@ public schools - yes, end the policy.
@ private schools - no, let them continue to set their own admission criteria.
1 Like
For private schools with a lot of social science and humanities departments, the economic reality is that $70k/yr cost of college has to be paid for by private donations from alumni. Unless we want to nationalize these colleges with a liberal art education focus, legacy preference is just a way of funding these private enterprises.
Other than the severely disadvantaged in our society, no one else, least of all, the rich and powerful, should be given special consideration in college admission. Athletic recruits, like legacies, predominantly favor the well-to-do.
I was surprised the article didnāt mention yield. CC often says colleges prefer legacy applicants because it protects their yield.
That will never happen unless you are part of an anarcho-syndicalist commune. Where they take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of moreā
But how is having some sports talent, some of which is earned by those students, any worse than college being partially about unearned aristocratic characteristics (legacy)?
But then if athletic admissions is a problem, it is a larger problem, relative to the overall size of the student body, at the smaller highly selective private schools that also tend to be more likely to prefer legacies as well.
Oh, come on. āAristocratic characteristics?ā You overrate it- and them, lol. Not all legacies are useless wealthy folks. (Youāre catching me while I watch Downton Abbey.) Maybe just challenging me.
Iām fully in favor of letting the best athletes play in the Olympics.
Love the reference!