"Looking to the Past to Ban Legacy Admissions" (Inside Higher Ed)

Parents Forum
21

<p>Some of the replies here are confusing LEGAL arguments used in a court case with policy arguments and historical arguments. A court might consider a lot of issues of policy and history along with issues of law when deciding a case, but the issues of law control, if they are clear. I found it interesting that some lawyers had taken second looks at some old bodies of law, long on the books, and thought up an approach to this college admission issue that might be controlled by the issues of law they found. Some court gets to decide if that is correct, but, hey, that's our system.</p>

22

<p>There is no chance that the courts will get rid of legacy preferences. Consider the current US Supreme Court:</p>

<p>Justice/College/Law School</p>

<p>Roberts/Harvard/Harvard
Stevens/Chicago/Northwestern
Scalia/Georgetown/Harvard
Kennedy/Stanford/Harvard
Souter/Harvard/Harvard
Thomas/Holy Cross/Yale
Ginsburg/Cornell/Harvard & Columbia
Breyer/Stanford/Harvard
Alito/Princeton/Yale</p>

<p>^^Now does that look like a group of folks who are likely to make sweeping changes and cut off their own families from the benefits of legacy admissions to elite schools?</p>

23

<p>I think handicapping the Brown v. Board of Education case, which required overruling a specific Supreme Court decision, in the same way would have produced a false prediction of the outcome of the case.</p>

24

<p>^^Yeah, but the big difference is that Brown vs. Board of Education likely had very little direct effect on the justices themselves or their families. I bet these nine people are just as motivated as any Ivy-obsessed CC parent to get their children and/or grandchildren into top schools. Taking away one of their own most cherished admissions boosts is not going to happen.</p>

25

<p>coureur -
Souter was not a legacy admit to Harvard and is a lifelong bachelor.</p>

<p>What is wrong with legacy admits anyway?
Seriously.
Don't colleges look for a good "mix" when forming a class. Even if that "mix" would allow a so called "lesser qualified" candidate admission is that necessarily wrong?
Don't legacy admits bring something of value to the school? </p>

<p>For the record - Neither I nor my children were legacy admits anywhere.</p>

26

<br>


<br>

<p>Okay, make it eight of nine.</p>

27

<p>Its a totally spurious argument, legally, from private institutions, unless they take federal money. That is how the feminists successfully attacked all male colleges in the past, including the Ivy League. Many private colleges were all male colleges, some of which only went gender neutral in the late 70's. The hook to defeat them was federal grants etc. Ironically, the all female schools still abound. Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.</p>

28

<p>Admissions to state schools is not right but a privilege. If they can attack them for legacy admissions, what is next? Discrimination for SAT scores? But I suppose the state schools have a tougher time constitutionally defending their policies. On the other hand, I am vehemently opposed to affirmative action as that is discrimination on the basis of race, per se. </p>

<p>Now I am not defending legacy admissions anywhere. I think they are borderline immoral in many cases, if the admitted student did not otherwise qualify. (i.e. the Kennedy clan was notorious for this). What I am saying is that college admissions are a privilege, not a right and the schools can establish reasonable standards of admission that are not overtly or covertly discriminatory on the basis of race, creed, etc. </p>

<p>The other issue this would open up would be athletic scholarships which are 90% of the time given to gifted athletes who are NOT academically qualified for admission at most of these prestigious schools. That blatantly discriminates against students who are not athletically gifted.</p>

<p>Finally, its clear we need to bust up the Ivy League monopoly for Supreme Court Justices and top government jobs, including the Presidency. </p>

<p>We need more "common people" in those jobs. By "common" I dont mean mediocre and dullard. I mean people who went to schools that ordinary Americans attend. That could mean a good state school, or it could mean a decent private school that is not in the top 25. Perhaps then we might get more common sense in government.</p>

29

<p>didn't really feel like reading through this whole thread....but I honestly have a bigger problem with admissions based on things like gender and geography than I do with legacies. And no, there are no legacy admits in our family at any level.</p>

30

<p>One financial reason for legacy admissions is the potential for more alumni donations. Knowing that your kids have a small advantage, probably compounded if you donate over the years, can make you inclined to donate more.</p>

31

<br>


<br>

<p>Do any state schools still have legacy admissions? UCs did away with legacies on their own decades ago.</p>

32

<p>Well I'm OK with AA and legacy and URM and first generation and athletic and artistic and geographic and gender and sexual orientation preferences. BUT, I'm against admitting the rich (because money buys privilege) and admitting the poor (because who wants to encourage THAT?) and admitting the middle class (because they don't stand out at either end of the economic spectrum). So HHRUMPF!!!</p>

33

<p>As more AA applicants have been admitted in the past 30 years to super-selective colleges, more minorities can make use of any legacy boost a school might care to offer. Why pull the rug out on them now?</p>

34

<p>tthere is nothing wrong with legacy admissions, its called the best people get the spots. And in the eyes of colleges, what does best mean? Most likely to increase the endowment size by striking it big and donating. Who are most likely to do that? Legacies. Since colleges are a business, you cannot fault them for making smart business decisions. And its not like the average legacy student is dumber than the average other student... </p>

<p>These places are looking at a series of factors to determine how well you will do at X place and beyond, and legacy is a factor that does have a correlation with overall success. And colleges are and should be allowed to take that into account when choosing the students they want on their campus.</p>

35

<p>
[quote]
One financial reason for legacy admissions is the potential for more alumni donations. Knowing that your kids have a small advantage, probably compounded if you donate over the years, can make you inclined to donate more.

[/quote]
And there's the rational purpose for the discrimination. End of case.</p>

36

<p>^^^ Actually unless you are giving on the order of a million dollars your children are no more likely to be beneficiaries of legacy preferences than if you gave no money. And if you do give that kind of money your children would have a preference regardless of your status of an alumna. Those admits are classified as developmental admits, not legacy admits. </p>

<p>If you graduated from Yale and have been sending a thousand dollars every years for the last 10 years, don't expect extra special treatment for your children. I actually know a couple who both graduated from Yale, gave money to Yale, yet their son who was a varsity athlete with high GPA and scores was not admitted. He did get into Columbia without being a legacy there.</p>

37

<p>This is really an indication of a grand conspiracy. Columbia legacies, that are denied at Columbia, are accepted at Yale and vice versa. In this way the percentage of legacies at both Columbia and Yale are deflated. It may actually be the case that being a legacy is a negative tip, because schools report legacies as a percentage of their incoming class and need to manage this number for public relations.</p>

38

<p>For smaller schools it's also an issue of who is actually going to accept their offer of admission. A legacy who has been told their entire lives about how amazing University X is, how their parents met in Blank Library near the 500s, how such and such a teacher changed the way they looked at the world is far more likely to attend the school then someone who is just looking for another match/safety.</p>

39

<p>Re state universities and legacies: As of last year, Iowa State, U of Iowa, and Northern Iowa all offered legacy scholarship money to out-of-state children and grandchildren of alumni. I think it was about $1000 a year which would just about cover the cost of books. In the case of Iowa, it is a deliberate ploy to get those kids into universities there in the hope that they will stay in the state after graduation.</p>

40

<p>Michigan Tech, a decent public engineering school in northern Michigan, also offers automatic scholarship to OOS legacies that reduces their tuition to in-state levels. Pretty good deal. The University of Michigan Office of Undergraduate Admissions also "consider[s] a direct relationship, or a step-family relationship, with someone who has attended the University of Michigan as a factor in the application review process." In other words, legacy is a "plus factor."</p>