"In the past month, Penn First, Penn’s largest first-generation, low-income student group voted against signing a letter denouncing legacy-based admissions policies while Seven|Eight, Penn’s FGLI group for Asian Americans made the decision to sign it.
Members within both organizations diverge over the merits of the letter and the implications of endorsing it.
FGLI organizations at 12 other top-tier universities, including the Harvard Legacy Project, Yale Students Unite Now, Princeton Hidden Minority Council, and the Socioeconomic Diversity Alliance at the University of Chicago signed the letter." …
It’s difficult to envision a future in which Penn and its peers drop legacy-advantage from the admissions criteria. The blowback from the alumni community merits significant consideration. I understand where these students are coming from, but it’s odd to advocate for the removal of privileges that belong to a different group of individuals — i.e., alumni. I would put more validity in their words if they were all 10 years older.
Sigh. Honestly, I disagree with Penn First, Penn’s largest first - generation low income group. Why do people have to have a higher advantage than others just because their ‘forefathers’ got accepted to Penn. Being honest, some of those students don’t have stats comparable to other students and despite this get accepted which is honestly disgusting. Also, some students get waitlisted /deferred / rejected because of these ‘legacies.’ It should become a fair process for all. Strictly merit- based 'cause that ensures equality.
@aoeuidhtns It really is difficult to envision this but honestly, I think these privileges shouldn’t be considered. Everyone should work by themselves to get in and not any other way around. One can’t be given the ‘privilege’ of being accepted because of their parents, or grandparents hard work.
If the alumni really love the school they went to, they should be willing to move it forward.
Admissions is not, and has never been, based on pure stats. It’s based on the future success of an applicant and legacies tend to be a safer bet than others, not to mention the fiscal benefits enjoyed by a private university when it supports its constituency. Case in point: Joseph Wharton’s hiers have, largely, all gone to Penn — most recently in class of 2003. And, their family continues to donate year after year to the school.
Devil’s advocate: Why do you believe a private universitity’s admissions process needs to ensure equality?
@f2000sa Penn is not MIT. Penn has neither the global brand/prestige that MIT has nor the kind of universally recognized dominance in numerous fields that MIT enjoys. There are very different dynamics and considerations at play here vs MIT.
I agree with the decision not to condemn legacy status at Penn. There will be tremendous pushback by alumni and alumni giving will probably go down as it happened with Dartmouth in the early-mid 1990s.
Also I think first-gem and low income hooks should exist. Being born into privilege makes a huge difference in the difficulty of succeeding in college admissions. However I don’t agree with affirmative action based on race. Sadly in this country income and race are highly correlated correlation so just by focusing on socioeconomics you would still capture racial diversity. However I think it is wrong for upper middle class minority candidates (which do exist in good numbers) to be enjoying a leg up in admissions.
@Penn95; @f2000sa, totally agreed that “WRONG for UPPER middle class MINORITY candidates (which do exist in good numbers) to be enjoying a leg up in admissions”.
Legacy considered in admissions is not wrong but needed if the applicant is academically qualified.
Some spots must be allowed to applicants from LOW income and 1st generation. It is generally executed in all top colleges. That’s a good thing.
Indeed, pure stats (e.g., GPA, SAT/ACT) cannot absolutely predict the performance of an applicant in college and beyond.
We have this argument routinely, on CC, and some produce the numbers that show legacy is neither a guarantee nor a “gimme.” But sigh, people think what they think.
“Being honest, some of those students don’t have stats…” You imply this is widespread. I wish I felt you know this for a fact. In every category of admits, some will have less than perfect stats. Penn’s holistic, not rack and stack. They aren’t afraid to reject unqualified legacies.
Are you as upset about athlete advantage, when some of those get in with a major hook? A lot of coach pull and little vetting by adcoms?
The legacy hook is diminishing in importance comparing with other hook, like first generation and low income. We have seen in the past that some highly qualified legacy students were rejected and subsequently went to other Ivies and UChicago etc. The matter of fact is that they just have too many qualified applicants.
Penn is now $72,000 a year. I suspect that legacy admits are “full pay” in greater percentage than any other discrete group of students on campus. I further suspect that first gen admits require a significantly higher percentage of need-based aid than their peers. If true, legacy tuition is subsidizing the first gen tuition. Moreover, it is pretty much accepted that legacy alums (and their families). donate at a higher rate than their peers across the board. So, the legacies are further subsidizing the first gens through donations to the endowment.
@Ebbie1 “Why do people have to have a higher advantage than others just because their ‘forefathers’ got accepted to Penn. Being honest, some of those students don’t have stats comparable to other students and despite this get accepted which is honestly disgusting.”
I don’t think this is true anymore. I can’t remember the sources, but I’ve read a few times in the past year or so that legacy admits have same stats as general admit population, but athletic recruits do have lower stats. This is also what I see in my dds’ big public school. Every year our public school sends several athletes (mostly for crew) to the ivies who are solid students but not top 5% or even 10% and with SAT/ACT scores in the bottom quartile of their respective ivies.
The legacy admits are always top of their hs class. I think legacy kids are given a leg up when they are competing against other candidates with roughly same stats and accomplishments. This is not an insignificant advantage considering the ivies-plus schools reject hundreds if not thousands of extremely accomplished candidates every year.
On a side note, I was a little shocked to read about how quickly some 1st-gen/low-income students at Penn become interested in passing on their legacy status to their own yet unborn children.
Not sure why They want to do this, A group that benefist heavily from their hook wants to repeal the hooks of others so that they can get more? It is too greedy! It would be more noble for them to advocate the repealing of all hooks.
@f2000sa, totally agreed what you mentioned above. I just carefully went through the article in the DP. I am not able to reasonably figure out the rationale behind their action/the letter.
@bestmom88@lookingforward now that you talk about it,
if people are fighting for legacy admissions to be dropped, then I think everything should be dropped.
but we all know that can’t be possible (especially 'cause they are constantly involved in sports) so let’s accept life!
I as well, I mean, some people fighting for it 'cause of their future children? (lollll!!!) there’s nothing that people don’t plan for.
Plus, QUALIFIED legacy students are probably more likely to succeed at the school. They are privy to a wealth of information and experience on how to navigate all the different aspects of Penn that the other students must find out as the go. This is a huge competitive advantage.
“A group that benefits heavily from their hook wants to repeal the hooks of others so that they can get more? It is too greedy! It would be more noble for them to advocate the repealing of all hooks.”
Actually, they want to repeal their own hook for their kids. Are they opposed to all hooks, or just the hooks of others? I don’t imagine that hook for football is going away soon.
Personally, I don’t think Legacy is a big hook. They have to apply ED and Penn gives Legacy to the kids of grad students too. Also, the legacy admits have higher avg. stats than other admits.
Honestly, if they are going to make one admissions change, I would like to see Penn increase the percent of Asian students admitted if they are deserving. (I am not Asian, btw).
I do think that the administration’s goal is to keep legacy, but continue to reduce its weighting in the process, so they defacto virtually get rid of it, without enraging the contributing Alumni base. Believing they have Legacy makes many Alums feel closer to their alma mater, and that is a good thing.
Haven’t posted in YEARS but will occasionally lurk from time to time. In any event, felt compelled to chime in here.
Advantage for legacy applicants in the admissions process is going absolutely nowhere and money is the reason. Penn and other elite private institutions have been playgrounds for the wealthy and well-connected since their beginning, which is why they are “elite” at all. An ongoing relationship with wealthy alumni and those with social clout helps the school brand and influence while providing it with material resources. What will happen, however, is that legacy advantage will increasingly only be conferred to applicants who apply early and whose parents donate higher and higher amounts of money, since the alumni base has only grown and diversified with time. As a recent alumni, I fully anticipate that my children will receive no leg up from my attending Penn simply because I will in all likelihood not have donated enough to the university in sum (though I do stay involved with the university in different ways).
That said, other hooks won’t disappear either: first-gen status, socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, state of residency (for under-represented states), athletics, etc. The biggest issue at Penn and schools like it is that the first two hooks in the list immediate before this aren’t leveraged nearly enough (certainly not comparable to the amount of time schools spend touting them), nor are all the necessary support mechanisms in place to actually support these students and their success once the arrive on campus (and it’s only becomes more complicated when you also must account for race, ethnicity or religious affiliation) given they may likely be starting from behind in comparison to their classmates despite their intelligence or work ethic. Resources matter, and they matter from the first moment children enter a classroom in their lives. American universities, no matter how elite, can’t necessarily fix that, but they can do more in than they are doing when it comes to fostering development and success for everyone who sets foot on their campus.