant and obnoxious, too. But, I'm sure you think you're an educated elite liberal.

PS.. yes, I was referring to one of the oxbridge colleges when I said “it’s still an elite college” . I was using the term oxbridge in lieu of one of the college names so as not to be specific.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am white, from a privileged background, and have parents and grandparents who went to Ivy league schools, Stanford, and other top universities. I don't think legacy status should be considered at all. I mean come on; the truth is the practice does give a leg up to those who are already privileged - aka resource hoarding. It says little to nothing about the applicant themselves. There is just no way to defeat that argument. It is a bs reason to let a kid into a school over another equally qualified applicant (as that is really how its most frequently used). It should not be considered a hook in any way.

I have one question though that I have never been able to find a solution to - how do you encourage alum to donate if it won't help their kid get in? It is the number one reason people donate long term. How do you replace the private scholarships funded for basically the same reason? How do you replace all that money that the school depends on? When most don't have enough to give to have a building named for them, and there is no longer any legacy status bestowed on their kids, how do you get donations from the ordinary graduates?

Schools that got rid of legacy have not had a measurable effect on donations. They are still getting plenty of donations.
Most people give money because they ultimately believe in the school’s mission and values - that is what the big donations are generally about

+1 Not only that, but they could lower the cost and so they don't need to provide that much aide.

Oxbridge is half the cost of Harvard, but it's still an elite college. And they don't look at legacies.

We have a friend in the UK whose kid went to Oxbridge. We were talking to them about how college works here, the cost, the legacy hooks, etc.. and they were just floored.

For a STEM student, Cambridge is about $45,000 plus another 12k in college fees and that doesn't include room and board. That's almost exactly what Harvard costs for full pay students

https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/files/publications/undergraduate_tuition_fees_2023-24.pdf

? you are looking at international students. Our friend didn't pay that much for "oxbridge" (hope that pp is satisfied now).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am white, from a privileged background, and have parents and grandparents who went to Ivy league schools, Stanford, and other top universities. I don't think legacy status should be considered at all. I mean come on; the truth is the practice does give a leg up to those who are already privileged - aka resource hoarding. It says little to nothing about the applicant themselves. There is just no way to defeat that argument. It is a bs reason to let a kid into a school over another equally qualified applicant (as that is really how its most frequently used). It should not be considered a hook in any way.

I have one question though that I have never been able to find a solution to - how do you encourage alum to donate if it won't help their kid get in? It is the number one reason people donate long term. How do you replace the private scholarships funded for basically the same reason? How do you replace all that money that the school depends on? When most don't have enough to give to have a building named for them, and there is no longer any legacy status bestowed on their kids, how do you get donations from the ordinary graduates?

Schools that got rid of legacy have not had a measurable effect on donations. They are still getting plenty of donations.
Most people give money because they ultimately believe in the school’s mission and values - that is what the big donations are generally about

+1 Not only that, but they could lower the cost and so they don't need to provide that much aide.

Oxbridge is half the cost of Harvard, but it's still an elite college. And they don't look at legacies.

We have a friend in the UK whose kid went to Oxbridge. We were talking to them about how college works here, the cost, the legacy hooks, etc.. and they were just floored.

Oxbridge isn’t a college. You’re trying to sound smart and worldly but failing spectacularly.

I know what oxbridge is. I just choose not to spell it out or indicate which uni they went to.

You're an idiot to assume.

You literally wrote “it’s still an elite college” with it’s indicating Oxbridge. You’re the idiot here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see what seems like a lot of posts from people strongly opposed to “legacy admissions” and I’m curious about this position. I agree that unqualified applicants should not be admitted to any schools. Do you assume that no legacy applicants are qualified for admission to the school their parent attended? That seems odd to me given how important parental expectations are for success in school and life.

Do you mean that no kids should be permitted to apply to the schools their parents attended? How would it even work, when the common app asks for parental information (and that appears to be the basis for first generation applicants)? And how is it different from school that look at demonstrated interest? Why should legacy kids’ interest in attending the school they are familiar with, have a personal/family connection to, and likely grew up knowing about, visiting, rooting for its sports teams, etc not be allowed to follow that interest?

Genuinely curious, I promise.

Not rocket science. Simply ignore legacy status, focus on merit 100%.

Candidate deserves it? Gets in.

Doesn't deserve it? Doesn't get in.

Who your parents are should be irrelevant.

Except ... you're using terms like "deserve it." How do you determine who "deserves it?"

What do you do when you have 500 spots and there are 10,000 qualified applicants?

That's when these other criteria become valid, including legacy, affirmative action, etc. Schools build cohorts and communities. They aren't some reward for high achievement.

How do you think any, say, sports team would do it?

From those 10,000 qualified applicants you'd find the 500 most qualified.

What do you mean by "most qualified?" Is the person with and 800 Math and 600 Verbal of the SAT more qualified than the person with 700 in each section? Does the person who took AP Latin get a boost over the person who took AP Spanish? If someone took AP Spanish but it turns out they are native speakers at home and just took it for the easy A, they are less qualified now than the kid who sat next to them in class and only got a B plus? Is a kid who got extra credit in his science class and boosted his grade, but his who's mom is a Engineering professor at the local college and basically did his project for him more "qualified" than the kid who didn't enter the science fair because he didn't have time because he was babysitting his siblings after school because his mom was sick? What's more qualified, an A in BC calc in 12tt grade or a B+ in BC calc in 11th grade but that an A in multivariable in 12th grade? Is a kid who plays piano but not in school more qualified than the kid who plays violin in the school orchestra? Is the kid who started high school not speaking any English but managed to get Bs in all his English classes less qualified than the native speaker who got B pluses in the same class? Do you say "oh this year our most qualified applicants were all female psychology majors so sorry math and lit and language professors, no students for you."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am white, from a privileged background, and have parents and grandparents who went to Ivy league schools, Stanford, and other top universities. I don't think legacy status should be considered at all. I mean come on; the truth is the practice does give a leg up to those who are already privileged - aka resource hoarding. It says little to nothing about the applicant themselves. There is just no way to defeat that argument. It is a bs reason to let a kid into a school over another equally qualified applicant (as that is really how its most frequently used). It should not be considered a hook in any way.

I have one question though that I have never been able to find a solution to - how do you encourage alum to donate if it won't help their kid get in? It is the number one reason people donate long term. How do you replace the private scholarships funded for basically the same reason? How do you replace all that money that the school depends on? When most don't have enough to give to have a building named for them, and there is no longer any legacy status bestowed on their kids, how do you get donations from the ordinary graduates?

Schools that got rid of legacy have not had a measurable effect on donations. They are still getting plenty of donations.
Most people give money because they ultimately believe in the school’s mission and values - that is what the big donations are generally about

+1 Not only that, but they could lower the cost and so they don't need to provide that much aide.

Oxbridge is half the cost of Harvard, but it's still an elite college. And they don't look at legacies.

We have a friend in the UK whose kid went to Oxbridge. We were talking to them about how college works here, the cost, the legacy hooks, etc.. and they were just floored.

For a STEM student, Cambridge is about $45,000 plus another 12k in college fees and that doesn't include room and board. That's almost exactly what Harvard costs for full pay students

https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/files/publications/undergraduate_tuition_fees_2023-24.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am white, from a privileged background, and have parents and grandparents who went to Ivy league schools, Stanford, and other top universities. I don't think legacy status should be considered at all. I mean come on; the truth is the practice does give a leg up to those who are already privileged - aka resource hoarding. It says little to nothing about the applicant themselves. There is just no way to defeat that argument. It is a bs reason to let a kid into a school over another equally qualified applicant (as that is really how its most frequently used). It should not be considered a hook in any way.

I have one question though that I have never been able to find a solution to - how do you encourage alum to donate if it won't help their kid get in? It is the number one reason people donate long term. How do you replace the private scholarships funded for basically the same reason? How do you replace all that money that the school depends on? When most don't have enough to give to have a building named for them, and there is no longer any legacy status bestowed on their kids, how do you get donations from the ordinary graduates?

Schools that got rid of legacy have not had a measurable effect on donations. They are still getting plenty of donations.
Most people give money because they ultimately believe in the school’s mission and values - that is what the big donations are generally about

+1 Not only that, but they could lower the cost and so they don't need to provide that much aide.

Oxbridge is half the cost of Harvard, but it's still an elite college. And they don't look at legacies.

We have a friend in the UK whose kid went to Oxbridge. We were talking to them about how college works here, the cost, the legacy hooks, etc.. and they were just floored.

The US college system of today is beyond absurd. We are encouraging our kids to study abroad.