<p>
</p>
<p>Um…it’s “hear, hear”. Just sayin’.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except, in the above example, YOU are the one who keeps frequenting the establishment, and through that YOU get to reap the benefit of being a repeat customer. In the case of college legacy, the kid who has nothing to do with the school, and has done NOTHING to benefit the institution gets to reap the benefit through a sheer coincidence of being born to the repeat customer. </p>
<p>I am an Ivy alum, and I am TOTALLY against the whole legacy hypocrisy. It amazes me that people who are up in arms shouting “reverse discrimination” don’t seem bothered by this blatant slap on the face of the meritocratic value we as a society claim to uphold (I am not talking about parents on this forum). </p>
<p>At least, “diversity preference” for socio economically disadvantaged kids serves the function of promoting greater social justice and facilitating social mobility, which, I believe, results in a positive outcome for the society in the long run.</p>
<p>As is, the kids of the alums of top universities are likely to be better off in many ways than other kids. They don’t need a crutch.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you joking? The establishment benefits every time I walk in and transact business. The restaurant benefits when I bring my family in there instead of the place across the street. The barber benefits when I bring my son in for his haircuts rather than the place in the mall that’s $5 cheaper; the dentist benefits when I bring my kids in there instead of someplace else that advertises itself as perfect for kids. My kids have, at least initially, frequented stores, doctors and restaurants of my choosing and those establishments have certainly benefited from the increased business that comes from the “sheer coincidence of being born to a repeat customer”. Why wouldn’t any college want satisfied customers walking around talking the place up?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And what meritocratic value is that? The one where the idiot son inherits the family business? The one where cash buys access to virtually anything? And who is going to define merit? Is the 3.8 football star more worthy than the 3.8 award-winning oboist? Private colleges are semi-private businesses and so long as they aren’t actively discriminating against races or classes of people I’m certainly willing to let them have the majority of input into who they admit. I find it disingenuous when people complain about legacy advantages when they are are out there for all to see, even if they are poorly defined. If you don’t like legacy schools, don’t apply to them; there are plenty of other excellent, and in many cases superior, options out there.</p>
<p>I disagree hyeonjlee, the legacy children do benefit the school.</p>
<p>I’ve seen it for decades. Whether it’s monetary gifts, the alum parent giving more time to the school, a heightened interest in hiring from the college-having a kid there renews love for and commitment to the institution.</p>
<p>My own kids probably benefited from legacy preference although their stats were well over the 75th percentile at our ivy. The family tradition makes them being there great for all and has certainly deepened our family’s commitment.</p>
<p>I can see the pros and cons here in the same way I see them for colleges practicing AA. Both have real merits yet they do prevent colleges from really being meritocracies.</p>
<p>I am glad that the legacy boost is no longer the enormous one it was in my day when many legacies were far below the general population accomplishment wise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wonder how the question will fare if it ever does reach the Supreme Court. The argument I’ve heard is that private universities are still subsidized by the state by being exempt from many taxes. Would those elite alums on the Supreme Court favor an end to legacy preference?</p>
<p>YK, a case could be made that legacy is about a community. I still don’t understand how and why athletics contribute to the mission of a college, and I find the whole athletic scholarship thing so much more of a scam than legacy admissions ever will be.</p>
<p>I have read in many Common Data sets that legacey has very little if any weight…</p>
<p>Why does this continue to be even a topic of discussion?</p>
<p>… a significant development contact is however a different thing altogether–that is a follow the $</p>
<p>Much of the interest in selective college/university admissions is the notion that once admitted the student will join an exclusive club, and move up in social class. There is indeed the expectation that the student’s eventual progeny will remain within that class. If legacy means nothing, then there is a one generation boost, rather than the promise of a permanent one for the family. How many middle class families who put their lives in hock for their kids’ educations at selective colleges/universities would still be willing to do so, if they did not believe that at least a possibility exists that this boost would afford an equivalent future for their grandchildren?</p>
<p>Just sayin’</p>
<p>Middle class parents do not put their lives in hock for these schools. These schools are the cheapest alternatives for the middle class.</p>
<p>Signed, </p>
<p>A Middle Class Parent
(who has been there)</p>
<p>PS…I’m sure there are families with incomes of $150,000 who imagine they are middle class. By the IRS numbers, the third quintile in income is about $40,000 to $65,000. For those with a $150,000 income, get a grip. Yes, the Ivy League is a luxury purchase, just like that BMW.</p>
<p>I’m with Pizzagirl.
At my kids’ schools, recruited athletes represent about 50% more of the student body than do legacies.
The furthest under the radar to me is who these folks are. Overwhelmingly, these are kids who excelled at sports most often found at elite privates. Rowing, squash, fencing, field hockey, LAX, equestrian, figure skating, golf, sailing, tennis, and then kids whose sports aren’t exclusively upper income but trend that way, like soccer, swimmers and divers, etc. There aren’t good figures on this that are public. Golden in “The Price of Admission” asserts that recruits are overwhelmingly upper income. A poster here “interesteddad” found numbers on the Williams website, removed the next day, indicating that income levels were similar to or higher than legacies.
The rationale for the recruited athlete preference to me is even weaker than the legacy rationale.
I will admit to a personal bias on this one. My daughter’s first year rower roommate disliked all her (Ivy League) classes and wished she could be rowing all the time. A friend of hers is non-stellar on the academics but a recruited female hockey player. A neighborhood girl is a recruited saber wielder. These are all HYP kids with high family incomes in common.
I get that excellence in sports is a template of success in any field, but IMO the athletic preference is a vestige of the days when Ivy League athletes were among the top athletes in the nation, and maintained today by alums jealously guarding slots for their pet sport.</p>