<p>I don’t see why legacy is a big deal, it’s one component, not every legacy gets in. Many workers at Yale Univ and YNHH, knew someone to get that job, union workers have told me 50% isn’t a big estimate, no one likes that advantage when they don’t have it, looking for work, but if you did know someone, you’d use the network to help your resume.</p>
<p>
I’ve heard that, in fact, those kids do get in at similar rates to legacies–it wouldn’t surprise me at all. I’ll bet they don’t matriculate at the same rate though–I would expect all of these schools to lose cross-admits to the legacy school.</p>
<p>
I personally am not all against some degree of preferential treatment to legacy kids, but to answer your question why it can be considered “a big deal”. Imagine a running race, how would you feel if a runner is the son or daughter of a former runner, they’d be let start off 1 minute ahead of others? Or when 2 runners reach the destination at the same time, the “legacy runner” is declared winner just because their parent was a runner before. Of course, legacy policy in colleges is more complex than that, but to “non-legacies”, it feels like that.</p>
<p>It’s also a big deal because in America we believe in working hard and pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps regardless of how low on the ladder you started in life. Our country doesn’t have the historical tradition of royalty or much of a feudal past of landed families such that we think one’s family origin should determine one’s own fate. We’re the country that at one time let people just run or ride to a plot of land and stake their claim to it. So this practice of legacy admission feels counter to the American way. It preserves the social status quo and works against social mobilty; it helps to ensure that wealth stays in certain families, since their children will also obtain a high educational status regardless of whether other people’s children deserved admission a little more because of their own hard work rather than their parents’ or ancestors’ accomplishments.</p>
<p>According to the above, one might say that legacy preference by the Ivies is unconstitutional ;)</p>
<p>What insures that wealth stays in certain families is the laws of inheritance, which have been around all along, so I guess that’s the American way, too.</p>
<p>Also, free-market capitalism is the American way, so if colleges perceive that accepting legacies helps their fund-raising, then legacy admits are in line with Americanism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is true only if you believe that social mobility is only available to those who attend HYP et al. </p>
<p>re bolded: yeah, sure, attending Cal-Berkeley, UMich, UVa, UNCC, and other (ghast!) publics will relegate the grad to the low academic educational status, and perhaps future serfdom? (Take a look-see at how well Cal-Berkeley does in sending students to Harvard LS, for example. I’m guessing UVa/UMich does equally well.)</p>
<p>The idea of giving preferential treatment to applicants because they are talented in tossing, kicking or dunking a ball feels far stupider to me than giving preferential treatment to legacies (though I understand why legacy can gall). Athletic prowess, IMO, has NOTHING to do with the core mission of a university – unlike proficiency in arts, music, science, mathematics, writing, etc. which speak directly to the core mission of a university. To me, athletic prowess has as little to do with university admissions as, say, physical looks. </p>
<p>Having said that, I agree with Bay’s point that if a university wishes to privilege legacies, that’s the American way, and those who do not like it need not apply there. </p>
<p>And please, to suggest that attendance at only a handful of elite schools will promote social mobility is complete nonsense.</p>
<p>Jumping in a bit late here, but I think that high-achieving students who are first generation or represent under-served communities also get a sizable advantage in admissions. This advantage may even be more of a “tip” factor than legacy. So the idea of social mobility is very much sustained in the collective.</p>
<p>^ all good points, of course…just sayin’ why it gauls some people. As for the idea of getting in because of good looks: I wasn’t keen on the schools that wanted a photo included with the application either; I wondered if they were ensuring some minimal level of attractiveness.</p>
<p>No, I don’t think an Ivy education is necessary for social mobility but I’d say it helped political figures like Obama, Clinton, and Condi Rice who didn’t come from money.</p>
<p>Condi Rice didn’t go to an Ivy - UDenver and Notre Dame.</p>
<p>Thanks, I had second thoughts about whether that was correct and looked it up. I was just about to edit my post. I knew she was at Stanford before she became a prof there, but she didn’t earn her PhD there. She was also somewhat privileged as far as receiving music and ballet lessons.</p>
<p>^^Umm, Bill Clinton attended Georgetown undergrad (on scholarship), where he earned his Rhodes; he attended Yale LS after Oxford. </p>
<p>Condi Rice attended the University of Denver for her undergrad and PhD. Taught at decidedly non-Ivy Stanford.</p>
<p>cross-posted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh? Condi’s mom was a HS teacher, and her dad HS counselor and minister. She experienced segregation…</p>
<p>
Couldn’t agree more!</p>
<p>
But it’s not about the “handful”. It’s any university that has achieved or will achieve that “elite” status. It so happens that only these handful are so selective that such practice causes publicity. It’s like - the inheritance law, which doesn’t have that much of an impact to the majority of the mass but it ensures “wealth stays in the family”.</p>
<p>Also, Obama is a Harvard legacy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I don’t like either of these practices, I don’t think they are stupid. Both are done for financial reasons. The sports programs for many colleges bring in revenue, sometimes huge revenue in the case of college football. </p>
<p>And it is not just the current revenue they generate - the sports teams help to keep alumni feeling ties to the school, which results in more giving to the school. I am not a sports fan and I really hardly ever think about my college and don’t give them any money when they send my the yearly letter asking. My DH on the other hand is a rabid sports fan, has all kinds of college apparel and gives to his school yearly. And there is yet another source of revenue for the school that I think is tied to the sports program - the apparel.</p>
<p>I read the article and the person making the claim that legacy admits don’t increase donations is also the same guy trying to sell a book about how legacy admissions are wrong. I would need to see the actual data and draw my own conclusion, but if legacy admits do result in higher donations, the schools have a not so stupid reason for doing it. Same with athletic programs - not so stupid if they are generating revenue.</p>
<p>"Also, free-market capitalism is the American way, so if colleges perceive that accepting legacies helps their fund-raising, then legacy admits are in line with Americanism. "</p>
<p>I am fine with colleges giving preferences to legacies for the purposes of helping them with their fund raising.</p>
<p>I think its dishonest of them to pretend that there is no preference for legacies, or that its for purposes other than fundraising. Of course they have a right to be dishonest, but every such dishonesty mars their valued prestige.</p>
<p>I think that to the extent their is empirical evidence that legacy admissions policies do NOT help their fund raising as much as they think, its in their interests to reflect on that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you know of colleges that do this? My H’s alma mater specifically lists “alumni relations” as a factor in admissions.</p>
<p>If it is not done for fundraising, what other goal do you think these colleges are trying to achieve that would cause them to be dishonest about it?</p>
<p>As was previously mentioned, perhaps it is a way to give a tip to the rich while still calling themselves need blind? In that case, taking full-pay legacies could be another way for these colleges to “fund raise.” A $50K per year “donation” from AlumParent is huge. Colleges that are not need-blind would have no reason to be dishonest about taking rich legacies, however.</p>