<p>The Harvard & UNC lawsuits about discrimination in college admissions have an interesting different angle this time:</p>
<p>In contrast to the Fisher v UT lawsuit which had a White posterchild of lame-O, middling achievement who was arguing that she was passed over in favor of URMs of lower achievement, these 2 lawsuits argue that higher achieving Asians (a racial minority) as a class are being passed over in favor of lower achieving Whites (the dominant race). And it points to legacy preference as one vehicle for perpetuating the discrimination.</p>
<p>We listen to elite colleges constantly extolling the virtues of Diversity Diversity Diversity because of the educational benefits derived from having many different viewpoint expressed in the classroom. In the landmark Grutter v Bollinger decision, the SCOTUS opinion justified racial preferences “…to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body”. </p>
<p>One can make a case that race shapes a child’s experience in the world from birth-18; therefore, a black student cannot help but have a different viewpoint to contribute to enrich the classroom discussion. Hard to argue that being a Harvard legacy shapes a child’s experience in the world from birth-18 in a unique way apart from simply being, on average, white and higher socioeconomic class. </p>
<p>We’ve all heard the argument that colleges need legacies for financial reasons: to stoke alumni contributions. But Harvard with a $36 billion endowment that eclipses the GDP of half of the countries in the world, needs more donor money like West Virginia needs more coal. Should rich colleges be putting themselves up on a pedestal as the champions of idealism and at the same time taking tax-deductible admission bribes from parents? Many selective schools have already eliminated legacy preference on principle.</p>
<p>So let’s talk LEGACY PREFERENCE. At the days numbered for this practice?</p>
<p>“Should rich colleges be putting themselves up on a pedestal as the champions of idealism and at the same time taking tax-deductible admission bribes from parents? Many selective schools have already eliminated legacy preference on principle.”</p>
<p>What selective schools have eliminated legacy preference? Every one I’m aware of does a higher acceptance rate for legacies vs non-legacies – although the extent to which that’s a “bump” is unclear, as legacy children tend to be in the high end of the admission pool (more educated, well-to-do, sophisticated parents vs the total acceptance pool).</p>
<p>And when you talk “tax-deductible admission bribes” from parents, you are conflating two different things:
Acceptance of “ordinary” legacies (that is, parents don’t routinely donate, or have donated trivial amounts over time, $50 here and $100 there)
Development candidates.</p>
<p>And frankly, if someone is walking around with the kind of significant money hanging out of their pockets that it takes to be noticed at these schools, why would the school really GAS if that parent <em>happens</em> to be an alum or not? Money is money, and green is green; it ain’t greener coming from the pockets of an alum. </p>
<p>So it would be great if we could distinguish ordinary legacy from developmental candidates here.</p>
<p>I know quite a few legacy kids at our alma mater (including my son); of course, that’s also because I run in the circles that would have those legacy kids there. I am quite positive that they are all “ordinary” legacies (meaning that their donations to the school, if any, were modest and insubstantial). None of them would remotely be in the development leagues. </p>
<p>Legacy admissions really are not about getting big alumni donations. Those are “development” admissions that are a much rarer breed.</p>
<p>The typical legacy admission IS about money though. But it is about getting students to enroll who, on average, will be much more likely to be full payors of tuition room and board. A typical legacy parent will send way more dollars to their alma mater in the form of $60k in TR&B annually per kid than they ever will in donations. </p>
<p>The legacy admission pool at Harvard or other fancy schools (including public ones like UNC and UVA) is pre-sorted for favorable SES characteristics. For example, the legacy pool by definition won’t contain any first generation college students (a category that typically is going to require a lot of financial aid).</p>
<p>Legacy admissions ease the strain on the financial aid budget. Which is especially helpful at schools that pride themselves on having need blind admissions and meeting full need for all admitted. Those are very expensive policies to adhere to; legacy admissions make them a bit less expensive.</p>
<p>“A typical legacy parent will send way more dollars to their alma mater in the form of $60k in TR&B annually per kid than they ever will in donations.”</p>
<p>Amen, which is precisely what I tell them when they call me for donations :-). Nope, you’ve got $60K of my money this year already; you’re done, thanks.</p>
No, I deliberately mean plain-vanilla alumni parents, not development cases. Those $100 trivial donations X thousands of alumni add up, just like taxing lots of lower and middle class taxpayers adds up; otherwise, our gov’t would just tax rich people.</p>
<p>We can start a separate thread to discuss development cases. They are a different issue.</p>
<p>sry, gmt, I find Freedman’s argument incoherent. For example, the following sentence makes zero sense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Regardless, the top 20 private schools are so darn small, and the legacies that they accept are even smaller in number, the legacy impact – as is affirmative action – a drop in the bucket for college admissions. </p>
<p>But then I don’t live in the NE (which is why I don’t have to care).</p>
<p>yeah, I find that argument incoherent. Actually, it’s not a real argument; rather, its Freedman’s opinion on what his tax code would look like. (noting wrong with having an opinion – we all do – but call it what it is. and then write the article on why the tax code should be changed. Good luck with that.)</p>
<p>Taxpayers aren’t “forced” to do anything. We put in place the reps that write the tax laws/code. If we taxpayers don’t like it, we can ‘throw the bums out’. But we do not.</p>
<p>Legacy preference has been around for a long time at schools. In fact, there was a time when getting into the most selective schools was through legacy and connections with a smattering of others to fill in what the school couldn’t get from the two primary sources. So these schools have opened up quite a bit. </p>
<p>One of the top Yale officers, can’t remember who, was trying to make an argument that alumni preference hardly makes any difference at all, since that pool is so strong. To that, I ask, why have it all, if that’s the case. I have noticed that with the very top schools, simply being legacy is no guarantee for admissions even with stats putting such a student well into the acceptable ranges. It seems to take two “hits” these days to get into the most selective schools, and sometimes even three. </p>
<p>Still, it’s 15% of the pool, not counting sibling legacy, which is a smaller tip. Throw in the connections, which still can count heavily and the spaces left for everyone else are not many. </p>
<p>I think it gives the school continuity to have it. I think a number of schools that don’t should have it.</p>
<p>About state schools having it,…I don’t know. I’m up in the air about it. The precedence certainly is there and is still actively practiced at public k-12 schools. BUt, I feel that private schools have a stronger case for it than public. </p>
<p>I don’t have a problem with legacy preference as there is no law against it. Anyone can get legacy preference as long as they have a parent who attended the school, regardless of race, gender, age, whatever, all the protected categories. We can argue that’s it’s a benefit to the rich, but then elite education is all about benefits to the rich, so I don’t see a problem with that.</p>
<p>Yeah, let’s not EVEN pretend this is a “worse” problem compared to the gentleman’s-handshake-why-Biff-is-such-a-fine-boy of years ago!</p>
<p>Every elite school for which I’ve seen stats – the majority of legacies are still rejected. Is there any elite school with a reported acceptance rate for legacies that is greater than 50%?</p>
<p>“Still, it’s 15% of the pool, not counting sibling legacy, which is a smaller tip. Throw in the connections, which still can count heavily and the spaces left for everyone else are not many.”</p>
<p>If a school offers a good experience, its legacy kids will “crowd” the applicant pool. Look at U Chicago - the experience there in the 70s and 80s was so sucky that their legacy kids barely applied. Notre Dame is sort of the opposite example - legacy kids there apply in droves and make up a good portion of the applicant pool. </p>
<p>Taking your 15% of Yale are legacies as an example – it is still meaningless unless you know what % of the applicant pool are legacies. Maybe 30% of the applicant pool are legacies and they disfavor them. Maybe 15% of the applicant pool are legacies and they accept them equally. Maybe only 5% of the applicant pool are legacies and they fall over backwards to let them in. The 15% by itself – the horizontal – is a totally meaningless number unless you know the horizontal of the applicant pool.</p>
<p>How many schools give significant legacy preference? I’m not totally read into this process at all, but Notre Dame is the only one I’m aware of that says they give legacies significant consideration on their Common Data Set. I’d assume there’s others. A buddy who went to Dartmouth recently came back from a class reunion at the college and said they were told specifically not to expect their kids to get in just because they did. I totally get GMT’s point and I really can’t find fault in it, but there is such an old boys/girls club influence at many, if not most, colleges and universities and I think that influence is encouraged ( who doesn’t want alumni support?) and the bump that legacies get, whatever it may be, is probably a by product of that. It’s hard not to be biased. Harvard has its corporation and board of overseers. Only 2 among the 30 don’t have Harvard degrees. One of them is Drew Faust and her daughter went to Harvard. Imagine that. These people decide how the university approaches life and it’s not a stretch to think they might like their family members to have an extra feather on the scale when it comes to admission decisions. Is that right? I think GMT has an argument, but bringing in the Govt and taxpayer angles is a weak argument as nepotism is alive and well in most spheres of influence, especially our federal govt. What do Cambridge and Oxford do? And not what do they say, but what do they do? How many dons or whatever they call them have kids at the school? </p>
<p>“No, I deliberately mean plain-vanilla alumni parents, not development cases. Those $100 trivial donations X thousands of alumni add up, just like taxing lots of lower and middle class taxpayers adds up; otherwise, our gov’t would just tax rich people.”</p>
<p>I agree that $100 donations x thousands of alumni add up, but plain-vanilla alumni parents who are donating $100 here and there <em>aren’t</em> doing so because they naively think “and when junior is of college age, they will know we are such big shots that they’ll HAVE to let him in!” They’re doing so because they love the school and want to support it. </p>
<p>Trust me, elite schools have more than enough fancy-schmancy councils of big-roller supporters that are called out in alumni magazines and the like that plain-vanilla parents know that their donations are trivial. </p>
<p>The acceptance rate for legacies at Harvard is 30 percent. The overall acceptance rate is under 6 percent and that includes the 30 percent legacy rate. </p>
<p>30 percent is pretty damn good even if the legacies are more than qualified.</p>
<p>Whether or not u personally think the legacy issue is a significant factor, the fact remains that the practice will be scrutinized in court as part of the Harvard lawsuit, in the context as affirmative action for the dominant race.</p>