It seems to me that both institutions are messed up. Why don’t people attack Legacy as much as they do affirmative action. Isn’t Harvard’s legacy admissions 40%. Because of legacy, we’ve got morons like Bush (no offense) getting into school other students with better academic records don’t get into. To me legacy is just as bad as affirmative action if not worse. 40% jeez!
<p>Like you said, both are very big problems. However, on this board their are many more people who are hurt by AA then legacy. In fact, a good portion of the people on this board are legacies. But I agree with you both are unfair and discriminative. I don't understand the logic in letting someone go to your school just because they are rich or a minority. What really gets me is that all these prestigious school keep saying that they are trying to support diversity, but in the end they are only supporting the idea of diversity. You can't project a persons background by their parents or their race. Everyone has something different to offer.</p>
<p>Legacies receive help because the parents have connections with the school or/and have donated money to help fund the endowment and education costs of students over the years. Without endowment money, universities cannot function. What do you think will happen to that endowment money if they start rejecting most of their benefactors' children? Also, just to note, the acceptance rate might also be bloated due to the fact that alumni of elite schools are probably more likely to make sure their sons and daughters do very well in school and probably raise their children in very healthy environments where they can thrive in life and academia.</p>
<p>I perfectly understand the response of outrage associated with affirmative action and legacies. However, that's how the college admissions process goes. Sorry.</p>
<p>I've said it before here, but I don't see how there is anything wrong with a legacy. It is a good way for colleges to predict how the student will perform.</p>
<p>solid, intelligent parents are more likely to raise solid, intelligent children. legacy is fine the way it is...it's not like 100% of legacies get in. 40% is definately not a suprise...because as i said before intelligent parents are inclined to raise intelligent children.</p>
<p>i actually have to agree with those who favor legacies (i don't have legacies anywhere; i'm first in my family to go to college). i don't see a rampant problem with unqualified legacies getting into college. all of the kids that i know are going to colleges their parents went to (and thus had legacy favoring them during the admission process) are highly qualified, even more so than a lot of other kids i know who are heading to the same schools (H, Y, P, etc).</p>
<p>Legacy is bullshat! If these people are so smart then why not cut out any mention of legacy altogether and let them get in on thier own merrits? And yes, AA is bullshat too. Instead of looking at race, they should look at income. If you are an extremely poor white person who worked nights all the way through highschool you should not have your spot in school taken by a middle or upper class black person.</p>
<p>In other words, a sort of "alumni incest" with children of children of children of alumnus getting preferential treatment. Getting an endowment is one thing, but decrying AA whilst supporting legacies is hypocrisy, because both judge you on something you, personally, did not do (you didn't give you parents an Ivy education, and you certainly didn't have a choice of ethnicity when you were born -technicalities aside).</p>
<p>I'm in the middle on the issue of legacy admissions, just as I am on affirmative action. I think it's corrupt, but I don't think it should totally come to an end.</p>
<p>well, i don't think universities are "decrying AA whilst supporting legacies." besides, what dima343 wrote is correct. anyway, you know how schools like HYP say that they can fill their incoming classes three times over without losing quality b/c their applicants are so highly talented? legacy only ensures that you end up in the incoming classes, not those kids they had to reject simply b/c they don't have the space. if you want to get into college w/o any special hooks, don't put too much weight on getting into the ivies/MIT/etc.; there is simply too many great kids for too few spaces. at this pt legacies ARE going to get preferential treatment, but that doesn't mean you're better than them.</p>
<p>no, not universities...people on this board saying that they got scr**ed over by AA but saying that a legacy place is earned because your parents worked hard.</p>
<p>But, I am also in the middle. I don't benefit from either, but I don't feel that I have "lost a place to <em>insert variable here</em>" because of the perceived advantage.</p>
<p>What are the avg. admitted test scores for legacies vs. URMs vs. non URM/legacies? I believe the difference between admitted legacies at Harvard and regular students is only around 50 SAT points.</p>
<p>What are the graduation rates of legacies vs. URMs at selective colleges? </p>
<p>Thirdly, believe it or not, some people (like me) who are anti-AA are not anti-AA because I'm bitter over college rejections. Therefore, legacies and athletes don't factor into the equation at all. I am not anti-AA because I think it takes spots away from deserving Asians and whites. I truly believe affirmative action does not benefit minorities. They are accepted to schools that they simply don't belong in which lowers their graduation rates and perpetuates the stereotype that URMs are stupid/lazy. </p>
<p>Then there is the diversity argument. Even if the assumption of diversity based on skin color holds true, this is actually just another benefit for the ORMs. Sure everyone can benefit from a little diversity, but it is the whites and the Asians who will benefit the most by being exposed to a variety of cultures and views (again, this is assuming that you truly believe the best way to judge diversity is skin color).</p>
<p>Therefore, where is the benefit of affirmative action for URM's?</p>
<p>Show me some data that says that AA students don't do as well at selective schools. That's bordering on racism if you are just claiming it without stats.</p>
<p>I think both legacy and AA are ridiculous. The concept of "legacies" really makes me mad. AA isn't quite so terrible. In theory, it is not a bad idea. I think it's okay when it's used as a tie-breaker between two equally qualified applicants. However, you can't help some kids without hurting others. I don't mind if a 1410/3.91 URM gets in over a white with a 1460/3.98. However, I tend to become very anxious about my chances next year when I hear comments made to a URM with a 1310 and 3.6 like "you're in anywhere you apply" and "schools will recruit you." If a white or Asian posted those stats, others would say "that school's a super-reach" or "get more safeties." It's virtually impossible to compensate for being a non-URM without being a legacy, a recruited athlete, or winning some kind of national award.</p>
<p>There is less controversy over legacies because people dont like to complain about something which they might be able to use themselves regardless if its right or wrong. You have to remember during the time before slavery was abolished only a small percentage profited from it and had 1 slave or more than why did so many poor white people support slavery, well because they believed one day they might be able to own slaves and be in that small percentage. Same reason why people support legacies, one day you might be a legacy but youll never be a URM.</p>
<p>"no, not universities...people on this board saying that they got scr**ed over by AA but saying that a legacy place is earned because your parents worked hard."</p>
<p>Right.</p>
<p>On the AA thread I remeber reading, "you weren't affected by slavery, your ancestors were!"</p>
<p>Where is the argument, "you didn't donate to the school, your parents did"?</p>
<p>Legacies and AA recpitants go hand in hand.</p>
<p>Just like AA reciptants, Legacies will walk around campus and know that they only got there because their parents donated to the school. We have a girl at my college whose dad owns most of our buildings.</p>
<p>So where's the big uproar? Isn't this as sensitive a subject as AA?</p>