<p>Just because someones parents went to a school shouldn't give them an advantage in college selection.</p>
<p>Discuss.</p>
<p>...yes it should. Colleges look out for their own. Also, where do you think donations to the schools come from? Alumni. If colleges deny the s/d of an alumni, chances are that they will be losing a source of income.</p>
<p>Also, the alumni already pumped a lot of money into the college's pockets when they attended.</p>
<p>Education is a business, my friend. That's life =/</p>
<p>Legacy is completely fair. The thing is, many people think applicants with legacy are underqualified, when most of them are actually very qualified--- mom or dad told them what was needed to have a good chance. Colleges do look out for their own and they should, that's where alot of their funding comes from.</p>
<p>What's "fair?"</p>
<p>Sorry, bad diction there. I meant to say acceptable.</p>
<p>can it be considered a legacy if my grandma, uncle, and tons of other relatives went to that school but neither of my actual parents went there?</p>
<p>I think it's completely acceptable. If an alumnus was an honor citizen, the school would probably think it safe to assume that their kin would be a valuable addition to their student body. Also, the thing about money.. etc. Am I really /for/ it? No. Do I care? No.</p>
<p>I agree that its acceptable, I would also say that no one is rejected because some one else was a legacy/rich/urm admit. You are accepted/rejected based on your own actions, not the actions of others.</p>
<p>That would only be true if the size of the class was potentially infinite.</p>
<p>For a particular elite school, every admission offer has as its consequence 3 to 15 rejections. There are more qualified applicants that available slots. </p>
<p>Fortunately there are many fine schools so almost everyone can find some good fit, even if it is not their "dream school".</p>
<p>Underqualifed legacies don't get in, but I have a feeling that if there were 2 otherwise equally qualified candidates (similar GPA, test scores, and ECs), and one of them was a legacy and the other wasn't, the legacy would probably get in.</p>
<p>If you think legacy isn't fair/acceptable, what about straight C students that get into Harvard because their parents donated a building...yes I know someone that did that.</p>
<p>Those that cluck with disapproval over legacy admissions want the process to be entirely rational, without preference given to the alumni upon whose beneficence the university depends. It isn't rational, however, for anyone to write a check to a university. Donors do it at least partially because they have an irrational affection for the college, which they expect to be requited by the university when it counts the most. Take away the preference, make the college cold, and stonily indifferent as the alumni progeny apply, and you unhinge the mechanism of mutual regard between donors and college that is the basis for the college's continued existence. </p>
<p>Just as the State of New Hampshire wanted to take over Dartmouth College in the SCOTUS Dartmouth College case, so too now do persons not associated with a college want to take over its workings, such as colleges exercising their right to admit who they want. Daniel Webster argued:</p>
<p>
[quote]
"This, Sir, is my case! It is the case not merely of that humble institution, it is the case of every college in our Land! It is more! It is the case of every eleemosynary institution throughout our country -- of all those great charities founded by the piety of our ancestors to alleviate human misery, and scatter blessings along the pathway of life! It is more! It is, in some sense, the case of every man among us who has property of which he may be stripped, for the question is simply this, 'Shall our State Legislatures be allowed to take that which is not their own, to turn it from its original use, and apply it to such ends and purposes as they in their discretion shall see fit!'</p>
<p>Sir, you may destroy this little institution, it is weak, it is in your hands! I know it is one of the lesser lights in the literary horizon of our country. You may put it out! But if you do so, you must carry through your work! You must extinguish, one after another, all those great lights of science which for more than a century have thrown their radiance over our land! It is, Sir, as I have said, a small college. And yet there are those who love it!"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If there are to be autonomous private institutions in the US, and private colleges find that their institutions benefit from preference in legacy admissions, then outsiders, be they enthusiasts of Rawlsian justice or government, have no business "turn [a college] from its original use, and apply it to such ends and purposes as they in their discretion shall see fit!"</p>
<p>College is a business. They rely on huge endowments in order to provide education. Harvard lost 8 billion with the economic downturn, but as you can see you can get a world class education at Harvard. The endowments come from past alumni that donate huge sums. Then they reward the donation. Doesn't everyone like a pat on the back when one does something good?</p>
<p>"Fair"...</p>
<p>meh, legacy is just one of those many factors...that aren't equal to begin with.</p>
<p>Private institutions do not break even from student tuition. In fact they lose money for each student that attends. The only way these schools stay afloat is through alumni donations and success. </p>
<p>I do not see a problem with it b/c if it was not for alumni and for people who gave back to the school after they graduated then the school would never have grown into a larger institution to accept even more students.</p>
<p>Fair and acceptable are two different things.</p>
<p>Just because something is acceptable doesn't mean it's fair. It's acceptable that URM's have a slight advantage because colleges need diversity - but it's still not fair.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, where do you think donations to the schools come from? Alumni. If colleges deny the s/d of an alumni, chances are that they will be losing a source of income.
[/quote]
That's acceptable. It's also not fair.</p>
<p>It works in the opposite direction as well - something can be fair, and be unacceptable. To use an extreme example: Is revenge fair? Debatable, but it can be seen as fair (i.e. an eye for an eye)... doesn't mean it's acceptable.</p>
<p>Sorry if my post was confusing.</p>
<p>It's no more fair than the fact that height is largely hereditary.</p>
<p>I'm an alum, and I'd say post #14 reflects my position, more or less. I've given my time, my thoughts, my regard , and perhaps more importantly-my money to the ol' u for a good number of years now, in the spirit of old memories and goodwill. If a qualified kid of mine applies there and gets rejected, that's kind of an acknowledgement that my efforts and affection all these years were misplaced/ not reciprocated. In which case, quite frankly, the spigot goes dry, and so does the goodwill.</p>
<p>It may not be fair to an unconnected new applicant, but it seems somewhat fair to alums who have willingly supported the u for years, for no good reason other than pure goodwill. It might even seem more fair to you years from now, when you are an alum and have several kids to put through college. </p>
<p>I would say my kids are additionally qualified than others not connected in that they are more intimately familiar with my school, and hence can make a more informed decision about whether it is a fit for them. Familiarity and fit are elements that admissions committees give some consideration to generally.</p>
<p>I would not expect that they would accept an unqualified kid of mine for admission. I would, however, hope that my kids would get the nod if it's a matter of choosing between similarly qualified applicants.</p>
<p>So far they've been qualified enough, but they haven't necessarily wanted to go there.</p>