The Ivy League is way way way more diverse today than in my day. This has been a trend over the last 20 years. So that means the pool of alumni with children applying to college has also become more diverse. So getting rid of legacy preferences now, as the pool has become more brown/black, hurts more upper middle class or affluent URMs than it would have if this was done decades ago.
It is harder for URMs who make it to ensure the next generation doesn’t slide backwards because we still live in a society with a lot of obstacles.
Cal Ed Code S66018.5(b) requires that the schools report “whether their respective institutions provide any manner of preferential treatment in admission to applicants on the basis of their relationships to donors or alumni of the institution.”
As you can see in the report linked above, Occidental, Scripps, and HMC all reported that they do not.
You mentioned that you have a kid who will soon attend college. Like you, the Ivy League alumni who have kids applying to college attended college decades ago, when the college was as you say “way way way less diverse,” so the legacy admits also tend to be White and wealthy.
In the lawsuit sample, 25% of White admits were legacies compared to 7% or less of admits from any other race. In the freshman survey, nearly half of maytriculating legacy kids who chose to report income said their parents make $500k+.
I’m not going to keep repeating my points. You want to nit-pick while ignoring the broader trends, that’s fine.
As for the 500k, I make way more than that, and I’m very concerned about my kids overcoming the racism in this society. I’m very explicit in saying that upper middle class URMs should enjoy the same privileges wealthy white people have enjoyed for hundreds of years.
They do have one of the “lower” rates of full-pay students of any college, but it’s still 40%. Forty percent! With an endowment that’s jumped to >$2,000,000 per enrolled student.
Speaking of that I know that most schools are grappling with legacy admissions and this wasn’t completely out of left field, but the timing this late in the cycle and taking effect immediately sure seems interesting.
From higher SES families, since their parents are college educated, and Ivy League parents are more commonly in the top 1%.
In terms of race/ethnicity, demographically similar to the college’s students of about a generation ago, but with some multiracial people added.
Removing legacy preference would, of course, benefit everyone else. The demographic impact on the college’s student population would shift parental SES down a bit, and move race/ethnicity demographics a little away from the college’s students of about a generation ago and a little toward the current non-legacy demographics.
In Fall 2004, Cornell had 13,309 undergraduates. These included 2,214 (16.6%) Asian American, 703 (5.3%) Hispanic American, and 634 (4.8%) African American students, according to https://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000018.pdf .
For comparison, recent NCES data at College Navigator - Cornell University shows Cornell enrollment with 21% Asian, 15% Hispanic / Latino, and 7% Black or African American.
It is likely that removing legacy preferences at Cornell would result in an increase in the percentage of all of these groups, as well as reducing the high SES skew a bit (which could lead to increased financial aid costs).
In the age of the superlative and of preferences for every imaginable trait, it does not take Amherst graduate to figure out why this particular preference is deemed bad and must be struck.
Newsflash: Amherst does not want your kids, even if you as an Alum contributed to the history and success of the very school that is now actively searching for ways to give preferences (not level playing field, but true preferences) to others at the detriment of your kid. Not a good look.
Upper middle class URM applying students are rarely legacies at the discussed colleges, so removing legacy preferences tends to help this group more than it hurts this group. I realize that removing legacies admissions preference may negatively hurt you specifically, but you are not a typical upper middle class URM applicant.
I’m specifically focused on upper middle class URMs legacies who just want what rich white people have enjoyed for hundreds of years. I know this can be tough for some people to grok but there are actually people who fit in this bucket.
Here are two comments in Amherst from my social media:
wealthy white woman who went to Princeton- “Bravo, I hope Princeton does the same. This will be so much fairer.”
wealthy black dude I went to Cornell with “Damn, just when I’m about to get the same s—t rich a-s white peoples got, they are gonna take this s—t away”
I’m sure this is counter intuitive for some which is why I’m sharing what is likely a contra-view.
Again, I just want people like me to enjoy what rich where people have enjoyed for generations.
I’m rich but I’m not quite donate a building rich. I could swing maybe 1-1.2m over a period of a few years. But I’m not sure that is even enough. It cost kushner 2.5m to get in at Harvard.
One thing I do know, while I’m good with numbers, blindly following numbers isn’t how I got to where I am. It was looking past the numbers to see what others didn’t see.
Ok, but why does your specific group deserve special attention over highly qualified kids from any of the following, which also do not fit in the rich white category:
White kids from Appalachia.
Latino middle class kids
First generation in the USA from Europe, Africa, or Asia
We already have hooks for all sorts of things. I just want to keep the hook that benefits me.
At a macro level, we can’t change much in this society unless URM communities have a lot more wealth. Then we have the capital, and capital is key in this society. Capital to invest in our communities, capital to invest in businesses, etc.
White people are so much more comfortable when they focus on low income URMs, after all, they aren’t competing for the juicy steaks.
My view is that massive wealth creation for URMs will transform our society. This constant exclusive focus on the bottom is kinda racist in a way and hasn’t worked for the decades it has been the focus.
If there is enough wealth in our own communities then we can take care of our own thank you very much. Instead for dealing with the negative unintended consequences of well meaning white people.
@MaximoGomez I don’t agree with you on the legacy issue but I wanted to say you have an impressive biography and trajectory. My sibling and I improbably clawed our way into T-10 schools but did so standing on the shoulders of a solid middle class engineer. As a self described 1%er, won’t your kids have access to the best private or public school systems in the country? Isn’t that advantage enough? Let’s say you send your kids to boarding school or an elite private day or they attend an affluent suburban public high school. What’s the worse outcome they are going to have if they are strong students but don’t get a legacy advantage? Attend a great school like BC, Georgetown or Michigan instead of an Ivy? Doesn’t sound like a crisis to me.
While colleges may brag about the percent first gen or lower income in press releases and do not brag about having a high percentage wealthy URMs, wealthy URMs also get a noteworthy boost at typical highly selective, private colleges. The Harvard lawsuit analysis actually found that Black applicants did not appear to get a boost for being lower SES, like occurred for other races. This may relate to the URM hook being so strong that Harvard was reluctant to press their hand any further on the scale to make lower income Black a super hook that goes beyond the regular strong hook for upper income Black. I doubt that Harvard is alone in this policy. Wealthy URM applicants tend to do quite well in selective private college admission compared to wealthy ORM applicants.
Yes my kids will have plenty of advantages, they attend a t25-t50 national private high school. We may be rich, but we are still brown.
I also know that the Ivy League provides certain advantages, even after almost 30 years. I was interviewing with the CEO of a $35B silicone valley company. I tried to assure him that despite being a senior executive I still was “technical.” He looked at me and said, “Of course you are technical you have a CS degree from Cornell!” Honestly, this wasn’t the first time someone has said something like that. Basically Cornell altered the trajectory of my life in truly profound ways.
I’ve had the conversations with other URM parents at my kids k-12 school (most wealthy). The fact that our kids seemed to be disciplined more frequently, more harshly, not always given the benefit of the doubt, etc. This is a very woke school that focuses a lot on diversity. Ever year. I mean every. Single. Year. The same thing happens in 11th grade, some of the white/Asian kids start telling the black/Latino kids that they will only get into t20 schools cause they are URMs. It only takes one teacher while feels the same way and hands out a B instead of an A to sink your kids chances. There is no room for error anymore.
So while it wouldn’t a crisis, why should I settle for that? Seems like a low bar. Why shouldn’t I have a chance to firmly place my kids in the “aristocracy” of our society (if I can speak so boldly) so that my kids can have the wealth to take the swings of the bat I couldn’t. Just like rich white people have enjoyed all their privileges for generations (and still do). I mean, if people are truly honest with themselves, a lot of people are chasing this, otherwise there would be no CC, no SAT prep, no tutors, no parents helping with ECs, no private counselors, etc.
It sounds like your kids have numerous advantages over typical applicants including getting a great education at a top ranked private high school, and likely getting a URM boost in admissions at a large number of highly selective private colleges. However, it is important to also have the advantage of a legacy boost at Cornell because attending Cornell will “firmly place your kids in the aristocracy of our society” in a way that the other selective private colleges Shiprock1976 listed would not?
It’s great that things worked out well for you, but attending Cornell for undergrad is by no means an auto ticket to “the aristocracy of society.” Several studies have found that outcomes tend to primarily relate to the student characteristics and background, rather than name of undergrad college attended. For example, kids with a particular major/career goal, particular family/SES background, and particular SAT score; tend to have a similar various average outcome measures, regardless of college name.
Some such studies note that URMs and persons from lower SES groups can be exceptions to the statements above, and college name can be more influential for these groups, such as Dale & Kruger. That can be true for a variety of reasons including modeling and connections. But I expect it would be less true for URMs who already have upper SES connections and modeling of behaviors typical of upper SES applicants (for example, plan on internship, plan on certain career paths associated with higher income, …) prior to college .
As mentioned above, I do not support legacy admission (even though my D22 would benefit from it at a top university) but I was intrigued by your posts. I didn’t quite understand what you mean until you posted this. While I still think, in the grand scheme of things, legacy admission should go, I now better understand your position. There is still a lot of racism and prejudices in society, with minorities often feeling completely powerless and highly vulnerable - so, for URMs who do not enjoy many privileges and protections in society, legacy admission might be both and valued more highly than by other groups.
Thanks for a thoughtful and thought-provoking discussion.