<p>There are lots of departments that focus on subjects for which there is no real tests: at Harvard, these would include music, visual and environmental studies and others that do not come immediately to mind.</p>
<p>Second, as Vossron suggested, colleges could fill their entering classes several times over with those who are purely qualified. But they want diverse classes--and so do the students. My S is not involved in ECs that I would not have imagined for him, were it not for the serendipity of floormates.</p>
<p>--No legacies (this is the most outdated admissions hook there is)</p>
<p>--Try not to use standardized test scores AND grades as THE way to determine whether or not a kid is academically qualified. They are indicators, but I find that both (yes, grades especially) are deceptive. They are limited in determining a student's complete potential, but I guess you could argue that the entire admissions process is limiting, but hey it's what we've got! (This is my own personal bias, there are quite a few fallacies.)</p>
<p>--Although this isn't academically related, give out more financial aid. I know that there are rebuttals against this but I hear about some Ivies that don't give out enough financial aid to kids who are academically qualified to attend but don't have the financial ability to do so.</p>
<p>--THE US News rankings just don't make sense to me logically. Each person wants something different that to put it ALL into one category is... illogical. If anything, even though I hate rankings in general, I prefer the Princeton Review's. They do it based on individual things -- Schools that run like butter, Schools with Hardest/Easiest Classes, Location etc. At least this way, students can compare, see what they like, what's the good and bad, etc. But pouring it all together is kind of stupid.</p>
<p>"Academic criteria" does not necessarily mean that the student has the best overall grades and test scores. Many individuals have a lopsided set of strengths and interests -- and from the standpoint of a college it might be worth it for them to overlook weak math scores in order to accept a truly gifted poet.... or ignore weak grades in history when deciding to admit a budding math genius. So about the best you can say with respect to academic criteria as a determining factor is that the student needs to have something going for her -- but you can't really make across-the-board comparisons.</p>
[/quote]
Assuming we're talking about private schools that give need-based aid, need-blind schools have sufficient endowment such that all admitees who have need have their need met (as defined by the schools, or by using the consensus criteria). Need-aware schools don't have that luxury, so must have policies for distributing limited available aid. In order to give out more aid, they would need to charge a higher list price, or increase their endowments (which they're trying to do anyway); the money has to come from somewhere. Goverment could contribute more if lawmakers saw fit.
[quote]
No legacies
[/quote]
Hypothetically, if schools are faced with two otherwise equally qualified candidates, but one is a legacy, schools may be able to incrementally increase their endowments by admitting the legacy, because they know her parents will (statistically) contribute more than the non-legacy, and thus be able to incrementally increase endowments and give out more financial aid. Hypothetically.</p>
<p>I'm torn on the legacy issue. I certainly don't feel it should lead to an unqualified student being admitted, but if a student is fully qualified, why shouldn't it give a little tip? The colleges certainly want loyalty from their alumni; giving a little back makes sense. I know that I'll be seriously miffed if my husband's alma mater doesn't admit our son.</p>
<p>bethie,
Please read AdOfficer's discussion of this (and of huge donors) in the "Stop Playing the Race Card Thread" in College Admissions forum. I think she gets into the topic on the second to last page of the current discussion.
(Bottom line: Legacies must be, and generally are, more uniformly qualified than in many years past. It's still a competitive game with all of the highly qualified pool.)</p>
<p>The problem with legacies is that it promotes a "rich stay richer" consequence to college admissions. Ironically, many--and this is no comment on anyone in this thread--who think legacy admits are only right and proper also froth at URM policies as being unfair.</p>
<p>The thing about legacy status is that, apart from money, it has nothing to recommend it. Education has been a great engine of social mobility in this country and social mobility is an essential element of the American culture. Legacy tips, if they matter, are about as inconsistent with the concept of social mobility as any practice I can imagine. To the extent that they don't matter they are irrelevant. Why not free these students to go to someplace that really fits them, rather than insentivizing them to go to Grandpa's school.</p>
<p>Not I. I'm okay with both legacies and URM policies.
Need-based financial aid that gives low income applicants a full ride allows the poor to become richer. Without large donations from wealthy donors, these full rides would not be available.</p>
<p>You'll see that less well endowed colleges that charge as much as wealthy colleges are actually more ethnically and economically homogeneous: they can't afford to give full rides to students.</p>
<p>The assumption is that legacies enjoy a huge advantage over non-legacies. But it also stands to reason that in general, children of affluent and well-educated parents have an educational advantage (there are always exceptions, of course).
If a so-so legacy can bring in $1 million in donation, it will endow a couple of full rides in perpetuity, or it will cover 4 years of college for 5 students. Not a bad deal for either the college or the low-income students.</p>
<p>It's hard to argue with the development candidates. Donate a million plus and I'd hold the door open for you myself. They clearly provide a significant benefit. But IMO a better system would be to raise tuiton to offset the financial impact of ending run-of-the mill legacy's and provide whatever additional financial aid is neccessary for those who need it. The middle and upper middle class will pay more but they, and everyone else, will have a more equitable system.</p>
<p>I am also in favor of both legacy and URM policies, and I don't understand why favoring one means not wanting the other. I don't think academically unqualified students should be accepted, whether they are legacy, URM, football quarterbacks, Madonna's daughter, tuba players or from North Dakota. I think that for the most part, the vast majority of students walking around selective colleges can handle the academics, and the vast majority of applicants who are denied can handle the work, too.</p>
<p>There is this assumption that all legacy students are wealthy and come from a long line of wealthy families. This is not true. I know legacy students who come from families of modest incomes. I know legacy students whose parents came from impoverished families (my daughter fits that description). And I know plenty of students who didn't apply to mommy's, daddy's or grandparents' school. And I also know exceptional legacy kids whose parents were very active and donated money who were denied admission. In general, I agree with BethieVt's comment, that being a legacy shouldn't make up for lower grades, lower SAT scores, lack of ECs, etc., but in the case of equally qualified candidates the legacy or the kid from North Dakota (I hate picking on that state) should get the tip.</p>
<p>And when I read these complaints about legacy students, I sense that people believe that the campus is crawling with them. I don't think that's true -- it's not like half the school is made up of legacies and tens of thousands of kids are being denied admission because of them. I think Brown is 9% legacy, which means about 135 students each year. Does anyone know any other statistics (I'd be curious about Penn, which openly admits to favoring legacy in ED).</p>
<p>I've seen 10% tossed around quite a bit as an average number of enrolled students who are legacy, but can't remember a specific source. I think taking 10% of the slots and auctioning them off to students whose academic stats are at or above average for the school would be far more defensable than legacy preferences. It might also raise more money, which is the only defense offered for the legacy prefereence.</p>
<p>How high would tuition have to be raised to make up for the loss of $1 million?</p>
<p>Let's take Harvard which has 6000+ students. Of those, 70% have some kind of financial aid, in other words cannot afford to pay tuition at its current rate already. So 30% of 6000 would have to be paying enough to make the shortfall.
So we're talking raising tuition for 200 students to the tune of $50k per year. In other words, 200 students would have to pay $100,000 per year. Realistic scenario? Give me one solitary legacy worth $1 million. Among 6,000 students, that student will not cause a ripple. Furthermore, there's nothing to say that this particular legacy is subpar academically.</p>
<p>Money is not the only defense offered for legacy admissions policies. Continuing traditions, maintaining alumni enthusiasm, honoring alumni volunteer efforts (some alumni spend hundreds of hours a year volunteering for their alma mater) are some other justifications. Legacy applicants also have higher matriculation rates, so that helps bump up that number.</p>
<p>People who donate $1 millon plus are not legacys, they are development candidates. Even if they were technically legacy candidates they are not average legacy candidates. If you are going to make the argument that it is too expensive to get rid of legacys you need some real data to quantify the expected loss of donations from eliminating the preference. Your post confuses me: 30% of 6,000 is 1,800 not 200. The increase in tuiton on these folks just has to offset the lost donations. The increase in tuition for the financial aid candidates nets out to zero, nothing is gained or lost. You are missing a crucial piece of data to make your point: How much would be lost in donations from run-of-the mill legacy candidates. Like I said earlier, the handfull of big bucks developement candidates are welcome to their preference.</p>