No breakout by race, 11% total legacy.
My guess is that the percentage of white legacy admits is quite a bit higher than “44% white.” (The vast majority of legacy applicants are white, and about 1/3 of those are admitted.)
1 Like
That’s not looking at it the right way. You would need to look at the percentage of white students for the time period 25 to 35 years ago (about 70%). The better way to look at this is the growth in numbers of legacies who are minorities. I have not seen that broken out. BTW, the legacy admit rate was 20% when the AO shared that info with a group of us about 7 years ago.
2 Likes
I don’t doubt your good intentions, so I am sure you must not realize just how condescending this is. IMO there is always more than one way to look at anything, especially when those doing the looking are focused on different aspects. That is the case here.
1 Like
Reminder that there is only one thread, in the Political Forum, that discussions about race and admission is permitted. Please move on or take the discussion. here.
2 Likes
Legacies presumably reflect the demographics of their parents, so would it be reasonable that current legacies reflect late 1980s to 1990s student demographics, rather than current student demographics?
2 Likes
Yes, my point that you need to look at demographics from 25-35 years ago.
Always a bit surprised at the pearl clutching that happens when the subject of ending legacy admissions is raised.
If there is a view that it’s inequitable, and there is such a view held by many, what difference does it make how many schools/students/slots are being affected? And why does it matter that minority alumni won’t get to join in the fun of an unfair advantage? Sure, I get how such alumni might feel skeptical about the timing (“Oh, sure, now that we make up a slightly more meaningful percentage of the alumni base you get rid of the back door.”) but the increase in minority participation doesn’t make the practice any more equitable or justify its continuance.
And of course there is the group of folks out there who are vehemently against AA but who hold on dearly to legacy preference. That is an especially rich position to take IMO.
I was proud of my kid who, at her Brown graduation party, responded to a relative suggesting that her attendance might help a family member get in by saying, without hesitation, “why would that have anything to do with it?”
2 Likes
But consideration of legacy status is not a binary choice solely dependent upon whether one’s parents attended. Some legacy lines at schools like Yale or even USC go back generations. And the relationship (particularly the financial relationship, but sometimes a prestige relationship) between the family and the school matters, and that is less likely to be as developed for kids whose parents were first generation at schools such as Yale in the 80s and 90s. And, going forward, cultural and governmental pressures may further impact who is a proper legacy admit and who is not.
In short, some demographics unfairly benefit much more than others, and while changing demographics in the 80s and 90s may somewhat offset the extent of the advantage, the unfair advantage is still very much in place.
2 Likes
Some of us have the view that admissions to every highly rejective school is inequitable, by definition. Every factor they use in holistic admissions is inequitable. In fact, that’s the value of holistic admissions, sussing through all of the inequitable factors.
If private schools like USC (or Stanford or Brown et al) want to continue a legacy bump, ok with me, as it impacts CA and general society not one iota. OTOH, if they want to drop legacy to give the appearance of making things more “fair” (however defined), have at it. Of course, that just means a higher weight on the other ~5 – inequitable – admission factors.
1 Like
Funny, though, how some inequities at these schools are viewed as meh, while other inequities at the same schools are worth making a federal case out of.
4 Likes
That’s fine but I don’t really care what some of you think about holistic admissions or that you personally have given your “ok to proceed” stamp of approval.
Mine is just an observation about the inevitably strong reaction that it triggers for a practice that supposedly only affects just a handful of students, as well as the curious reasoning employed by those who want to see it continue and clearly care very much about it.
- Well it only affects a few student admission decisions. (Then why does anyone care if it’s eliminated?)
- Well legacies tend to be very qualified so they don’t really need the thumb on the scale. (Then why does anyone care if it’s eliminated?)
- Well there are other aspects of wealth and privilege that still give those who enjoy them a leg up. (Then why does anyone care if this one is eliminated?)
- Well AA increased the number of racial and ethnic minorities and their children are now college aged and can take advantage of this inequitable practice. (Sure, let’s keep an inequitable practice in place so that the recently minted privileged can play the game too).
Regarding your statement that “every factor they use in holistic admissions is inequitable,” I probably don’t know what you’re getting at but the plain meaning of that sentence is not something with which I would agree.
2 Likes
For example:
College X’s band needs an extra tuba player for next year because one of the current tuba players is graduating. Suzy plays the tuba. Sally plays the clarinet. They’ve got a boatload of clarinet people. Suzy and Sally both apply. Suzy mentions in her app that she wants to play tuba in the band. Suzy’s app gets an extra “thumb on the scale” for that while Sally’s does not.
Edited to add:
OR the thumb on the scale could be anything…a male student majoring in a Humanities subject, a female student majoring in a STEM subject that isn’t biology, somebody graduating from a rural high school, a student from Alaska or North Dakota, a student who got first place in a debate competition and the college wants to improve their debate team rankings, etc, etc.
IMO that’s not inequitable. Schools consider factors beyond grades and test scores. Some insist that “the scale” should only weigh factors they want weighed, and nothing more. The schools disagree.
1 Like
I could see your tuba vs. clarinet example being argued as either an example of inequity, or not:
-
In some years College X’s band might need a tuba player, in other years they might need a clarinet player. College X does not have an anti-clarinet bias in admissions, but it just happens that they don’t need so many clarinets this year. So one could argue that this isn’t an example of inequity; it is just “building a class.”
-
On the other hand, applicants do not all have the same access during high school to musical instrument instruction. If playing either the tuba or the clarinet can be potentially a “thumb on the scale” for an applicant, this could be seen as inequity that favors those applicants who have the time, money, and opportunity to pursue music in high school.
1 Like
I’m not necessarily defending USC’s decision (I’m actually neutral on the topic) but legacy preference in private college admissions is pretty common, isn’t it? Even for non-brand-name private colleges. A lot of them may have a small scholarship (like couple thousand off tuition per year) for students whose parent attended. Or who have an older sibling who is/did attend.
Nobody gives a hoot when a non-top 25 college does it. Nobody complains “it’s not fair” in those situations.
Or what about the preference in private college admissions for students whose parent(s) work at the college? If it’s happening at a non-brand name U, nobody even notices.
Or is the beef about holistic admissions in general at brand name private colleges? Well, if you don’t want to apply with holistic admissions, then don’t apply to colleges that use it.
Yes, yes, we all know about these things. But all this rabbit hole diving does, IMO, is help those who just want to obfuscate the core issue.
I shouldn’t have to, and really don’t need to, explain it. There is already a great deal of advantage conveyed to the children of those who graduated from, say, Harvard. Of all the things in the world that could speak to whether a prospective student should be admitted … considerations ranging from their academic preparedness to other qualities they might bring to campus to their grit and what that portends about what they’ll do with their education … using the fact of their parents being alumni seems relatively unimportant. And it makes the schools appear all the more to the society they serve as a club.
More obfuscation, but sure, let’s talk about it. How are you in a position to know that nobody complains? Of course, the reason it’s discussed louder in elite college admissions is pretty obvious: the odds are tougher, the thumb on the scale is critical and the stakes are high.
I agree 100% that it’s not a good look. 
1 Like
What solution would you suggest?
Every factor (including high school record and test scores) in any kind of selective admission can be seen as inequitable, since parents with money can deploy it to help their kids do better on whatever is measured or compared (whether holistic or non holistic).
Of course, legacy (and others included in “LDC”) are purely inherited, based on the parents’ value to the college, which the applicant can do nothing to change. Perhaps that may be why it is seen as more inequitable than other factors which require some effort and achievement by the applicant, rather than being purely inherited.
1 Like