<p>Many alumni give because of the benefits they received out of the education in the school and the opportunities in the career service office lol. But they also give because schools prefer legacies. :))</p>
<p>Please, let’s not muck around with to he legacy quota, it’s not breaking in laws and makes life much simpler for a few folks. Same thing for fact rat quota, please?? ;))</p>
<p><a href=“Undergraduate Admissions”>http://admissions.unc.edu/information-for-parents/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>well, if it gets to the SCOTUS it will be decided by 9 folks with about 18 or more legacy preference school degrees.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Looking around the admission tabs for college entries at <a href=“http://www.collegedata.com”>http://www.collegedata.com</a> , it appears that, even among the “most difficult” and “very difficult” public universities, “relationship with alumnus” is “considered”. The California publics appear to be exceptional in listing that as “not considered”. The USMA lists it as “not considered”, but the other academies list it as “considered”. For UNC-CH, it is listed as “considered”.</p>
<p>It is only considered for OOS. It is not considered in nearly the way that it once was. </p>
<p>there is no legacy preference for instate students. Instate students are 82% of UNC CH students, by law.</p>
<p>see post #20</p>
<p>
If legacies are so strong an appliant pool anyway, then as @cpt points out, why have the preference at all?</p>
<p>“If legacies are so strong an appliant pool anyway, then as @cpt points out, why have the preference at all?”</p>
<p>Because they want to, obviously. Just like how any private college decides it wants to run things. </p>
<p>Because the flicker of hope that your kid might go to the school that you so dearly loved keeps many graduates donating significant money and time to the school. Tradition is powerful. Certainly there are family traditions at the GMT house, no?</p>
<p>Princeton admitted 30.8% of legacy applicants to the class of 2018, 81% yield and 11.3% of class. Overall yield was 66%, but do not know if legacy’s higher yield was due to SCEA admits (non-binding, so less of an argument than schools that encourage legacy to apply ED). I know little about Princeton but had stumbled across their admission stats earlier. I appreciate the transparency. </p>
<p>
Not all traditions withstand constitutional scrutiny; otherwise, women wouldn’t be able to vote. </p>
<p>Right, but this thread isn’t about significant money. It’s about what GMT is calling the plain-vanilla parents (such as myself) - who threw a couple of bucks at dear old alma mater every now and then, but nothing of any significance at the individual level. I can’t imagine that H and I have donated more than $500 - and probably far less - over the 25 or so years after we graduated.</p>
<p>When S was considering it in earnest, we did discuss whether it would be worth joining one of those “inner circles”, but figured that would be too transparent and anyway, unless we were bearing enough to fund a new science lab or dorm, it wasn’t worth it. </p>
<p>Touche ( sans accent aigu). Though this issue is hardly of the same gravity as slavery or womens’ suffrage or other civil rights. </p>
<p>I was amazed at how quickly the Parent Fund solicitations began—first semester! Weekly messages from either University Annual Fund and now Parents’ Fund…oh, and class year solicitations. </p>
<p>This is a complicated issue, and there is not perfect answer. </p>
<p>If any private organization that has preferences should lose its tax status, then a lot of non-profits are in trouble, starting with churches. No favorable tax treatment until women can be priests?</p>
<p>Also, some schools now give preference to men over women within races as they try to construct a balanced class because more women are going to college. Is that okay? </p>
<p>Also, what about preferences for children of Professors and administrators? </p>
<p>Also, a significant portion of the legacy applicants /full-pay applicants tuition is really paying for low income students. Not really fair either. </p>
<p>What about schools who give in-state preferences?Should they lose favorable federal tax treatment for discriminating against other states?</p>
<p>Finally, everyone’s favorite, preferential treatment for athletes. If there are no preferences except academics are all that can be considered, that is the end of college football and basketball as we know it.</p>
<p>I don’t not really have a strong view on this issue and can see pros and cons to both sides, at this point I am still just asking questions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can assure you that there are thousands of candidates who run for office every year who would readily reduce the tax code to a post card (which would eliminate the charitable tax deduction). Ironically, few if any, run and are elected in the states where the Ancient Eight reside. Instead, voters in in Cambridge, NYC. Providence, Philadelphia, Ithaca, Hanover, New Haven, Princeton vote for the opposite.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not sure I remember anything from my high school civics where the Constittuion says anything about ‘fair’.</p>
<p>It is fun to debate. For the record, I think you’re on the side of the right thing to do. But I think I’ve read in some post where you hire people. If your old best friend from college called and said that her son was applying to your company and he was totally qualified and a good fit and it was up to you to hire a person or a number of people are you saying you wouldn’t be swayed a little bit by that? Because I would, but then I’m weak that way! Plus, is anyone else excited for their kids to come home for Thanksgiving? I’m so looking forward to this upcoming week.</p>
<p>
Gender discrimination is a different issue. As far as I am aware, other non-profits don’t give explicit legacy preferences.</p>
<p>
That is an employment benefit. Any one is eligible to compete for a faculty job and enjoy that benefit. Being a legacy is not a condition of faculty employment.</p>
<p>
As I stated in my original post, Harvard has a $36 billion endowment that eclipses the GDP of half of the countries in the world. Harvard needs more donor money like West Virginia needs more coal.</p>
<p>
Geographic residency is a mutable condition as I have well demonstrated. </p>
<p>
Athletic ability is an achievement not an accident of birth. Anyone is eligible to compete in that arena. </p>
<p>
I evaluate job candidates regularly. My company has strict ethics policies. As a favor to friend, I would pass the resume to my HR department, acknowledge that I am a friend of the father, then recuse myself from making a hiring decision on that particular candidate. </p>
<p>
YES! DS has just texted me that he is on the plane! 
</p>
<p>GMT. the thread was indeed closed in this forum but allowed to continue in that little dusty corner it occupies in the Admission forum. That is the little corner of CC that is meant to confine all the complaints about affirmative action. Let it be known that the tenor of the discussions is usually very much on the “plaintiff side” and are quite different from the perspective on AA in this forum when the occasional discussion slips through. </p>
<p>Fwiw, the elements of the lawsuit that attack the preferences used by H in admissions present a twist that is quite original in a lawsuit. Of course, the contents of the lawsuit against Harvard is quite a confusing hodgepodge of anecdotes and shoddy science presnted in a format that might have caused plenty of first year attorneys to be fired. But beyond the unusual format of the brief/article/OpEd masquerading as a complaint, it is interesting that one fist attacks discrimination and the other the use of … preferences. </p>
<p>I guess the plaintiffs have decided on a shotgun strategy rather than a sharpshooter strategy.</p>