First gen students at elite universities (including Emory) favor elimination of legacy preferences

Colleges and Universities A-Z Emory University
21

Previously, you wrote that you had much less of a problem with people who donate “a lot of money”. As such, your real direct aim was at the middle class or those who probably take on the most student debt. You are addressing a micro problem now with influential people like Meg Whitman’s kid, Jared Kushner, or even the Kennedys. This is such a small percentage of legacy admissions. It’s worth a throw away line, but you want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. You may make some decent points, but lose credibility when you bring up celebrities and influential people who make up .005% of legacy admissions. Nobody cares and there is probably a bit too much groupthink among this movement, if you will.

If you want a policy, that legacy should not be a factor for those whose academics are not in the 25/75 percentiles, you might have a better argument. You don’t want to go there though. It’s easier to take on “the rich” and idiot kids of celebrities and politician. If others want to criticize you for your lack of gratitude, so be it. My problem is your argument is sinking to new lows and is not grounded in fact because you don’t trust schools like Emory or Brown to do the right thing, despite the progress that made to build classes that are diverse and also the support that these schools provide those who need. Have a little faith and a little less paranoia.

22

@BiffBrown : A “lower” standard. How much lower? We likely do not have public data. In many and most cases, I venture to bet that the children of alumni are in or near the middle-50 statistical ranges at elites, and since they are more likely to come from “upper middle class” backgrounds, have similar ECs and hobbies as other admits. Given this, it becomes difficult to tell if they have a true advantage (you certainly cannot argue that most don’t “deserve” to be admitted. After all, many denied applicants in and outside of the statistical IQR likely still “deserved” to gain admission despite what stuck up admits like to believe…the idea that only those admitted were the most deserving and that there was no fortuity at play). And the fact is, beyond development cases (the cases where alum donate a lot of money or set up matching endowments), their clout in admissions at elite universities seems to be waning, and you can even see this at less statistically selective elites like Emory, but definitely at the “aristocratic” elites like Harvard. Development cases and children of celebrities may get a substantial leg up, but standard “involved” alumni with very qualified children seem hit or miss. It now looks more like a consideration than something resembling a guarantee. And the same can be said for many characteristics of an applications.

Also, I am sort of with @Happytimes2001, especially in an Emory context where we don’t particularly lower standards for even athletes. Families of Development cases and involved alumni (and “founders”) were largely responsible for me being able to be on the Emory Advantage Loan Replacement Program when I was there. I don’t have much of a complaint except the fact that this college admissions stuff has resulted in finger pointing wars where, for example, you have US minorities attacking each other and then having legacies left out of the conversation or various combinations of non-sense. If you truly want to get rid of non-sense admissions and the hypercompetitive nature of elite admissions, let us do so in a way that gets rid of “finger pointing”…let us maybe de-emphasize USNWR and hair-splitting differences in prestige and look at things that actually result in and measure high quality education. I for one am tired of for example seeing idiots from Williams College (you know, just a horrible place with so little opportunities and no track record of producing great alumni…terrible place. I’m sure that a year later, I would be thinking about another elite school who denied me for perhaps the most random reason) write letters and join lawsuits that say “Well Harvard’s policies allowed members of X group to take my spot”…this sort of legacy finger pointing is analogous and I think it is sort of toxic because it leads to pettiness and honestly makes some people look almost dangerously desperate to get into only certain types of schools, when the reality is that the US makes it very easy for those who take education seriously to get a good one at lots of places within and outside of the “elite”. But of course many of us today don’t take university education seriously (at least not its quality), but merely care that our degree “signals” quality, which seems to be the issue sparking all of this outrage. Sadly, I do not believe it is all social justice driven.

23

@bernie12 Well Said. And I agree it is not all social justice driven in so much as give me what I want or else.
IMO: We have created quite an entitled class of people who are entitled to X, Y, or Z. Not much gratitude but a lot of demands.

24

*Note, that in general, I am basically tired of anyone who seems to express a sentiment that suggests entitlement (like, I have met or come near a statistical threshold and have a nice resume so should be let in. Yeah, multiply you by thousands who applied) when it comes to accessing “elite” institutions. My attitude when I applied to 1 or 2 was, “even if I deserve it, so tons of others. I’d be glad to be admitted”. People act as if they just “expect” to be admitted and that if they could adjust the red tape and the goals of the institution in shaping a class so that others don’t take what they presume to be their spot (how arrogant!) that their expectations are guaranteed to be met.

25

@bernie12 @ljberkow @Happytimes2001

To @ljberkow I still don’t get where you think I expressed support for donor preferences in this thread. I type pretty quickly. It’s possible I wrote something that could be misinterpreted.

I’ve focused on Ivy legacy because that’s what’s been publicized the most and because Harvard is very notorious for being legacy driven in its admissions.

Elite schools have a strong incentive to make their alumni believe that merely being a legacy (and nothing else) gives their children a strong leg up in admissions when in truth alums who (a) give a lot of money to the school, (b) are celebrities, (c) hold prestige positions in government, business, academia, the media, etc., will have children who are much more likely to get in than alums who send in their $100 a year to the school and participate in university outreach programs in their community.

So, Harvard’s legacy admissions rate for what I’ll call children of the “beautiful people” might be 100%, for regular alums 12% - all encompassed within an overall admissions rate of 6% for all candidates and an admissions rate of 30% for all alums. Part of the higher admissions rate for regular alums (12% v. 6%) might be because children of regular alums are on average more qualified than the average applicant.

Under these very reasonable assumptions, children of regular alums get small admissions boosts but think they get big ones because they’re looking at the admissions rate of 30% for all alums. The schools make such alums feel good about themselves and inspire small but steady financial contributions and devoted volunteerism but the real beneficiaries are children of the “beautiful people” who, though small in relative size, receive the lion’s share of admissions preferences.

If your child is already qualified and you’re just a regular hard working alum, chances are your child got into your alma mater on his/her own merits, not because of a phantom admissions boost that’s primarily reserved for children of the beautiful people. And, if your highly qualified child doesn’t get in to your alma, he/she will get into another elite school and be able to chart his/her own path. That’s hardly a tragedy.

@bernie12 Most people don’t know about the existence of donor preferences. The owner of a successful auto body shop - the classic example of a blue collar multimillionaire - might be willing to pave the way of her daughter’s admission into Harvard by donating but wouldn’t know how to go about doing it. They don’t run in the right circles.

If colleges want to give donor preferences, let them auction slots in their incoming class them on eBay so that everyone gets a fair shot. That way they get maximize the value of what they receive in return and it lets people who are out of the loop bid as well. It also makes the process more honest and inclusive.

If colleges want to give the children of those who contribute time and effort an advantage, let non-alums participate and have admissions keep a record of it.

Finally, Meg Whitman’s son engaged in behavior at Princeton that would have gotten them arrested or fired or arrested and fired had they not been so privileged. They weren’t merely below average students.

http://gawker.com/5669754/the-rape-accusation-against-meg-whitmans-son-that-got-hushed-up

Is this the only way to get donors to pay money to a school - to admit their entitled children and then their entitled grandchildren?

26

“Finally, Meg Whitman’s son engaged in behavior at Princeton that would have gotten them arrested or fired or arrested and fired had they not been so privileged. They weren’t merely below average students.
http://gawker.com/5669754/the-rape-accusation-against-meg-whitmans-son-that-got-hushed-up”

Why are we talking about anecdotes. What does this have to do with anything. I can likely point to many cases where this sort of thing happens to those in say…some Greek organizations with a bad reputation and this is whether the person is legacy or not. So are we talking about privileged students or just legacy here? Where is this going?

Bluntly, I have limits to how much I care. With the amount of applications that these places get, you can come up with all type of stupid schemes that end up having little impact on “fairness” and at the end of the day, their track records and paper based incoming stats suggest that the overwhelming amount of students are far beyond average for a US citizen and that they were functional during their tenure at the institution. Now, schools do have “party pathways” for the smart and well-connected students who don’t want to really exert themselves academically but this is a different issue. Also, I am not going to sit here and narrow down the conversation by saying: “ahhh, it is so sad because some millionaires just don’t know to do this with Harvard”…Again this limits the conversation to elite universities for some reason when the same thing does happen at places not considered “elite”.

Several non-“elite” flagships have this so called culture where indeed a “owner of a successful auto body shop - the classic example of a blue collar multimillionaire - might be willing to pave the way of her daughter’s admission into”…not Harvard, especially if the place is semi-selective or has some legacy that. Interesting things also happen at big football flagships schools for example, but we want to go out of our way to concern ourselves with the process at these “elite” schools (mainly the privates, let us be honest about that). Also in a real world, the one we live in (though I wonder sometimes), sure schools could just say to random members of the community/local businessmen/organizations (and to some extent do. Look at engineering schools and the names that appear on some of the buildings. Take a trip over to Georgia Tech), “please donate to us for this initiative or scholarship”, they probably still would not unless they have a vested interest or affiliation (hint: emotional attachment because one is an alumni, faculty, member, or administrator) beyond “trying to get my daughter in even though she is below par”. I am sure many donors do expect or suspect the latter perk but they are often also much more serious about influencing the direction and dealings of the institution in other ways. They are not the equivalent of single issue votes in elections.

27

There is enough propaganda being spread by @BiffBrown than anything here and those include false assumptions that legacies are not qualified, are taking spots that rightfully belong to others, and using anecdotes to convince others that legacies are rich brats.

There are studies (Hurwitz Harvard 2011) which show legacies with slightly higher SAT scores than the average non-legacy and that includes factoring out student athletes and others in special buckets. It is their own applicant pool. Legacies at the top 30 “elite” schools only account for 6% of all students. More likely than not, Biff and the other first gen students are basically fighting for other kids from wealthy suburbs with superior SAT coaching. That’s your battle. It’s for some kid whose folks may have gone to Duke who prefers Emory. Go have at it.

28

@ljberkow Agreed.
Anyone who want to fight my kid in four years for a spot at an Ivy can have at it. Good luck. Kiddo has the advantages I gained from being a first generation Ivy grad and the feistiness that is inherent in our DNA. You will have a hard time though. Highest test scores, driven and willing to work very very hard. That is not legacy but family dynamics. I know for a fact that many high level people have kids who are the same. Partially genetic/partially family values. Bring it on @BiffBrown. There are many beautiful people who have earned their rights to be in that class. You can complain and fight it but they are going to beat you each and every time. Ah, the benefits of privilege ( only slight sarcasm here). Lifting my champagne now.

29

@Happytimes2001 @ljberkow : Let us keep it real. If this increase in interest at these top schools continues, selection beyond “academically qualified and good resume”…perhaps 50%+ of applicants at these places (and there are 20-30k apps for 1000-2000 spots in a freshman class, AND places want to protect and manipulate their yields for the stupid rankings and “school pride”), selection will continue to just come down to: Do the readers at the time of reviewing your application just have a magical good feeling about you that they don’t get from other applicants who look exactly the same for whatever reason. Legacy “may” be a consideration, but most of them, if applying to elites will fit in that bracket of 10k+ apps that meet the “qualified” or “very qualified” threshold. Beyond that, there is a lot of luck and always will be as long as volume is as high as it is. These people reading the apps. either “feel” you fit or are needed or not at the time of reading an application (if the person has a stomach ache or is bored by time they reach your app…that is more likely to affect the outcome than some legacy or whatever competing for your spot). And they need not feel guilty because usually a qualified and deserving denied applicant who did their due diligence will end up at some other horrible elite school that is not Harvard, but you know, Williams, Emory, Berkeley, and if not those…worse one of those horrible honors colleges at a strong flagship university. You know places that provide no resources or academic challenges to the students. They will just be screwed for life. If only those 6% would not have been admitted. Maybe only 1-5% instead hahaha.

People act as if the process without all these demographic and background issues would just become much less messy. That would only happen with the following scheme:
“Take the 20k+ applications, develop a spreadsheet with their SAT/ACT scores and GPAs (or class rank if reported), then select the first 3000 with the highest combos. Second, rank these students by how many ECs they put on their resume or mention the common app”. Some elites are clearly trying some version of this scheme (there is in fact, one elite who, to appear holistic despite essentially doing that, literally lists a percentage of students with a “significant leadership position” and of course says 100% every time…you know, because only the % matters and definitions of “significant” can’t be contrived at all. Students are numbers after all. Humanity and substance, what is that?). It certainly works with the rankings, but is failing to enhance “product quality”, so obviously isn’t optimal even if one envisions the purest of meritocracies (so even if it means little ethnic diversity).

30

@ljberkow @Happytimes2001 @bernie12

I am not a first generation student. Never claimed to be. At this time, I am not part of any student organization pushing for elimination of legacy admissions at Emory or anywhere else.

I’ll post articles on the Emory board that I feel will be of interest to the Emory community at large. Typically, those threads receive no responses and very few views…lol. I’m a bit surprised at the interest in this thread. I do think it’s topical and will continue to be for some time.

@ljberkow There are studies that show an admissions preference for legacy candidates at elite schools. There is also the fact the schools themselves state outright that legacies (defined differently for different schools) get a preference. To deny that is to say that schools are lying about the existence of legacy preferences and that is a strange thing to say. That is on average and, of course, individual cases vary wildly I’m sure.

@HappyTimes2001 The Ivy league schools are so different from one another that it’s odd to focus on them as a group except from the standpoint of pure prestige. If you prefer a campus that has the hustle and bustle of a big city, then Princeton and Dartmouth make no sense. If you prefer STEM, then Dartmouth makes no sense. If you prefer small classes and an emphasis on teaching, then there are better alternatives than Harvard. If you prefer few, if any, core academic requirements, then Columbia makes no sense. And so on.

@bernie12 At big state schools, the revenue stream comes from big time sports, which generate TV and other revenue and which motivate alums to do more for their schools. That and the fact that they’re also far less selective reduces the profile of legacy admissions at those schools.

31

Nobody really cares what you are or whether you were admitted to Emory under some other preference you believe is being jeopardized or impacted by a legacy preference. Your posts are misleading at worst and ignorant at best. Your attack on legacies as unqualified is made up about stories about children of celebrities and elected politicians. Yes, that’s cheap. You also go past implication that legacies are nothing but rich kids. You basically call deans of Emory liars who come out and tell you that Emory legacies are otherwise qualified to attend. That makes your arguments cheap. If you follow the chances boards here, you see many candidates of similar grades and scores. Some gain admission and some don’t. They are all “qualified”. This is the basic pool of students that contain legacy admissions. These kids are no different in that they are also maxing out on AP credits, getting into other top schools, but want to go to Emory (or maybe they don’t), Brown, or any other university.

32

I think legacies offer an important benefit to the school–a generational tie between families that adds some continuity, stability and narrative over time. Returning to an example from a previous discussion,
I know a family who had grandparents who went to Tufts, mom and dad went to Tufts and the son went to Tufts but the daughter didn’t get in and ended up at University of Virginia instead. If she had gone to Tufts, there’s an elegant generational story for the family and the school.

I won’t bother to address the “dumb sons of the rich” argument as academic research referenced earlier in the thread shows that the legacy kids are often better prepared and are, arguably, more academically qualified than many of the first generation kids. For the kids pushing this, their logic has a fundamental flaw as they presumedly think “if only there wasn’t a legacy tip, more people like me would be here.” I’d suggest doing a quick gedankenexperiment where legacy preferences have been entirely removed. Would a university’s demographics significantly change? Smart money’s on they wouldn’t which just means that the university lost something while gaining nothing.

Note: other than finding this topic fascinating, this isn’t self-interested as there’s no way I’m trying to convince fragbot jr. to apply to my alma mater as I don’t think it’s worth the money.

33

@fragbot : I suspect that if legacy preferences didn’t exist they would just still get in as they are likely to have the credentials and have an application that signals full-pay/can pay a huge chunk of tuition.

34

@bernie12 – I fundamentally agree with one minor modification. I’d change “they would still get in” to “they would still get in an elite school but it’s less likely to be the one associated with their family.”

35

@BiffBrown Let me get this straight, you are losing the argument so you then post that you are just posting informational topics to get people talking. What?
I also had to laugh at your clarification of what people who attend certain Ivies want. I attended one of the Ivies you mentioned (undergrad and grad) and in fact you are wrong on the point you made relative to that school. And I do not believe this has changed either. Like many people, perhaps, you are painting a one dimensional picture of the opinion you are married to and cannot absorb other things which people are trying to illustrate. A common flaw.
My points about our family and legacy were made to show the what is one day a scholarship student from a poor family may in 20-30 years be a wealthy donor who funds the next generation. We are that family. In a single generation, our family has jumped from lower class to top 5% all siblings with just a college education for each of us. This has worked for several hundred years and while not perfect has shaped the education in this country. I agree with @ljberkow your arguments are cheap. But more importantly not clear and concise. Nor well articulated. I have lost what you are now focused on. Are you attacking legacies? The system? How many people are “qualified”?
And stew about this BiffBrown, did you also know that friends call each other regarding getting their kids into that school and vice versa? Yep, happens all the time. I went to (X) and your kid wants to go there so you call me. My kid wants to go to Y so I call you. How are you going to deal with that?

36

@ljberkow and @fragbot

If legacy applicants as a group are as well credentialed or better credentialed (credentialed as defined by the university) then why do universities deploy a legacy preference (defined differently at different schools) at all?

@ljberkow I’ve relied on anecdotes because most universities don’t release detail statistics about their legacy preferences or even how those preferences are applied in real life. Are legacy applicants placed in their own bucket? Are legacy applicants whose parents donated a lot placed in a different bucket? Does legacy status only come up if an applicant is on the fence?

There have been a lot of studies done on Ivy League preferences - specifically those at Harvard. The Price of Admission is a book written about Ivy League legacy preferences, for example.

https://www.amazon.com/Price-Admission-Americas-Colleges-Outside/dp/1400097975/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1520796842&sr=8-1&keywords=the+price+of+admission&dpID=516rpVeHiNL&preST=SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40&dpSrc=srch

There are other studies too. I’m not going to list them all here. You can google them.

I’ve taken care not to comment on Emory’s legacy preference because there’s not a lot of publicly available information about it. For example, what percentage of Emory’s entering class is legacy? I doubt it’s as high as 30% as has been reported to be the case at Harvard.

More anecdotes:

It’s well known in my city than Ivy League alums jockey to be appointed head of their local Ivy League alumni club or some other important position within - such as chair of the schools committee in charge of interviewing - right around the time their child is applying to college to boost the chances of admission. And it works. The child is invariably admitted. And then predictably, the parent resigns the post.

The former president of the local Harvard Club served for years until all 4 of her kids were admitted and then promptly retired. A former president of the local Princeton Club served until all 3 of his kids were admitted to Princeton, then promptly resigned. A wealthy surgeon got himself appointed to the local Princeton Club back in the day right before his son applied to Princeton from a prestigious local private school. His son was admitted. He resigned his post. A local Princeton alum got her high school aged daughter appointed as an officer to the local Princeton Club right before the daughter applied. The daughter was admitted.

These officers were elected in any way. They were not appointed through any process that most alumni were privy to.

Admission to elite schools should not be a process that can be manipulated by the already well-heeled and well-connected. It should be more like auditioning for a part in a play where ability and fit wins out. It should not be like joining a frat or a sorority where connections and secret criteria accessible to only a few win out.

A STEM professor who once taught at Harvard and served on its admissions committee has complained bitterly about how candidates that were clearly unqualified were being admitted because their parents had given a lot. When he pointed out their lack of qualifications, the response was “well, they have potential.” He’s also said that such admittees typically didn’t care about school and didn’t really try.

37

*These officers were NOT elected in any way. CORRECTION

38

@Happytimes2001

If legacy applicants as a group are as well credentialed or better credentialed (credentialed as defined by the university) then why do universities deploy a legacy preference (defined differently at different schools) at all?

You seem obsessed with the Ivy League to the point where you’re happy that so much of admissions there is like joining a frat or sorority because it gives your son an edge. Wouldn’t your son prefer to compete on a level playing field without the benefit of his privilege? Wouldn’t admission under those circumstances be far more satisfying? I guess not to you.

39

@Happytimes2001

From your post: “And stew about this BiffBrown, did you also know that friends call each other regarding getting their kids into that school and vice versa? Yep, happens all the time. I went to (X) and your kid wants to go there so you call me. My kid wants to go to Y so I call you. How are you going to deal with that?”

This makes my point. Unqualified applicants shouldn’t be admitted to elite schools because their parents are well-connected.

40

“Unqualified applicants shouldn’t be admitted to elite schools because their parents are well-connected.”

This is your problem. You presume they are unqualified and then use anecdotes about children of celebrities and politicians. Study after study proves out that legacies at the top 30 schools have higher qualifications than the average student. If you think this group is going to help you out on exams graded on a curve, you might be in for a rude awakening.