I think they are wrong. There may be a myriad of reasons why they are wrong depending on their perspective. But I feel pretty strongly that they are wrong.
1 Like
Also realize Iām coming off like a libertarian in this thread, which anybody who knows me would find hilarious. 
1 Like
Well, itās one point but itās not the only point. I do understand that the schools that use it think itās in their interests to do so and Iām quite sure theyāre right. Thatās all pretty clear. And Iām sure MIT would benefit from instituting the practice as well. Thereās nothing really unique about Yale or Princeton in that regard. We all know how they would benefit and yet they donāt use it.
Anyway, weāre not getting any further in the discussion, which is usually how this topic winds up.
No, not to me. Libertarians arenāt the only people who donāt want the government intervening in everything.
1 Like
In my opinion, an individual who strongly disagrees with legacy admissions should put their money where their mouth is and not apply to any college that uses legacy admissions.
I donāt care about the whole āitās not fair because people who graduate from Harvard/Yale/Princeton get more perks in life out of it.ā There are hundreds of other fabulous institutions of higher learning instead.
IF, however, oneās definition of āsuccess and the good lifeā is getting a Wall Street investment banking job, okā¦ then yeahā¦graduating from an Ivy League institution likely gives you a leg up. EVEN WITHOUT legacy admissions at those places, your odds are extremely low of getting admitted anyway.
I donāt understand what the big deal is about USC. Itās not the only college in the country. Heck, back in the Stone Age when I went to college, we used to call USC āUniversity of Spoiled Childrenā and nobody thought very much of it. Of course, in the years since, USC played the admissions game like University of Chicago has in order to climb the ratings ladder and all of us students & parents fell for it.
Iām curious how that advances the conversation. We could employ this logic about any criteria used by a school for admissions decisions. Take the Asian discrimination cases, for example. They can just put their money where their mouth is and not apply to Harvard and other colleges treating them differently in the admissions process. There are hundreds of other fabulous institutions of higher learning instead who will admit them and their high GPAs and test scores and not hold their Asian identity against them. And EVEN WITHOUT the discriminatory admissions practice, their odds were extremely low of getting admitted anyway. I donāt understand what the big deal is about Harvard. Itās not the only college in the country.
1 Like
Do you mean like The Stanford Review, which seems to be strongly in favor of legacy consideration at A Defense of Legacy Admissions, The Surprising Engine of Meritocracy , but not so with respect to consideration of race/ethnicity at The Morality of Affirmative Action is Complicated; Its Legality, Less So ?
However, among the general public, legacy is about as (un)popular as race/ethnicity as a criterion in college admissions, according to As courts weigh affirmative action, how Americans view college admissions factors | Pew Research Center
2 Likes
I meant a lot of folks who went to uber selective schools, not a lot of the general public. I know both are very unpopular with most people.
1 Like
Advancing the conversation to what? What is the end goal you would like achieved when it comes to legacy admissions? How would you propose legacy admissions to end, if oneās goal is for it to not be allowed at any college/university in the US?
I have no problem with private colleges having legacy admissions policies.
Iām now bowāing out of the conversation because you & I arenāt getting anywhere. everything I say appears to frustrate you, and we will have to agree to disagree on this topic.
We could, and weād be wrong. Certain forms of admission discrimination (race, sexā¦) are illegal per the federal, and I would assume, every state Constitution. Other forms of admission factors (legacy, athletics, seven+ figure family donations) are legally permissible.
Of course just bcos its permissible doesnāt mean we shouldnāt criticize the practice if we feel strongly about it.
1 Like
Of course. That was the only point of my response: challenging the logic, which to be fair to the poster is not unlike the logic employed by most of the legacy admit supporters. āItās no big deal. Plenty of other schools that donāt do it.ā
But of course I suspect a great many of us would not support active discrimination against Asians in the admission process even if it were not illegal. So, Iām guessing the āthey can just go somewhere elseā rationale wouldnāt sit well with those of us who would feel that way regardless of the legality of the discrimination, as you seem to suggest below.
And thatās all thatās happening here. People can rest assured their pearls are firmly in place where theyāve always been.
I think the end goal I would like to see achieved (I myself am not going to quit my day job and take this on) is for all universities to drop legacy status as a consideration for admission.
I would propose all universities drop it voluntarily in accordance with what at least seems to be the beginning of a trend. I donāt advocate for the government to force their hand.
Thatās been clear.
Please donāt project what appears to be your own frustration on me. Iām not frustrated at all. Iām not immune to the feeling but Iām not experiencing it here. I was a Philosophy major at one of those other fabulous colleges that donāt practice legacy admissions; this is how we discussed / debated current events.
But you are of course free to quit.
Yeah and back then people used rotary phones.
Advances are made and things change, including universities. To insinuate that students and parents didnāt do their research or are in someway gullible is uncalled for.
1 Like
Excellent links and data. Thanks for sharing something other than āfeelings ā. I learned something from reading this
This is why I think Stanford and USC must be seeing some kind of significant benefit from maintaining legacy admissionsā¦ probably financialā¦ they must feel it is worth a LOT of money?? It wouldnāt seem to be a positive thing for their image, especially now that they have essentially doubled down and made a public statement about how important legacy preference is to them by flouting this state āban.ā
1 Like
Perhaps parents donate significantly (those that do) with the expectation of acceptance?
I expect both schools must have some very interesting data and analysis. It would be fascinating to know more details, donāt you think?
1 Like
I understand why people might take offense to the University of Spoiled Children slight, but it is decisions like this one by USC that cement USCās reputation as the place for rich kids with a family connection to the school. Likewise with its Trojan Transfer legacy program. The school is thumbing its nose at the law so it can keep admitting such applicants, even at the cost of losing state funds.
This isnāt to say that USC isnāt an very good school, or that it doesnāt value diversity It obviously is and does. Same for Yale, if that needs saying. But these are both places where the children of the mostly rich and well connected alums have a huge admission advantage over applicants who are otherwise similarly situated. That is bound to be reflected in the reputations of such schools.
1 Like
Theyāve taken a few PR hits in the last several years. There have been a few scandals, from the Tyndall/Nikias mess (which cost the school over $800 million) to the Ridley-Thomas matter to Varsity Blues, where the public seemed particularly annoyed about Aunt Beckyās daughters. It has seemed to me that their scandal received a bit more public focus and outrage than the others, perhaps in part because of Aunt Beckyās seeming lack of contrition.
Though the rep is there, they are not alone.
Iām not offended by the old digs of Univ of Spoiled Children. It is what it is. Iām a Cal grad and we used to mock Stanfurd as being full of rich preppy kids. To them, we were Bezerkley. The statement that āand nobody thought very much of itā is an assumption that because some (nobody?) thought much of it, it must be fact. Rivalry chants and nicknames are exaggerated insults that are not meant to be taken literally.
My previous response was to the claim that applicants and their parents were duped because of manipulated rankings. That is again, the writerās opinion and not a fact. Personally, I think it is inappropriate statement and is offensive to applicants and their parents who do their due diligence before applying and accepting a spot at any college.
2 Likes
Here is a poll about legacy admission consideration:
1 Like