<p>The</a> Case Against Legacy Admissions Preferences - Newsweek - Education</p>
<p>Do not know if this was posted already but here it is for your reading enjoyment. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It seems like a more apt comparison would be how the giving varied between families that were granted legacy admission and everyone else. I wonder, too, about mega-gifts. If one wealthy alum donates $200 million, it totally skews the data in one direction or the other. I wonder if they looked at the PERCENT of alumni giving vs. absolute amounts?</p>
<p>Two of the schools cited as having high legacy preferences, Notre Dame and Princeton, have always ranked near the top of the list for the percent of alumni contributing.</p>
<p>Another point: the Bush legacy chain at Yale is often cited in vaguely negative terms. In fact, if you assume that matriculating future world leaders is a key goal at elite schools, Yale’s legacy policy served it extremely well, bagging two future US presidents from successive generations of the same family.</p>
<p>This is basically the third time this study has been featured, once from the NYT and once from the Higher Ed Chronicle.
[url=<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/featuredthreads.php?page=2&forumid=0]Library[/url”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/featuredthreads.php?page=2&forumid=0]Library[/url</a>]</p>
<p>*Another point: the Bush legacy chain at Yale is often cited in vaguely negative terms. In fact, if you assume that matriculating future world leaders is a key goal at elite schools, Yale’s legacy policy served it extremely well, bagging two future US presidents from successive generations of the same family. *</p>
<p>True…and I think one of the twins (Barbara) also went to Yale. She’s the more serous one, so perhaps she has such a future as well.</p>
<p>Whenever I see kids talk about the “reasons” they want to go to the Ivies, one of the things I consistently see mentioned is “networking” and “connections.”</p>
<p>I’m not sure how these schools could provide networking and connections if not through at least a certain amount of alumn loyalty. If the sons and daughters of highly successful alumni go to other institutions, they will still be considered for employment and club memberships, etc…, by the freinds of the parents, who, btw, also tend to be connected. </p>
<p>One of the things these schools consistently “promise” their applicants is this network. The would probably be foolish to stop supplying those introductions, to some extent.</p>
<p>JMO</p>
<p>Excellent post, poetgrl. The value of legacy admits cannot be determined simply by reducing it to dollars and cents.</p>
<p>I know an older grad from an Ivy, retiring doctor. He got his practice started, 3000 patients, after struggling for a year or so, from a retiring alum from his college, didn’t even have to pay him for it, so for him, on a large scale and many smaller favors, it helped. They weren’t even close, but as he put it, “We stick together”.
I don’t know if that exists today the same way. It can also be very competitive.
I know his son went to his Ivy and his daughter to another, both are VERY well connected to many areas and it helped get them jobs in DC and other areas, never unemployed.</p>
<p>I’m still on the fence about the fairness of legacy admissions. Interestingly enough, it was Senator John Edwards who most got me thinking about the issue, when I saw a televised address he gave on some campus or another, prior to his first run for President. He spoke quite evocatively about his love for UNC, his alma mater, but also about his opinion that legacy admissions were anti-democratic. Well, as we all found out in 2009, Edwards is no statue of virtue. But his speech about legacy admissions still reasonates with me.</p>
<p>i HATE legacy admissions. my parents were not born or educated in this country, so of COURSE i’m not a legacy, and of course legacies at the college i’d like to attend (duke) have an edge over me. ■■■.</p>
<p>This story is quite a tired rehash. When a story on legacy admissions starts by complaining about W’s admission to Yale over 45 years ago, there’s really no point in reading any further. The legacy “boost” today bears no resemblance whatsoever to the boost that existed in W’s day. Other than legacy development cases - no more than a dozen or so for most schools in any given year - the legacy boost today is extremely small. At Harvard, for example, the average SAT scores and GPAs of legacy admits is equal to or greater than the average for the admitted class as a whole.</p>
<p>LOL! Journalists seem to get a lot of mileage out of this old tried and true story. Every year there is a whole new crop of fresh seniors and their parents to get outraged over legacy admissions right around the time of most uncertainty and most stress in the admissions process. Golly gee, it’s so unfair. By April, kids know where they are going, most people are happy, the story is kind of tired, but it wakes up again right around Thanksgiving for a whole new crop. It’s kind of like the baby stores or the bridal stores. Have you seen what some of these strollers cost? I haven’t felt the outrage in years, but I’m sure a whole new crop of parents have.</p>
<p>Few colleges are about to start making wee wee (the censors wouldn’t let me say what I wanted to say - rhymes with kissing) in the soup, especially in this economy. </p>
<p>Looking forward to reading the story again next year.</p>
<p>If a lawyer is contemplating the idea of suing institutions since it violates the 14th Amendment well you might as well sue them for affirmative action as well. While they’re at they might as well sue for talented athletes and musicians.</p>
<p>Legacy students take 10% - 20% at elite institutions. I’m sure the number for student-athletes is either similar or higher at the same elite institutions. In addition I’m sure the same institutions are more lenient when it comes to minorities and talented musicians. </p>
<p>I guess the idea I’m getting at is: how many students truly get into say [insert elite institution here] based solely on test scores and grades? I’d say 50% - 60% of [insert elite institution here]'s class is “hooked” by CC standards. I just made that percentage up, it could be higher, it could be lower, but that percentage is believable.</p>
<p>Now I don’t have any statistics, but I’ve heard that legacy students tend to be academically strong. Some even say that many of them can get in on their own merits without their legacy status, but I guess the ‘boost’ is still there even if it’s just a preference to the legacy students when there is another non-legacy candidate who is equally strong. Compared with athelets and URM, legacy pool in itself is very competitive in terms of grades and scores so it may be a lesser hook. I am not positive about it though. Any insights?</p>
<p>Massgirl, I have friends whose legacy DD is all but guaranteed to get into Duke this year. But here’s the thing, the family has served Duke for 3 generations. They have given lots of money, especially for scholarships, have served as trustees and in general been huge boosters for the school. IMO their qualified DD should get in because many of her peers there will be benefitting from her family’s largess.</p>
<p>This is a very selfish wish, but if legacy admissions ARE challenged or abandoned by HPYSM, I dearly hope it’s well after fall 2012, when I apply to college. I want to go to Princeton, and I am not ashamed to take advantage of the fact that my dad attended Princeton when so much of the admissions game itself is based on pure luck. Besides (and this is purely anecdotal evidence, I admit), I have black friends who are wealthier than I am, but because of affirmative action, they’ll get a leg up in admissions. Why shouldn’t I get a leg up as well? </p>
<p>If you ask me, colleges should either keep affirmative action AND legacy admissions or abandon both, and use a fairer standard of admissions advantages - ie, legacy admissions based on socioeconomic background. But that’s a story for another day.</p>
<p>“At Harvard, for example, the average SAT scores and GPAs of legacy admits is equal to or greater than the average for the admitted class as a whole.”</p>
<p>Would you please give us a link to confirm this?</p>
<p>I think what often confuses these discussions is that there is almost never one single thing that gets you into one of these super-selective schools–it’s always a combination of things, and legacy is just one of them. If you dropped legacy preferences, it doesn’t mean that an additional 20% of slots would be opened up for students who had super-high grades and scores but no other special characteristics. Indeed, I suspect a lot of those legacies would still get in–after all, they’d still want to go there, and a lot of them are highly accomplished people.</p>
<p>To add: by “special characteristics” I don’t just mean hooks–I include things like musical talent, having won big science, math, or humanites prizes, having participated in super-selective summer programs, having done impressive charitable work, etc.</p>
<p>Is it just me, or is MissxSilverwing very selfish herself? She claims that both AA and legacy admissions should both be kept or removed just because her dad went to Princeton and she doesn’t think it’s fair if minorities get preference and she doesn’t? Well what if I think that AA and legacy admissions should be removed just because I don’t get an edge? I wonder what she thinks about that. Smh. Selfish people like that…smh.</p>
<p>what does Smh mean?</p>
<p>^^Well IlikeUW you might not like Missx’ sentiments but time after time after time people will post that one of the most valuable aspects of an Ivy League education is the alumni connections, the networking the leads to job opportunities. You may not buy into it, but many do. There is a certain irony to the thinking that you could potentially take all those kids with the familiy connections and spread them out over a hundred different colleges instead of five or six. Alumni connections can be strong, but it will be harder to seek them out because it won’t be your roommate or the guy or girl down the hall.</p>