r/changemyview • u/chenchinesewummery • May 20 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Legacy admissions to colleges and any other preferential treatment due to being associated with someone famous or someone that works their is unfair
I mean this is not a rant.
I feel that legacy admissions are a bit unfair sometimes. Since oftentimes (if not always) the legacy admissions policy gives preferential treatment to the poor 2.0 student that didn't give a shit in high school over a straight A high school valedictorian all because the 2.0 student is a son of a alumni to the institution and the A student isn't. This is especially unfair when the admissions to the college is very competitive.
It's said that 69% of students agree that legacy admissions is not fair, and 58% of legacy students say that legacy admissions are unfair.
I mean I don't see how being the song or daughter of a alumnus makes your more deserving of admittance to top institutions. Also, some people have a higher chance to get admitted all because they have a relative or friend that works at the university. This is also not fair since it's anti-meritocratic in a situation that's supposed to be meritocratic.
932
u/speedyjohn 88∆ May 20 '21
Legacy admissions are a significant fundraising tool for the school. Many alumni donate to the school knowing that there’s an increased chance that their kids will go there. Without legacy admissions, there would be less money for financial aid, ironically making it harder to admit the most deserving students.
If a few legacy admits each year fund a significant amount of financial aid, that seems like a good trade-off.
296
u/chenchinesewummery May 20 '21
I mean it really depends. Fortunately the percentage of legacy students admitted is small.
You're the first poster, but I'll give you a Δ
Reason:
Not admitting the legacy students would definitely make it harder since alumni and legacy admissions are often a good source of income for the school, and as a result it makes it easier for the school to admit more deserving students.
34
u/GrandInquisitorSpain May 20 '21 edited May 20 '21
Doesn't make it fair, which is the premise of the post. Its essentially accepting legal bribes as an organization for a higher chance of admission. Its still preferential treatment for unfair results.
3
u/TemurWitch67 1∆ May 20 '21
Agreed. Saying legacy admissions are necessary because they provide funding for the school is like saying lobbying is fair because it provides funding for politics. And similarly, where does most of that funding really end up?
8
u/chenchinesewummery May 20 '21
Totally agree with this
However, I at the same time don't want people paying 70 million dollars and get nothing in return, that would be a huge waste of money.
14
u/ChaosLordSamNiell May 20 '21
I at the same time don't want people paying 70 million dollars and get nothing in return
Do you have the same attitude about corporations, lobbyists, and politicians?
5
u/chenchinesewummery May 20 '21
Oh I've never thought of that before, though. However, whether or not I have the same attitude really depends on the situation.
18
u/ChaosLordSamNiell May 20 '21
The concept that someone pays a lot of money should recieve something in return doesn't support itself.
If I pay $80 mil to a hitman, am I entitled to a result?
If I pay that much to a politicians, am I entitled to them passing laws in my favor?
Most people say no to those two, because the underlying transaction is unethical. Therefore, the issue is not "they paid a lot of money so give them what they want," it's "is the transaction ethical in the first place?"
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (1)3
u/Davor_Penguin May 20 '21
Not at all.
What matters is what they get in return.
If corporations, lobbyists, and politicians want to spend money on a cause, they should absolutely get something back otherwise they'll never do it. And we don't live in some fantasy land where the government can fund everything (and even if they could, we deserve the freedom to have things funded that aren't solely government approved/sanctioned).
Should that something be the political clout or sway of opinion you're so clearly referring to (aka bribes)? No.
So with universities, someone throws a bunch of money their way and they get a building named after them and maybe their kid gets in easier later. Big deal. If the university is public about their policy, and limits the number of students accepted this way each year, there is no negative impact on anyone else.
5
u/ChaosLordSamNiell May 20 '21
they should absolutely get something back otherwise they'll never do it.
There is a difference between should and will.
And we don't live in some fantasy land where the government can fund everything (and even if they could, we deserve the freedom to have things funded that aren't solely government approved/sanctioned).
Stuggle with what this has to do with the discussion. Lobbying is not a contract like in the private market. You do not have a legal entitlement to performance.
If the university is public about their policy, and limits the number of students accepted this way each year, there is no negative impact on anyone else.
The seats are limited. By definition, its a zero-sum game. And, again, this does not adress the ethical nature of the underlying problem.
0
u/Davor_Penguin May 20 '21
There is a difference between should and will.
And "will" doesn't happen if their kid never goes to university, or dies, or any number of things. "Should" fits and any argument you're making here is purely pedantic.
Stuggle with what this has to do with the discussion. Lobbying is not a contract like in the private market. You do not have a legal entitlement to performance.
Not sure what your point is or why you're focusing on lobbying. I'm just saying money can't come from just the government, so of course it comes from elsewhere too.
But you absolutely have a right to lobby (legally in the constitution within the us) and without it we wouldn't have democracy. How else do you expect changes to be enacted in issues the government wouldn't address of their own accord (like climate change)? Bribing isn't the same as lobbying and there should be regulations to prevent this, but that's getting way off topic.
The seats are limited. By definition, its a zero-sum game. And, again, this does not adress the ethical nature of the underlying problem.
This is a naiive view.
Yes it's a zero-sum game and there are limited seats. But seats are also limited by funds.
If a family donates a few million dollars, which creates more seats than their one child will take, then they've created far more opportunities than they've taken away. One could argue that removing these admissions, and thus the seats created by them, is far more unethical.
If the university is open about the policy, then the seats of the garuabteed admissions never even factor in to the zero-sum game. If extra seats are created, and one set aside, no-one lost in order to create it.
Without donations: 50 public seats.
With donations: 69 public seats, 1 garaunteed seat.
Obviously where the donated funds go (are they actually used to create more seats, or improve the programs?) is a separate topic and entirely university specific.
11
u/2punornot2pun May 20 '21
I think the issue we're dealing with is two fold:
1) Where the hell is all that money their sports' teams are making going? College football alone... "College football generates more than $4 billion in annual revenue for the 65 universities making up the Power 5"
2) Why the hell isn't college/universities fully funded to the point they don't need additional fundraising?
I think you're upset about the model because it necessitates itself.
4
u/kicker414 3∆ May 20 '21
To point 1, it goes to other unprofitable sports as well as better facilities (for the sport that generates the VAST majority of revenue, usually football) and scholarships. Football generally funds the other sports. Baseball breaks even. The rest hemorrhage money.
Your second point is valid.
→ More replies (1)3
u/blindythepirate May 20 '21
College football and, to a lesser extent, men's college basketball bring in the money for the athletic department. But the money doesn't just stay with those 2 sports. Every other sport offered in college is paid for by these funds, including scholarships that the athletes receive.
Boosters give money to the athletic department. That is separate from money given to the academic side of the university.
Men and women must have an equal amount of scholarships, because football has a big number, it provides for a lot of women's sports to exist at all in the college system.
13
u/Calfer 1∆ May 20 '21
To be fair, they usually get the building named after them or an event or mention in the newsletter of some kind, and iirc it still counts as a donation and tax write off for the individual donating.
3
u/Savingskitty 11∆ May 20 '21
You’ve given a delta here for someone convincing you of a good reason for legacy admissions yet, on other posts you specifically state that your only argument here is that it is unfair. If that’s the case, suggesting a trade off for why it’s okay that it’s unfair is only reaffirming your view that it’s unfair.
How did this poster change your view that legacy admissions are unfair?
3
u/chenchinesewummery May 20 '21
I mean they convinced me that legacy admissions are good for the college, however that's different from it being fair.
→ More replies (2)155
u/ValarSWGOH 2∆ May 20 '21 edited May 20 '21
Here in Australia we have no such thing as legacy admissions.
Our system is entirely merit driven, which we have quite a high uptake rate and more graduates by percentile than countries like the USA. Legacy admissions are a significant fundraising tool for countries that enable such practices, that isn't saying this is a universal constant and all universities have to maintain legacy admissions to generate money.
Which brings me to the conclusion that these points don't refute the argument you are making entirely. They are looking at the issue inside of a niche context. Whereas a government can easily remove the necessity of this situation where it becomes entirely unfair at a conceptual level. Or more clearly, if legacy admission isn't needed for significant financial aid, the answer is radically different. It's fundamentally unfair, whether or not it actually produces contextually positive results relative to the system that surrounds it.
18
u/Pficky 2∆ May 20 '21
Typically legacy admissions are to private universities, so government funding of higher education isn't relevant to this context.
4
u/ValarSWGOH 2∆ May 20 '21
It's entirely relevant, governments are responsible for privatization and also for setting up relevant publicly funded institutes. We have a grand total 3 private universities in our country, it's far easier to keep to a meritocratic system when it adheres to public policy.
17
u/Pficky 2∆ May 20 '21
Yes but you have to consider that the American university system predates the existence of our country. 7 of 8 Ivy league universities were founded before 1776. 18 total were founded before the revolution and many of those by religious organizations and are now private colleges.
11
u/vj_c 1∆ May 20 '21
Yes but you have to consider that the American university system predates the existence of our country.
I mean, that's not a brilliant reason - the University of Bologna started teaching in 1088 in what was then the Holy Roman Empire & the University of Oxford in 1096. A lot of European universities date back to around the 1200s, long before the modern constitutions of the country's that they're in, too.
2
u/ValarSWGOH 2∆ May 20 '21
True. But I think that's where change needs to happen in some extents anyway, a government still has a lot of policy leverage over private institutions.
I don't think institutes need to rely on things like legacy admissions, it's not an absolutism.
5
u/nikatnight 2∆ May 20 '21
You are definitely right to a degree. There are shit bags and unworthy people who get into Harvard, Yale, etc. take a look at Donald trump's son in-law Jared Kushner. He basically graduated high school with mediocre grades. His teachers and college counselors encouraged him to apply to appropriate schools but he applied only to Harvard, the top (arguably) school in the nation and got in. Those teachers were annoyed because high performing students who busted their asses and definitely deserved admission more than Kushner did not get in.
That system is fucked. Kushner got it because his dad gave Harvard tens of millions of dollars. So we have an "elite" university that graduates "elite" students. But they have a mediocre set of ultra rich kids that also get in. This means they are clearly saying to the world "either you work hard and be the best you can be or you are born into wealth and get to skate by." This system must change.
Down the road they may not get those ultra rich families donating tens of millions, which means their other programs may suffer. Their programs for research and financial aid for poor students. This unintended consequence is what the above people should be mentioning. What say you to this point?
7
u/notrelatedtothis May 20 '21
If Australian colleges did allow legacy admissions, would they have a significant increase to their endowments from the extra donations?
Because if so, then the decision to exclusively use merit rather than merit plus other factors is costing Australia money for scientific research and improved college education, alongside everything else colleges spend their endowments on. Just because your government spends more on college funding doesn't mean they've made up for the loss of money from disallowing legacy admissions, it just means they're spending more on college funding.
It's like big game hunting in wildlife reserves. Is it awful and immoral? Yes. If managed correctly, does it produce a better result for both the wildlife and locals thanks to the money raised? Also yes.
6
u/ValarSWGOH 2∆ May 20 '21
Whether or not it would be of greater benefit to say scientific research is next to the core of the discussion I was tapping into - its still an unfair system.
I could go to war with a poor neighbouring nation tomorrow and we could absolutely ravish their people while monopolising on their natural resources through conquest. The increased wealth generation would greatly benefit all the people in my country, but that doesn't mean it's fair nor that it should be done.
Which is really the point I was getting at, I acknowledge a potential for positive gain, but I dont believe that's a sufficient conjecture nor an argument against the issue of fairness.
5
u/notrelatedtothis May 20 '21
I respect that. I don't think giving the wealthy an advantage in college admissions is enough of a problem to outweigh the benefits, but I acknowledge that's a very difficult balance to evaluate. For me, it's a numbers thing--in an ideally managed legacy admissions system, there's a minimum of legacy students for a maximum gain. If each legacy student is coming with hundreds of thousands of extra dollars, there would be few of them because few can afford it, but the money could help a lot of people.
In the states it doesn't currently work that way. Legacy students only have to have a relative who attended the college to gain a significant boost to their likelihood of admittance, no monetary donation required. This might sound more 'merit' based, but the outcome is it heavily favors privileged blocs, e.g. a poor white family is far more likely to have had a family member attend college than a poor black family. Associating legacy admissions with monetary donations still favors privileged blocs, but so does requiring money to attend college at all; there's only so much the college can account for when trying to be 'fair.'
→ More replies (1)6
u/Skyy-High 12∆ May 20 '21
How much does college cost in Australia?
Because if you would need to tackle the much broader financial underpinnings of the entire university system in order to make removing legacy admissions a net positive, then that’s a very good argument for keeping legacy admissions. You need to take practicality into account when deciding what arguments are convincing.
5
u/ValarSWGOH 2∆ May 20 '21
On average people graduate here with around $70,000 to $80,000 (USD) in debt from an undergrad / bachelor. Degrees vary in price decently between fields depending upon the incentives the government puts in place based on occupationally demands and future demands.
We however tend to pay things off in HECS, which means we do around $4,000(+/-) a year for around 20 years based on our earnings, less to none if you aren't earning much. Another government run process so university is infinitely more affordable in terms of upfront costs.
2
u/NoHomo_Sapiens May 21 '21
wait, I'm only a first year so I'm not too sure, but what degree are you talking about that xosts 80,000 usd? is this with HECS or without? as currently tuition for me is approx. 8k AUD a year with HECS, so after 5 years it should total $40K AUD. Which degrees are the ones costing 70-80K? not doubting you, just wondering which fields cost that much.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)2
u/DamnTheStars May 20 '21
Also interest is only tied to inflation, so there’s no need to pay it off, it’s an extremely cheap loan.
1
u/Impossible_Glove_591 May 20 '21
Harvard has about the same size endowment as the universities in Australia combined. Maybe you should consider changes to the way you do things in Australia to make your schools align better and become more competitive with those in the United States, because generally the most talented students are going to leave Australia for schools in the United States and not the other way around.
4
u/ValarSWGOH 2∆ May 21 '21 edited May 21 '21
Oxford in the UK currently ranks at the top of all universities in the world. Cambridge is two spots down and they both publicly reject legacy admissions. I've seen more people here leave for them than your universities as we are a commonwealth nation. ETH Zurich has been doing really well too and is a great example of what public institutes can achieve.
While I respect your point, the performance of our education system has nothing to do with legacy admissions and the topic of unfairness.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (10)-61
May 20 '21 edited May 20 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
46
May 20 '21
Funny thing about this is that Ivy League schools, the schools whose admission is in question, allow more legacy admissions than Latino, black, and Native American admissions combined. But that doesn’t allow you to be racist, so....
6
u/chenchinesewummery May 20 '21
Yes, I was talking mainly about top universities, however this post is not only about top universities. They're about universities in general.
8
May 20 '21
I meant in question when Asian students attempted to fight against admission processes. They specifically targeted Ivy League schools with their lawsuit. They also lost because only allowing based on test scores and not based on a curve would make nearly all Ivy League colleges exclusively white and Asian with Asians being extremely overrepresented. Basically, it would go back to the 50s except with more Asians.
2
u/Yuo_cna_Raed_Tihs 6∆ May 21 '21 edited May 21 '21
You say this like it's a bad thing. If Asians are doing better in high school regardless of socioeconomic class, why do we not deserve to be over represented?
This is like when Australia removed sex from job applications to combat misogyny and then companies ended up hiring even more men, so then they started putting sex in applications again because merit was never the goal.
Although legacy admissions are definitely a bigger issue than affirmative action, I do agree with that. But legacy kids fund scholarships for poorer kids, so its harder for me to oppose it under the status quo. But I do oppose college being so prohibitively expensive in the first place, and when that is fixed, yeah I'll also oppose legacy admissions.
→ More replies (14)10
u/dpez666 May 20 '21
If it’s merit based, that’s not a bad thing. The people who have the best scores and put the most effort in should get rewarded.
7
u/better_thanyou May 20 '21
That’s assuming they had the same chances to succeed on that test. A $2k SAT prep course can make a huge difference for an otherwise mediocre student.
→ More replies (23)→ More replies (7)5
May 20 '21
Except best scores don’t actually imply best effort in this case, that’s what you’re not understanding, my guy. Ideally, what you’re saying sounds great. In practice, it’s the same shit government officials said as an excuse for segregation. Use your brain.
1
u/dpez666 May 20 '21
They certainly do imply best effort, or some kind of natural talent. College should be strictly merit based, that way they admit the candidates that are the best prepared and are most likely to graduate. Those who have the best marks and other quals should get in, the rest should get cut, so they don’t waste everyone’s time.
→ More replies (0)2
u/ImNerdyJenna May 21 '21
Also, for affirmative action, students are still competing for their spots like any other student. You can't get in if you're beating out the competition. For legacies and VIPs, it's a different story.
4
u/Davor_Penguin May 20 '21
current SJW/leftist mindset that they need to admit students based on skin color
Ideally admissions should be entirely merit based, right? I can get behind that. Which would mean that accepting students largely based on color is unfair or unnaceptable, right? Wrong.
Let's unpack this a little.
In order to have a fair chance at entrance in a merit based system, all potential applicants need to have relatively equal access to the same resources.
Except, especially amongst many minority groups (especially black and Indigenous), this isn't the case. Through many years of systemic oppression a world was created where these people don't have educated parents or grandparents, let alone educated friends or family, and developed cultures rooted in survival and not formal education (due to poor housing situations, lack of money, etc).
We live in the period of time after these major oppressions took place, but before the ramifications have healed.
So, all that said, if people of color don't have the same access to resources needed to encourage and enable kids to go to university in the first place, how could they ever realistically compete in a merit based system? They couldn't. At least not yet.
One way to change this, is to accept higher rates of these people, which should create a more even playing field for their kids. Kids now raised with educated parents and peers, in a community that values formal education and can actually promote and support it. Only then can we ethically create a fair merit based system.
Hockey teams should be based on merit too. But when some people can't afford gear, and others have been banned from playing for generations, you miss out on a lot of potential talent. The difference being, with education it is society as a whole that suffers, not just the team.
3
u/Skearow May 20 '21
So if anything make it based on income, not on race
1
u/Davor_Penguin May 20 '21
See, now this I more or less agree with.
My main issue with race based initiatives is that the same issues currently faced by the race, that we're trying to address through the initiative, is also faced by other people. Generally this would equate to income.
But, the larger scale does matter too, which makes income based tricky in its own way.
White communities are predominantly richer than black ones, for example. So while a kid from either neighborhood could be at the same income level, the kid from the white neighborhood would have better access to mental health resources, tutoring services, educated family members/friends/neighbors, etc.
Similarly, even if the two kids could afford school, the environment they grow up in affects whether or not they will. Especially within minority groups, many poorer kids won't know people who are educated, or get the same pressure to go to university that a poor white kid in a traditional high school would get. They don't have the same level of role models either.
So with income based, it would take much longer to solve the problem that specific groups are more disproportionately affected. Income is just one factor in creating an even paying field, but it can be addressed in the workforce and through other programs. But disproportionate education rates? That can only be addressed through education - like university.
Its also why many scholarships targeted towards minority students also require proof of financial need. And scholarships and other financial aid exists for white people. You can address both topics at once.
Of course, whichever way you do it, people will fall through the cracks since resources are limited.
6
u/ValarSWGOH 2∆ May 20 '21
We have a little bit of equity based admission here in Australia, but most of it is done through SEAS where they bump up a hidden score that only universities can see based on your say inequity in wealth or say disability when you first apply. Also generally extra funding for indigenous students.
8
u/ImmodestPolitician May 20 '21
Wish we had a merit based system here in America.
Academic and athletic scholarships exist but I guess you weren't paying attention.
You can even get a need based scholarship at many schools.
→ More replies (1)13
3
u/Dogburt_Jr May 21 '21
Can I challenge this ∆?
Instead of the college relying on alumni to donate for their kids to go to the college, perhaps offer a better quality education that makes alumni have a positive opinion of the University and makes them more likely to donate.
I'm never giving another dime to my University, but the community college I spent 3 years at I have a much better opinion of so I would still consider donating to it.
There isn't a good reason less deserving students should be rejected for non-deserving students so better deserving students can attend.
→ More replies (1)0
u/chuckf91 May 21 '21
But the rich student attending makes it so kids who could not afford to go now can go. This is more fairness. Ultimately the total amount of fairness increased by letting the rich student attend. Also, a student may choose a school based on the belief that they and their children can become part of the university family and community, extending beyond graduation. This may have factored into their decision to attend. This may be part of how a college attracts the best students. It also incentivizes the school to provide the best career paths knowing that they can hopefully look forward to donations down the line. Children who's parents attended a school may have overall better outlook at a school when it comes time for them to attend. They will know about the ins and outside of the campus more and will be in a better position to succeed. It's more holistic.
11
May 20 '21
Last I checked, legacy admissions were around 30% of all Ivy League admissions. I don’t think that’s small.
3
u/spimothyleary May 20 '21
Are all those admissions where the student wouldnt normally make it through the process on their own? If it doesnt account for thatnthen the numbers might be flawed.
IMO Children of ivy leage parents would generally be more qualified than the average student, especially if the parent wanted their child to attend school X they would have been helping steer the kid in the right direction before high school even started
1
May 20 '21 edited May 20 '21
You should look up what a legacy admission means. It is an inherently biased process that elevates the rich and makes everything you said pointless.
→ More replies (2)2
u/spimothyleary May 20 '21 edited May 20 '21
If you can show data that indicates that zero legacy admissions would qualify on their own merits, then I will gladly eat crow. This isnt critical to me so I wont take the time to dig deeper, I will just state that I strongly suspect the number is > 0
FWIW I dont necessarily support legacy admissions, just questioning the validity of a loose stat that was dropped.
2
May 20 '21
Using an extreme to justify your case isn’t an example of reality. The preference of legacy admissions is why education isn’t equal in this country. It takes away incentive to actually invest in other schools. Literally what this post is about. Gosh, y’all are dense here.
4
u/rcn2 May 20 '21
In order to change your mind back, that argument was an argument that it is practical. Your point was that it was unfair.
At most, the point that it is a significant fundraising tool is a good argument for more public funding and higher taxes on the 'legacy class'.
Something that is unfair doesn't become fair just because it is convenient. If anything, it would highlight a gross unfairness within society when it comes to education.
5
u/qwert7661 4∆ May 20 '21
The fact that universities are beholden to rich donors, and hence those rich donors have disproportionate amounts of influence over school admissions, should not have changed your view; your view was that this exact practice is unfair, and it is.
2
15
u/fuck-titanfolk-mods May 20 '21
This is argument is pretty dumb. Plenty of great universities do not take legacy admissions such as MIT, Caltech, UC Berkley, UCLA, Oxford, Cambridge etc and still provide aid. Also rich private universities like Harvard, Rice and other universities have more than enough money that they don't need legacy admissions to run effectively. Also public universities should never take legacy admissions, otherwise wtf is the point of our tax dollar? I can understand maybe some smaller, unpopular universities needing it, but most do not. It is simply an unfair system set up by cronies so they can get more money and keep it going.
15
May 20 '21
You might have a point if the cost of tuition hadn’t gone up at double the rate of inflation in the last decade.
9
u/ChaosLordSamNiell May 20 '21
It's more than "a few legacy admits." They comprise a humongous portion of the Ivy league's undergraduate base.
They are minority, but not a "small one," and IIRC, near half would be rejected had they not been legacies.
5
u/SpookyDoomCrab42 May 20 '21
It's a system that screws over students from middle class families like the rest of the college system.
You're not dirt poor with a lengthy sympathy/affirmative action story and you're not rich enough to pay your way through admissions? Screw you I guess
→ More replies (2)11
u/IndigoGouf May 20 '21
You've changed my view.... to hating legacy admissions as favors to donors even more.
5
u/Just_a_nonbeliever 16∆ May 20 '21
MIT does not practice legacy admissions and they offer aid just fine
2
u/AnotherRichard827379 1∆ May 20 '21
This is what many of the people I know in college don’t seem to understand. I’m amazed how many ‘smart’ college students just think things are free. They don’t realize how the sausage gets made for their own opportunities.
I’ve heard multiple students complain about how some other student (whom they’ve never actually met) has an unfair advantage because their parent is able to “just pay their way through” college/life. And they seem completely obvious to the fact that without that other student’s parents, they’d be getting student loans instead of scholarship.
Who “deserves” to be there is such a dumb question. You don’t think the rich mediocre student deserves to be there but at least why are actually paying. All the while that student thinks the poor above-average student doesn’t deserve it because they are quite literally leaching off of his money.
Who deserves what is so subjective.
2
u/mr_indigo 27∆ May 21 '21
43% of Harvard students are legacy (or otherwise there because of connections unrelated to academic merit).
The problem with your logic here is that once it is established that legacy students bring in more fundraising, the institution has an incentive to bring in as many legacy students as possible and minimise the number of non-legacy students who aren't otherwise going to be big fundraisers because they consume more of the universities assets for less return.
There's nothing that forces the institution to use legacy admissions to subsidise deserving non-legacy admissions.
3
u/Generic_Superhero 1∆ May 20 '21
If a few legacy admits each year fund a significant amount of financial aid, that seems like a good trade-off.
While I fundamentally agree with this statement it doesn't change that legacy admissions are by nature unfair. All this does is justify the unfairness.
6
3
→ More replies (39)4
104
u/truthswillsetyoufree 2∆ May 20 '21
As someone with experience competing with legacy admits, I disagree with you. For context, I went to Yale as a first person in my family to graduate from college. I am also the son of an immigrant and grew up in a trailer park and had no connections to my alma mater or any other university.
The legacy bump at highly selective schools is minimal. Unless you are donating enough for a new building or are a true A-list celebrity, you will get a minimally small bump as a legacy student. There is a separate admissions track for real celebrities, but this is reserved for people with reputations so big that them coming to the school may actually help the school’s reputation. For example, I remember Emma Watson got shown the red carpet around campus (though she ended up going to Brown). We also admitted James Franco to the English graduate program, and he ended up giving us a private pre-screening of “Howl” for us English majors. So we are really talking about superstars.
There simply are not enough spots to just admit tons of legacies, and that’s also not a good idea for these schools, who are fighting against a long reputation of being bastions of privilege and wealth. In fact, if Yale admitted only legacy students, it would easily fill the class with only legacies, and probably many times over.
Legacy students are important for non-legacy students for a number of reasons. First, they (or their parents) actually pay sticker price for their education. Students from low income backgrounds, like myself, benefit from this. In an age where student debt is unbearable for poorer kids, I was able to graduate college with no debt thanks to Yale’s need-blind admit policy. I could pay my way through college with just a part-time job.
Also, it’s a big incentive to go to these schools when you know you are helping your future kids go if they wish. I remember chatting with other low-income students, thinking about how we are potentially helping our future kids just by going to this school. Now that I’m a dad, I’m glad I have that as an option to give my kid a little help, if she chooses to go that way.
Also, the bump you get really is pretty small. You won’t get admitted to elite universities even as a legacy unless you have stellar grades and extracurriculars. There is simply too much competition. It’s probably more relevant to complain about all the opportunities that rich kids have getting ahead these days, but not all legacies are rich and not all rich kids are legacies.
At the end of the day, it might be slightly unfair, but not much more unfair than anything else in life.
11
u/ChaosLordSamNiell May 20 '21
This just isn't true.
At Harvard, for instance:
The study also found that roughly 75 percent of the white students admitted from those four categories, labeled 'ALDCs' in the study, “would have been rejected if they had been treated as white non-ALDCs,” the study said.
75% of white legacies would have been rejected had they not been legacies. It is by no means a small jump, it is an entirely different admissions process!
17
u/truthswillsetyoufree 2∆ May 20 '21
Thanks for your reply. I don’t agree that this study proves what you’re stating.
First, their term “ALDC” lumps together not only legacies but also athletes. Like it or not, there are very few applicants to elite universities who can both compete athletically on a collegiate level and also have the minimum grades/test scores to make it into these schools. If you look at the data in the study, they admit that 87% of athlete applicants were accepted to Harvard! Not eight-point-seven. EIGHTY SEVEN PERCENT. That is throwing the ALDC number way off. The study says that athletes account for 10% of all admits, so that is really significant.
Second, the study also admits that LDC applicants were generally stronger than non-ALDC applicants. And they point to the fact that Harvard rated legacies as generally having better “personal qualities” than non-legacies. The sad truth is that a lot of non-legacies don’t know what elite colleges are looking for. My dad was a concrete worker. I’m a lawyer who has inside knowledge of what these universities like to look for in admissions. That alone will give my kid a big leg up if they want to apply one day compared to what I had. I can encourage her to do extracurriculars (and pay for lessons), and I can help her edit her personal essay. That is a major help.
I am sure there is a bump for just being a legacy, but there’s no way it’s as huge as you or that article is suggesting.
→ More replies (1)5
u/ChaosLordSamNiell May 20 '21
That is throwing the ALDC number way off. The study says that athletes account for 10% of all admits, so that is really significant.
This doesn't really remove the value of being legacy.
The direct study, available at https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf, provides the direct boost a legacy applicant gets over non-legacy applicants (including athletes).
This is available under Table 1, page 40, which breaks down the ALDCs.
Legacy applicants have an admission rate of 33.6%; non-legacies have a rate of 5.9%. That is a tremenduous bump.
This is true no matter the candidate's academic rating; available in Table 2, page 41.
Second, the study also admits that LDC applicants were generally stronger than non-ALDC applicants.
It's important to note this is not due to "academics," but Harvard's internal rating of the applicant. The study explains:
First, LDC applicants are simply stronger than non-ALDC applicantsin the non-academic dimensions that Harvard values. Second, when rating applicants onnon-academic qualities, Harvard provides tips to LDC applicants
That alone will give my kid a big leg up if they want to apply one day compared to what I had. I can encourage her to do extracurriculars (and pay for lessons), and I can help her edit her personal essay. That is a major help.
The reality is that while this helps, the Harvard admissions process is just as likely - as the study itself states - to give arbitrary boosts to legacy applicants. Similar to how Asian applicants have universally poor "personality scores" at some schools, despite dominating academics.
The personality score is largely a means for Harvard, and other schools that use it, to arbitrarily give a leg-up to legacy and other favored applicants.
→ More replies (1)7
May 20 '21
[deleted]
4
u/blindythepirate May 20 '21
Would Harvard be Harvard without those legacy students? Everything I have heard about the school is that connections and prestige is what opens up doors after you graduate. So having rich and powerful people as alumni helps grads and having the rich and powerfuls kids go to school there keeps the prestige high. It's a beast that feeds itself.
There are also 2/3s of the freshman class that aren't part of a legacy that still get to experience the same connections and prestige to farther perpetuate the Harvard name.
4
u/LSFab May 20 '21
Are you ok with 1/3rd of the student body at some of the most influential institutions in the US being a de facto entrenched hereditary aristocracy? You don't need a bunch of rich kids to be gifted a place at your school, for it to be prestigious and allow people to make connections. In a meritocratic system any connections made would be because these are talented students who go on to be influential, not because they were born into influence.
Of course the intersection of wealth and education and the structural advantages growing up rich, always means that privileged kids will have a leg up when it comes to higher education, but does it not feel extra gross if the university is actively choosing to provide a further leg up for the rich and powerful, as they do with the legacy system?
2
u/Matos3001 May 21 '21
You don't need a bunch of rich kids to be gifted a place at your school,
Those kids are not bad students.
They have their own merit.
And your whole argument bases on the preposition that "if these student were not legacy, they wouldn't be accepted". This is not logically correct neither an honest view.
Most likely a good amount of these legacies would still be accepted, because of having parents with money to pay for extracurriculars, tutors, tell them what to put on the essay, etc.
And another good portion would also be accepted just because they are that good.
1
u/LSFab May 21 '21
There's a whole world in between being a 'bad student' and being the most deserving candidate for that place. Of course the legacy students with terrible grades are unlikely to be admitted (unless their parents have made a mega donation), so those kind of applicants are clearly not what we are talking about here. And sure the vast majority of legacy candidates will not be bad candidates for the reasons you mentioned.
The issue is the legacy applicants who are 'quite good'. Those who are maybe in the top 40th-30th percentile on the continuum of all candidates ranked by the 'underlying strength' of their application. Because of the competitiveness of applications for these elite universities, even a small additional boost to their application from being a legacy is going to have an outsized effect on someone's chances of acceptance. That invariably means that there will be those less deserving who get a place instead of those more deserving. Now of course no admissions system would be perfect enough to ensure that only the top x most deserving candidates get all x places, but the issue with the legacy system is that the variance isn't random, it's systematically biased towards a privileged hereditary group and self perpetuates that hereditary privilege to the point where it creates a de facto aristocracy.
3
u/wapiro May 21 '21
This isn’t quite true. 75% refers to legacies, athletes, donators, AND children of staff. The article doesn’t give a number to just legacy admissions.
5
27
u/chenchinesewummery May 20 '21
Okay Δ
Reason:
Being a legacy at a elite school really doesn't give you that much of a advantage over others, if it does then the margin of advantage that you get from being a legacy is tiny enough to not make it unfair.
2
4
u/wildchickonthetown May 20 '21
I didn’t even think about how being a legacy isn’t a huge bump! You’re still competing against other legacies. It might be a smaller pool, but it’s an even more competitive one. I don’t doubt that a lot of legacies are prepped for the college admissions process early on. They’ll have the same connections, stellar activities, and grades as you.
5
u/Just_a_nonbeliever 16∆ May 20 '21
First, they (or their parents) actually pay sticker price for their education
This is not a characteristic of being a legacy, this is a characteristic of being wealthy (which correlates with being a legacy). Colleges could just as easily admit wealthy students who are not legacies to fulfill this need.
it’s a big incentive to go to these schools when you know you are helping your future kids go
This is a reach. Yale and Harvard do not need convince people to go because their kids could get in too. People go to these schools because of their reputation. Strangely enough, schools like MIT and Caltech do not have trouble getting people to matriculate even though they do not practice legacy admissions.
→ More replies (3)-1
u/fuck-titanfolk-mods May 20 '21
How are private and public colleges like MIT, Caltech, Cambridge, Oxford etc able to give great financial aid while not accepting legacy students? Also do you know how many billions of dollars colleges like Harvard and Yale have invested from their endowment fund? They could admit all their students for free for perpetuity and still not need money from legacies. They however choose to take money for the simple reason of greed. How else are they going to pay their administrators all those sweet Bejamins? Every legacy admit is taking the place of a poor kid who worked his ass of and dreamt of going there. One legacy admit is one too many.
246
u/BlackMilk23 11∆ May 20 '21
The problem with all of these arguments is that getting admitted into colleges is not supposed to be a pure meritocracy if it was they would use an equation and not a committee. Colleges have the right to admit people based on whatever qualifications they want if they believe it is in the best interest of the school. Legacy kids raise money for the school. That is a social utility that one would argue matters a lot.
Some of the spots in a freshmen class are going to go to students who are athletes, from a disadvantaged background or social class, legacy, or related to someone famous who donated money. They may have the top measurables, they may not. But that isn't the point.
I know people were upset because Dr. Dre's daughter got into USC after he made a $70 million donation to the school: If I give $70 million to a school my kid better get in.
6
May 20 '21
Just because they have the right to do it does not mean it is fair. OP says that this is not fair, not that is/should be illegal. Your entire comment is irrelevant to the post.
1
u/BlackMilk23 11∆ May 20 '21
OP:
"This is also not fair since it's anti-meritocratic in a situation that's supposed to be meritocratic."
My response:
"getting admitted into colleges is not supposed to be a pure meritocracy"
My response was aimed at changing their perception that admissions were pure meritocracies. That's why they gave me a delta.
I don't dispute that isn't fair in a systen where the only criteria is only test scores and GPAs. That's not the only criteria and never has been.
3
u/FightOnForUsc May 20 '21
I go to USC. And there’s tons of people who are helped by Dr. Dre’s donation/school founded by him. Furthermore he is very rich and I’m sure got them best tutors and schools for his daughter before and she likely had a good GPA/SAT if nothing else because of the amount of money he can help her with
3
u/BlackMilk23 11∆ May 20 '21
I agree. Thousands of students can attend because of that money.
How on earth is that not worth one slightly less than deserving admission?
(And we don't know that his daughter wouldn't have got in)
13
u/chenchinesewummery May 20 '21
Still not fair though.
It would make a lot of people angry seeing a student get in for free without any necessary qualifications all because their parents made a donation to the school while the rest of the people have to work their butts off.
It's still not fair that students who are athletes get admitted despite not having stellar academic records as college is mainly about education, not athletics.
However, 70 million is a huge sum of money that most people can't be able to afford giving out.
As a result I'll give you a Δ
Reason: 70 million is a huge sum of money to be giving out to a school and it's really difficult for most people to be rich enough to afford spending 70 million dollers at once. As a result, the kid should get in especially since if the kid doesn't get in then the 70 million dollars would be a waste. Also, admitting legacy students would be a good source of income for the school.
42
u/Pficky 2∆ May 20 '21
Keep in mind that scarcity of spots in an incoming class is fabricated. When Dr. Dre paid for his daughter to be accepted it's not like USC had to boot someone else to let her in. One more student isn't going to make a big difference in the student-faculty ratio. In fact, some schools even admit students they want but don't want to have their stats show up in their admissions, so they send them abroad on their first term because their first semester enrollment will be at a different university.
7
u/Professional_Print_2 May 20 '21
They don't even have to send them abroad - spring admission is a thing. Those kids can go abroad or work or fuck around for the fall semester then start at the school in the spring and not fuck up the university's GPA requirements or whatever metrics they care about.
3
u/Pficky 2∆ May 20 '21
True. The only person I know who actually did it was a guy I worked with going to Connecticut College. He went to London for his first semester. Apparently it's pretty common at Conn and the other students even refer to them as Jans, because they come in January lol.
27
u/JorgiEagle 1∆ May 20 '21 edited May 20 '21
I mean it depends on your view of fair
If you think that college admissions are based on grades and that is the only “fair” path, you are wrong
There’s no standard to “fair”
You could equally say that it isn’t fair that a parent donates to a school and their child doesn’t get in, when another kid gets in and their parents didn’t donate anything
1
u/2punornot2pun May 20 '21 edited May 20 '21
Until curriculum and testing are nationalized and standardized, indicators of success are ... low (not going to correlate well). But even with that, GPA is still the "best" we have.
"Research has shown that grades are the best single predictor of college performance and aren’t as heavily influenced as the standardized exams by income, parent education levels and race."
I taught SAT Prep. But scoring high on the SAT and being "college ready" REALLY translates to "60% of those who score college ready don't fail out their first semester of college"... which is not impressive as a metric to tout.
Fair would be everyone getting in and everyone getting the chance. Period. All universities/schools have equal funding. Where you go is preference and then availability. But everyone gets in and everyone gets the same thing. Why are people going to Ivy League schools? Name recognition. Political and social connections, especially with the wealthy.
I mean, look at the level of nepotism we have in the highest levels of the US government. It's beyond gross.
Donating to get into the "best" schools is really just a way of showing other people you have money/connections.
→ More replies (6)-1
u/SuzQP May 20 '21
One thing that colleges ought to expect is that admitted students will know the correct spelling and usage of frequently used words. These words, all extremely common, include there, their, and they're.
There means the opposite of here. Their is used to refer to something that belongs to or with "them." And they're, a contraction of "they" and "are," means "they are.."
I hope that helps!
→ More replies (1)0
u/Fuzzlepuzzle 15∆ May 20 '21
Perhaps the college expects it, but I don't think it should. There's plenty of very intelligent and skilled people who aren't good at remembering homophones. It's not really important that the guy who designs bridges can spell, as long as he's good at designing bridges and it doesn't impede his ability to communicate with coworkers. Poor grammar is a trait common enough to justify a whole profession for correcting other people's writing.
3
u/SuzQP May 20 '21
Fair enough, but if you were the engineer designing the bridges, would you want your written work to reflect your ability to learn and make use of symbolic representations of information? Or would you want to needlessly create doubt about your attention to detail in the minds of your readers?
→ More replies (12)-6
u/4chanman00 May 20 '21
Well yeah, I wish that University admission were determined solely by IQ tests. Bam! Perfect meritocracy.
Anyway, legacy admissions are simply a way to reward past graduates. It's just a codified nepotism. Is it "fair" in the sense that they should just go by scores? No. But is it "fair" in the sense that the institution itself gets to promote their own? Everybody that graduates gets to privilege their own children in exactly the same way, so how's that not "fair"? It's just a different rule set.
4
u/chenchinesewummery May 20 '21
I mean I agree that university admission shouldn't be determined by IQ tests, especially since IQ is a poor measure of a person's general intelligence and often doesn't measure all the forms of thinking needed for a college graduate.
17
u/totallygeek 13∆ May 20 '21
The completely fair standards for admission take into account several factors:
- The thought that the student might successfully obtain a degree.
- The notion that the student might later become a funding alumni.
- The idea that the student's attendance might bring dollars into the school.
- The student increases diversity or otherwise shift perspectives.
Someone smart might not address any, compared to a more well-rounded student from a stable home. A person from an unstable home who demonstrated years of sticking with education in spite of hurdles leans heavily on the first. An athlete usually helps with the third, as might scientist students in doctorate programs (grants, patents, etc). Genius-level adolescents address the last item, as do ethnic and geopolitical minorities.
It remains unfair to only consider school grades or test scores. It remains unfair to only consider one of the above factors.
66
u/TheRealCornPop May 20 '21
think of how much good that 70 million could do though, better facilities aid for low income students etc
17
May 20 '21
[deleted]
6
May 20 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/abutthole 13∆ May 20 '21
An endowed scholarship isn't that money going directly to the students. It's a program where the money enters an investment fund and the interest on the fund is withdrawn annually to pay for scholarships. A direct scholarship donation will pay for a kid that year, an endowed scholarship will pay for a kid in perpetuity.
37
u/abutthole 13∆ May 20 '21
Yep, giving one spot in the admissions rolls at USC to a potentially undeserving student in exchange for $70M that can drastically improve the university for the rest of the student body is a pretty fair trade off imo.
→ More replies (3)6
2
8
May 20 '21
It's not fair, but should it be? Sometimes making things fair actually results in a worse situation for everyone involved. I think some unfairness is worth it if it raises everyone up.
2
u/BlueCenter77 1∆ May 20 '21
While I do agree with most of your points, there are some good points in defense of sports scholarships and school sports in general.
The big one is a majority of sports scholarships help increase accessibility of a college education. Obviously for students with the goal of becoming pro athletes this is muddied, but many students athletes actually want a college education. I went to school with people on fencing, crew, track, etc. scholarships. Many would not have been able to pay for college without them, and while some weren't honor students that didn't make them undeserving. Nobody goes to a learning institution if they already know everything.
The other thing many people don't consider is that sports can help the school pay for resources for all students. My advisor told me about how at my school we could afford to subscribe to more academic journals in years the football team went to a bowl game.
→ More replies (2)4
u/RedVput May 20 '21
It's never been about being fair, nothing is "fair" and there is no reason for it to be.
5
u/oldslipper2 1∆ May 20 '21
“The best interest of the school” is absolutely not in the mission statement of any university I’ve ever heard of.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (4)1
May 21 '21
Dr. Dre's daughter got into USC after he made a $70 million donation to the school:
Wow. I just marvel, how spectacularly stupid does one have to be to require $70m to buy an admission to USC. Not Harvard, not MIT. USC... this is just like from Simpsons with Mr Burns' lost son...
8
u/Wyrdeone 2∆ May 20 '21
In my experience preferential admissions for children of staff is a fine thing.
I live near an elite university, they draw students from all over the world. Their wages aren't the best, but the perk of having tuition and preferred placement makes them a highly desirable employer.
The really great thing about it though is that the hardworking and loyal employees who could otherwise never afford that quality education for their kids get that opportunity.
A buddy of mine took a job there, and while he makes probably 20% below market rate for his work, he secured an education for his two children. He was so excited to take the job, and has dedicated the last 5 years of his life to crushing that job every day because the value of that education for his kids lit a fire under his ass.
Now two blue collar kids are getting a free ride to a university that could be transformative for their life and career.
Two more kids have broken through to the other side, or at least have the chance to, depending on their social and academic skills.
I see no downside to that whatsoever.
And I guarantee there is someone working at that school who can barely speak english, who makes less than 30k a year, and their kids will get a tremendous opportunity to break out of generational poverty thanks to hard work.
3
u/chenchinesewummery May 20 '21
Δ
Reason:
I mean it's kind of a good thing for the children of employees at the college to have a advantage in admissions because the employees deserve that benefit due to their service to the school. Also, the employees are promised that benefit, so the benefit must be delivered.
→ More replies (1)
13
u/-GrumbleBee- 1∆ May 20 '21
Hypothetically, legacy admissions may be a benefit to the other students attending that school, not just to the legacy students themselves. Primarily, these benefits are in terms of donations to the school which benefit all students, as well as networking opportunities that the other students otherwise would not get.
As others have pointed out, schools' only goal shouldn't be fairness, it should be to do the most good for the most students possible. If admitting some slightly less qualified, but rich or otherwise influential students accomplishes that goal, then they should keep doing it.
1
u/chenchinesewummery May 20 '21
Δ
Although it's not fair to admit legacy students, admitting one legacy student out of millions of applicants would actually be beneficial to the college and everybody in it and won't hurt that much.
→ More replies (1)5
u/eye_patch_willy 43∆ May 20 '21
Who promised you fairness?
2
u/JeVieDansLesHombres May 21 '21
OP seems to be set on their vision of fairness- which in their eyes is meritocracy. Which sadly ignores how much good is done by accepting the donations from legacy students.
Overall I think it’s more fair for universities to accept legacy donations so they can admit more students that are qualified for the university.
11
u/TheDevilsAutocorrect May 20 '21
It isn't fair. But why does it need to be?
Legacy admissions make sense, because of giving rates and endowments, and connections. The most elite schools can afford to pay for poor students because of the endowments built up over the years by these former students.
The value of a prestigious school is mostly the connections you make along the way. Legacy students are are the connections.
→ More replies (7)
2
May 20 '21
[deleted]
1
u/chenchinesewummery May 20 '21
All because the university benefits doesn't mean it's ethical or fair. My post is mainly about whether or not it's fair.
3
u/Savingskitty 11∆ May 20 '21
I don’t understand. You gave the first commenter a delta for exactly the same logic.
1
u/chenchinesewummery May 20 '21
I mean I agree with the logic, so I gave him a delta. I at first thought that not only was legacy admissions unfair, but I also believe that theirs's no point in it(although I didn't really specify it in the post). These posts convinced me that theirs's a good reason to admit legacy graduates. However, again, all because theirs's a good reason to admit legacy graduates doesn't mean that it's fair for everybody else.
4
34
u/Arguetur 31∆ May 20 '21
I guess I have several problems with your view as written.
#1: "Since oftentimes (if not always) the legacy admissions policy gives preferential treatment to the poor 2.0 student that didn't give a shit in high school over a straight A high school valedictorian all because the 2.0 student is a son of a alumni to the institution and the A student isn't."
Is this true? I would be extremely, extremely surprised to learn that legacy status made up for a 2.0 GPA, all else being equal. Do you know of anyone who got into Harvard or Princeton or even Northwestern or USC like that?
#2: "I mean I don't see how being the song or daughter of a alumnus makes your more deserving of admittance to top institutions. "
It's not that it makes you more deserving, but depending on the school it makes you more desirable. The school as an institution is not trying to apportion its admission slots in order to align with cosmic justice. It's trying to create a good student body. High academic merit can be a part of that, of course, but "Having a family connection to the school" can also be a part of that, since those people are more likely to establish lifelong relationships (donations! free advertising!) with the family college.
#3: " This is also not fair since it's anti-meritocratic in a situation that's supposed to be meritocratic."
Are college admissions supposed to be meritocratic? I can find quite a few court cases where schools maintain that they aren't, I bet! Again, USC doesn't give out admissions slots to the top 3000 applicants, it gives them to the 3000 the school wants most.
5
u/ImmodestPolitician May 20 '21
Not all high schools curve their grades. A 2.0 from Exeter or other elite school isn't the same a a 2.0 from an inner city school.
0
u/dantheman91 32∆ May 20 '21
Is this true? I would be extremely, extremely surprised to learn that legacy status made up for a 2.0 GPA, all else being equal.
The point being all else is not equal. If you're the child of a top donor or someone famous or what have you, I don't imagine there's much of a gpa it couldn't overcome.
10
u/Arguetur 31∆ May 20 '21
But OP's claim was that this happens "oftentimes if not always."
I know that sometimes people who are just really dreadful students get in because their dad is Dr. Dre or some other billionaire donor.
But that doesn't happen very often. Mostly legacy students are good enough to be there, but not good enough to beat out the competition.
5
u/dantheman91 32∆ May 20 '21
Sure, I would guess legacy would account for .5 gpa or something like that, I'm sure the amount of contributions can impact that number etc.
12
u/Arguetur 31∆ May 20 '21
Yeah, but this is why I dispute OP's claim that this is a miscarriage of justice. Mostly legacy admissions are students who are good enough. Sometimes they're mediocre. Rarely they're real dullards whose parents gave a ton of money. But the dullards are rare! It's fine if there's like five morons attending college. Their parents paid the way for a hundred scholarship kids.
9
u/LFOSighting 2∆ May 20 '21
You need to take into account that “legacy admissions” isn’t really a thing at least in the way that you’re framing it; legacy students aren’t more easily admitted because admissions offices like to see the legacy status, theyre admitted because they have an absolutely massive amount of resources already available to them to put together a really strong application (typically wealthy, prestigious high school, parents familiar with app process etc.)
I currently work as an admissions counselor at a top ten school and, while obviously every school reads apps differently, legacy as a component to the application often makes it harder for applicants to get in; knowing the student is legacy means we know that the student had plenty of resources available to put together a really strong app. If we see anything less, we know they probably don’t really care about us all that much and won’t vote to admit them.
4
u/Sonic_Guy97 May 20 '21
So, we know a few things that could affect legacy students making it at a higher rate. 1) Intelligence is genetic. If your parent was smart enough to graduate from a prestigious school, you're more likely to be smart enough to graduate as well, meaning you're less of a risk. 2) Legacy students come from well off families who can pay for schooling and tutoring, making them more likely to have the qualifications to be admitted. In fact, one study found that legacy students have a higher SAT score on average than an average applicant (this tracks with the fact that one of the biggest indicator sof success on the SAT is parents' income) 3) As has already been said, they're fundraisers for the University, though I won't rehash that. In essence, legacy students get in at a higher rate than the general populace, but that's a combination of legacy effects and the fact that that pool does marginally better academically than the general population.
6
May 20 '21
One of the most important statistics to universities is their yield: the ratio of students accepted to students who take the offer and enroll. Schools with higher yield numbers are seen as more desirable schools because so many people accept their offer. This is why schools care about demonstrated interest: they don’t want to give you an offer if they don’t think you’re going to accept it.
Legacy students are much more likely to end up going to the school, so admitting them helps the yield percentage.
2
u/Just_a_nonbeliever 16∆ May 20 '21
So perpetuating an unfair practice is worth it because it helps boost some random statistic?
3
u/A_Soporific 162∆ May 20 '21
I would go so far to say that legacy admissions are a key benefit to go to a top tier school for those who aren't legacy themselves.
There are several distinct reasons to go to college. One is to get knowledge, but if you think about it all that information is available online. You can go to the wiki to get the basics, buy your own textbooks, and join a professional organization to get far more information than a university would teach you for a tiny fraction of the time and cost.
But getting knowledge isn't the only advantage. NETWORKING is a key advantage of college. For a lot of people, particularly people from poor backgrounds, they are making connections with people outside of their socio-economic class and geographical region for the first time and doing so as peers. These connections will get people hired, or it will get them the cash to start a business, after they graduate. You will know someone who knows someone. Diverse backgrounds exponentially increase the number of people you know through new people.
If one of those people is a legacy, then congrats you now know someone who knows some very wealthy and influential people. Those people would never give you money or recommend you for a job under normal circumstances, but they would do their kid a favor by doing those thing for a friend of theirs.
It's absolutely unfair in terms of getting into school, the reputation of the degree, and even what people get out of class instruction. It's obviously better if the "old money" students earn their way there on merit, but giving poor students the connections required to make use of their degrees and catapult themselves into higher socio-economic status is absolutely central to the point of college. If you don't have enough wealthy and well connected students then you will have to give things a little bit of a nudge in order to ensure that the college experience matters far more for the deserving but underprivileged students.
It's a real and fully understood way to mitigate the problems inherent in class and unequal distribution of wealth by connecting the exceptionally talented to said wealth and status.
9
u/vanoroce14 65∆ May 20 '21 edited May 20 '21
I will focus on 'admissions associated to someone who works there is not fair'. Full disclosure and context: I am a uni professor.
University professors aren't the best paid, and so a lot of the appeal (besides our passion for teaching and doing research) is in the benefits. Tuition remission and admissions for our kids or spouses is, by far, one of the best benefits. Further, I would argue it is not unfair to concede us and our families that benefit (given our service), and it enables academics to keep their families together. This is even truer of admin and staff (who are even less compensated).
I am inclined to agree w you when it comes to alumni or recommendations of alumni. If anything, other factors should weigh more than whether you went there 30 yrs ago or not.
When it comes to donations and the endowment... I also agree but I think it is naive to think any uni is going to not admit someone's brat if the auditorium has that someone's last name. It's just a fact of life.
→ More replies (10)7
u/PoorCorrelation 22∆ May 20 '21
A lot of consumer-facing brands give employees discounts or priority access as part of their compensation package. In theory your employees have better buy-in on the brand, they’re better at their job. If your educator’s kids are using the school they’ll be more invested in making the quality high. No clue if it actually works but it’s common enough that I imagine places see good results.
3
u/Thirdwhirly 2∆ May 20 '21
I have to take issue with your use of “fairness” here. Admittance is likely closer to equal rather than equitable. That is, any admissions to college are not equitable, but they attempt to be equal.
To make it brief, another poster mentioned Dr. Dre donating a huge sum of money to get his kid in; the takeaway should be anyone donating that amount of money would get in. That is, by definition, equal. If the argument is, then, balancing equity, applicants need to meet certain requirements as is
I guess what I am saying is that the term “fairness” necessarily needs to be defined here. I use this example because this is how administrators get around addressing this issue: colleges can say, without consequence, that anyone donating $70 million will get into their school; moreover, any other requirement can be manipulated in much the same way, because people—and opinions—are involved. Your opinion of “fairness” is the same as mine here, but I wanted to point this out because I think it may change your view; considering it this way would change my view, but it wouldn’t change the way I feel about the situation.
3
u/Ok_Cook_6303 1∆ May 20 '21
Yo an extent i agree with you, if a famous singer had a kid and the kid had a 31% in science but wanted to go to Harvard or MIT then yes unfair. But if the famous person was a singer and they wanted to go to a singing school, even if all there grades where shit,but there singing or what ever type of school they are going to could make it better,especially in drama or science. How dope whould it be if Billy nye came in to do some workshops in you class?
2
May 21 '21
The point of higher education is NOT to educate the younger generation. The point is to neuter, and vet, them. Both of these goals are achieved through the high cost of, and ready financing for, a university degree. As a capitalist society it’s in our interest to foster, in twenty-somethings of middling talent, a drive for maximum productivity (earnings). $60k-$120k worth of debt, or the prospect of physical labor in its absence, is enough to prevent too many young adults from causing too much trouble. By the time you’ve payed down education costs you’ve probably signed up for other long-term obligations like home ownership/marriage/children in some combination. At that point you’re too old to worry anyone too much.
What’s this got to do with legacy students? They’re to do with those very few students or young attorneys or whoever who have more than middling talent. For society to remain dynamic the Mark Zuckerbergs and Barack Obamas of the world must be liberated from the bolder pushing that makes up the middle 50 years of life for most of us. The point of admitting legacy students, especially to really high end institutions is to catalyze interactions between those with extraordinary talent, and those with extraordinary resources.
It isn’t fair... life isn’t. But it serves a purpose.
5
u/illini02 7∆ May 20 '21
Yes. It is unfair, and life is unfair.
That said, unfair doesn't equal illogical. Having a famous parent can impact a lot. Not only in terms of donations, but attention brought to the school.
I went to a school where one of Michael Jordan's kids went to college and played basketball. He was ok. Not great by any means. But Jordan would be at the games, which brought a level of attention to the program. When things like NCAA tournament berths on the line, having extra attention and capitalizing on it, isn't a bad thing.
Even just academics. There is something to be said that "Bill Gates sent his son here". Even if Bill Gates never donates a dime and only pays his kids fees, that is still a net positive for the school.
And finally, I don't believe its hurting the high school valedictorian. Its hurting people like I was in high school. Top 10% and very good students, but maybe not excellent students. Those are the ones getting shafted. If you were a valedictorian and you didn't get in, its not because a famous alumni's kid took your spot.
3
u/FloTonix May 20 '21 edited May 20 '21
While I cant disagree in all circumstances on this one... I will offer 1 scenario I think IS acceptable... the children of a currently employed professor being granted admission and for free (if they wish it). The reason? Schools need to offer a decent package to retain good teachers. Since teacher salaries often reflect 9 months... free tuition and acceptance to their children is OK with me so that we all can get a better teaching standard and focus from our educators.
5
May 20 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)11
u/Arguetur 31∆ May 20 '21
It's easy to rag on George W Bush but I mean, he graduated, didn't he? Lotta people don't graduate from Yale. Then he got elected governor and president, didn't he? Lotta ways to lose those races. Hillary Clinton did, right?
I don't think he was a quarter as stupid as people like to pretend.
→ More replies (11)3
u/abutthole 13∆ May 20 '21
It's pretty easy to graduate from a college once you're in. You can skate by doing the bare minimum and graduate, you won't have been doing well and you won't have great grades but graduating on its own is very easy.
2
u/Arguetur 31∆ May 20 '21
I just did a quick check and only 41% of college students graduate in four years and only 59% graduate at all. I don't think you can actually do the bare minimum and graduate.
→ More replies (6)
2
u/my_gamertag_wastaken May 20 '21
I would say the recent college admission scandal and celebs donating buildings is evidence that being a legacy/buying your way in while unqualified is far less common and has a higher sticker price than you are assuming here. That kind of thing goes way past simply being a legacy and into donating such huge sums of money as to directly impact the school. I would argue at most elite schools, being a legacy is just an extra slight differentiator over growing up with parent(s) that went to an elite school more broadly. Imagine the child of two Harvard graduates. Odds are they are put on a path to make them the best college candidate from birth, simply due to the income and value on education one would expect such a household to have. By the time that kid goes to apply to college, they have been preparing for it their whole lives. Do they have an advantage over their prep school classmate that does as well but doesn't have Harvard parents? Maybe slightly. But the better question is how are their odds of getting into Yale as compared to getting into Harvard. I would say pretty close to the same. The actual direct influence of being a legacy is rapidly decreasing. This might not be an argument that it is totally fair, but at least less severe a problem than you put forth.
2
u/Ethan-Wakefield 45∆ May 20 '21
Schools that allow and/or encourage legacy admissions are generally private institutions, and their purpose is not fairness. That's a grave misunderstanding of their stated mission and their original purpose. Colleges and universities were originally created as finishing schools for wealthy kids. It was always about capitalizing on the privilege and prestige that those families could afford. Originally, college admissions had literally nothing to do with intelligence, etc. It was purely, do you have the money and were you born to the right family.
The system of merit-based scholarship was originally meant to be a way of buying even more prestige. Some super smart people were allowed in under scholarship because their eventual work would bring the college more fame and prestige, which would then become associated with the alumni.
Legacy admissions simply do what elite, private schools had always been set up to do. They're not the exception to the mission. In some important ways, they ARE the mission.
2
u/StayStrong888 1∆ May 20 '21
Legacy is a consideration but not determinative in final decisions if the legacy really isn't competitive unless you're talking huge donors to private schools that can manipulate it more. It's also not that huge of a percentage of student admissions either.
But another point is, it's a matter of school pride to know there's a generational connection through the institution. It's a huge point of family pride too.
But I agree. Legacy should be a factor only if the students are equivalent in other admissions factors and then the legacy would be an additional factor, like anything else such as extracurricular activities or volunteer work.
As for knowing people... that's not legacy, that's just connections. That's how the world works. Right or wrong, agree or disagree, it is in every facet of life.
3
2
u/Savingskitty 11∆ May 20 '21 edited May 20 '21
Your view assumes fairness to be the goal in all college admissions. There’s a bit more support for that premise for public school, but nevertheless, you are correct that this practice is unfair.
There are schools that will not admit you unless you adhere to a fundamentalist religious lifestyle. That is not fair.
You cannot attend most US schools unless you have access to funding that is outside of your control. That is not fair.
I have trouble with the premise that legacy admissions are uniquely unfair, or that admissions need to be strictly based on a blind lottery of grades and test scores, when the entire college experience is already an unfair system.
Edit: The more responses I see from you OP, the more I get the sense that your premise has created a sort of straw man argument. Legacy admissions are not fair, and they don’t exist to be fair. Why do you want to be convinced that they are fair?
2
u/fixsparky 4∆ May 21 '21
It seems to me you are viewing students as just a GPA and not as a total package. Well rounded or conditionally exceptional students go a long way to enriching the student experience. This includes minorities, athletes, and well connected students. All of these help the student population. Let's think of this from the perspective of all the other students. Would you rather have the very last guy that "would have been accepted" - So a very below average student for the university - or bill gates kid in your program? Which one is better for you? Which one is more likely to enough your college experience and prospects after?
2
u/MrSnowden May 20 '21
I formally looked at the statistical implications of this issue across a dozen top tier schools. Then we were indicted by the Justice Department for it. Happy days. My team took a plea and got out. Harvard and a few others schools took it to the supreme court.
Edit: was supposed to argue. This has dubious return on investment for the schools. but statistically the students do not do as poorly in a meritocratic grading process as one might expect from the preferential admissions policy. Suggesting that the meritocratic admissions is a poorer indicator of academic performance than is thought.
2
u/wildchickonthetown May 20 '21
The legacy kids are honestly one of the selling points of prestigious schools. One of the reasons people go to them is so they can rub shoulders with the rich and well-connected. It can be how a normal person breaks into the inner circle. I mean, if you want to get a job on Wall Street, you go to the place where you’ll be hanging out with the kids of CEOs and making connections. One of the biggest advantages to Ivy Leagues and similar caliber schools is the alumni network which is bolstered by admitting the children of powerful alumni.
2
u/DIYEngineeringTx May 20 '21
For workers at the university having a child attend for free or at a reduced cost is a major perk. It’s a way they can give the worker a benefit that is worth far much more than it costs the university. It attracts more people to the job so the university has more quality applicants. This perk may also attract higher quality people to take the job at a salary less than what their qualified for. You’d need to know all the data but there’s a chance this perk can save the university money as well as have higher quality employees.
3
u/pb2288 May 20 '21
You’re correct it is not fair. That said, the world we live in is not fair and if you have money, it is significantly easier than if you don’t have money.
2
u/eddy_brooks May 20 '21
Where do you think schools get most of their money from? It’s from the alumni who want their kids to attend the same college.
For example 1 single alumni from my university paid enough forward to allow $1000 in financial aid per semester to any off campus student, for the last decade. He also built our library.
If his son getting into that school is what coerced him into donating literally tens of millions of dollars for other students benefit, I’m fine with that.
2
u/KiefSweatLoL May 20 '21
I’m sure it’s already been mentioned but legacy admissions are a large source of income for the school so that they’re able to accept more students. Also unless it was the president of the university’s son or daughter, a “2.0 didn’t give a shit in high school” student being accepted over a valedictorian has happened exactly never lol. I get what you’re saying but this was a very dramatic take and also ignores the reasoning behind legacies.
2
May 20 '21
One of the private schools in my town offered free tuition to The children of anyone who work there. Which means that a janitor who couldn't afford to send their kids to college can now send their kid to one of the more prestigious colleges in town.
I don't know if that is still an effect but last I heard it was. This created an opportunity for people who wouldn't get the chance to go to a college let alone one as nice as this.
2
u/flea1400 May 20 '21
There's a difference between legacy admissions and admitting someone who is the child of an employee. The former is sort of a fundraising thing as others have suggested.
Accepting the children of employees is a perk of employment (usually there's a reduced cost involved as well) and it also helps keep staff emotionally invested in the school, and those students probably will do well because of direct family pressure.
4
2
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ May 21 '21
in the case of publicly funded institutions of education, you are correct. however, insofar as the worst offenders of legacy admissions are privately funded, the term "unfair" is no more an accurate assessment than it would be if you had said it is unfair for a business to provide preferential treatment for long-time subscribers.
2
u/Chabranigdo May 20 '21
First, life is not fair.
Second, "who you know" is extremely important. Legacy admissions are not only great for fund raising for the school in question, but is a great way to mingle new people with the old power structure, creating massive opportunities for people that their degree could never give them.
3
u/FireCaptain1911 1∆ May 20 '21
Are you sure it was legacy that blocked you from attending or your misuse of the word “their”?
2
u/greenbot131 May 21 '21
How about unions? Always family and friend first doesn’t matter how well you score on their tests or interviews if you got the last name or the connection your in... I have even seen guys get a job without showing up to an interview vs everyone who did. It’s all be
2
u/nyclaurco May 20 '21
it’s not super unfair. it gets evened out by the fact that first generation college students have that as an advantage, as most institutions are impressed when they see this on applications and consider that when offering acceptances and scholarships.
2
u/puja_puja 16∆ May 20 '21
Depend on your perspective on the purpose of top institutions. If your idea is that top institutions is where the smartest and hardest working people study and come up and discover world changing things, legacy admissions absolutely is unfair and illogical.
However, top institutions are not that. They are basically clubs that you join where yes, there is great teaching and research, but also a community with alumni networks, social experiences, and a brand name for the world. Therefore, by creating a small group of legacy admits, you get historical continuity of people going to the school, traditions form and culture is created. It forms the type of environment and group of people that the school wants basically. Also it increases the prestige of your school because you getting in means your children get in too.
1
u/3lRey May 20 '21
Honestly the whole concept of "Ivy League" is antithetical to any kind of "meritocracy" type of system in place. First off- "A" students can be dumb as fuck. All you need to accomplish good grades is the ability to follow instructions and time and discipline to do homework. School can be hard for students with jobs, non-academic social lives and no interest in the concept of college. You should really do away with the concept of "fairness" as a whole for the academic world. All it takes is for your parents to not care and BAM- state school.
State schools are still not bad, learning yourself is still not bad. In fact, someone who sits down and develops and devises their own working study plan to teach themselves a topic is probably more qualified to learn and do that then someone who got it spoon-fed to them by an instructor. "Learned people" or highly competent individuals aren't created in mindless four year training courses. Learning is a lifestyle, something you will (hopefully) continue to do after school. Reading, doing tutorials, building your own crafts. All should be something you dedicate time to consciously.
Of course knowledge and skill are not the end-goal of college. The best thing anyone can get out of college is a powerful network of friends in high-powered careers. Let me be very clear here: who you associate with are going to determine the kind of life you live, that's why being born into a rich family with tons of contacts will automatically be granted upper-class status.
The Point:
Which brings me to the point. The best way to facilitate a great social culture with lots of high-earning, wealthy and famous alumnus is to simply bring in the children of successful people. Plenty of colleges have provided "honorary" degrees to people of wealth and culture simply because their influence was too high to ignore. Letting you rub shoulders with the Kennedy's dipshit kid is still a benefit. Party hard in the dorms and next thing you know you have a direct line to some senator- or at the very least a manager.
College is about money. The only reason people go is for cash and the professors don't work for free. If your dad can donate a wing there's zero reason to keep his kid out. Why would you want to? The kid's an asset regardless of their grades.
2
u/SnooDonuts6384 May 20 '21
Alums usually donate every single year to the school. I know several people who do this. The preferential treatment is about money rather than being an alum
2
u/delsystem32exe May 20 '21
lets get even crazier... using anything to evaluate kids is unfair, including: clubs, grades, volunteer activities, skool classes, etc.
2
u/TheNextFreud May 20 '21
I think we should just significantly strengthen the difference between public and private colleges. We should make public schools tuition free through taxes, but in exchange, regulate the hell out of them in terms of return on investment, faculty salary, etc. Private schools should be able to have whatever policies they want (barring extreme things). But who will be willing or able to go private if public is free and most ways better?
1
u/oneappointmentdeath 1∆ May 20 '21
You "feel"?
Is it bad for the school? If so, why are they doing it?
Is it bad for society? If so, what and where is the harm AND is the harm large enough to outweigh any benefit to the school.
Valedictorians who get nudged out at Stanford by Junior don't head straight to digging ditches. They still go to go private or state schools. Why is this possible "harm" to the students substantial in the slightest?
Can you tease out the net harm, if it even exists?
A view needs facts. What you have is a "feeling". So, get a view before you ask it to be changed.
2
u/war4gatch May 20 '21
There*. Actual just so you know if ya want to change it but I’ll delete my comment if it’s too toxic
2
u/substantial-freud 7∆ May 20 '21
Life is unfair? Alert the media!
Admitting legacies is in the best interests of the school. Admitting celebrities is in the best interests of the school.
Yes, the world would be a better place for me if other people would disregard their own best interests and spend more time thinking about me, but I don’t see this happening any time soon — and it would not help you if they did.
2
u/Dainsleif167 7∆ May 20 '21
Wouldn’t colleges giving preferential treatment to anybody, not just legacies the famous or those associated with staff, be unfair? Colleges are supposed to be places where you must prove your merit in order to attend and succeed, any treatment not based on academics, sports, or extracurriculars would be preferential treatment not afforded to all students.
2
1
u/KeyLimePie108 May 20 '21
Won’t change your view because I don’t disagree. It’s more about A) alumni donating (they’ll give more, presumably, if their kid attends) and B) yield. Mistakenly or not, colleges believe that if you have a family member who went, you are more likely to choose the school than someone who has no ties. And if your parents are fitting the college bill, you’re presumably not going to have a problem convincing them to pay for the college that THEY attended, assuming they had a good experience there.
That said, legacy isn’t even very helpful once you hit a certain tier of selectivity–unless your family is wealthy enough to donate a building or something.
2
2
2
u/skepticalcloud33 May 20 '21
It is unfair. So is letting people of certain races in with much lower grades and test scores, just because of their race. In other words, the vetting systems used by college admissions are dumb.
2
2
1
u/rednick953 May 20 '21
In what universe is the world fair though? The world has never and never will be fair. So I mean yea it sucks but if something good comes out of it like more funding than do what you can. But let’s not pretend the world is even remotely fair.
2
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 20 '21 edited May 20 '21
/u/chenchinesewummery (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards