While I appreciate the feeling that we must strive to address the inequalities in life, the question is, to what extent must schools go to achieve that end, and, BTW just what is fair – to the students and the schools? I think most schools are happy with their admission policies and how they weigh different aspects of the applications they receive each year. The different processes that they use result in student bodies as disparate as CalTech, and Harvard. These differences are why I think the US system is better than others. Trying to establish one set of uniform preferences across all schools does not seem workable or beneficial.
Seems to work just fine at Oxford and Cambridge, McGill, etc. Check the world university rankings and see there are many great international universities ranked as highly, or higher, than US schools
If you live in a state where legacy is a bonus in admissions for state universities, lobby your state government to remove that.
If you are a donor or otherwise supporter of one of those private universities, consider conditioning your donation or other support on removal of legacy preference.
If you or your kid is a potential realistic candidate for admission, then consider whether legacy preference could be a negative factor at the college (academically weaker students than otherwise, or if you or your kid would be a legacy, being tagged with an unflattering stereotype).
No one suggests there should be one set of uniform admission standards across all schools. How could our schools become copies of one another just by removing legacy and other preferences?
So much “data” on this thread that is erroneous and would make for a very bad economic model ( as it is selective in the factors it uses/discounts).
I, for one, hope that no one reading this thread decides not to apply to an " elitist" institution due to their parents income. I was born in a very low income family. Attended decent but not great schools and worked hard. Through high SAT scores and good grades I was accepted to many of these elite institutions, chose one and graduated. That gave me access to a series of excellent and well paying jobs. This led me to a great life with little regard for having to be on food stamps again. My spouse and I are entrepreneurs and have started multiple companies and sold one. Yep, we are the “evil 1%ers” you are all worried about.
Our kids were brought up as some people have mentioned little regard for status, an emphasis on helping others and never spending money on wasteful things. They are super high achieving across multiple areas. We give a lot ( anonymously) and with an emphasis on helping people.
My oldest will be getting the old car mentioned in the thread above ( yep, 142K miles) a bit grungy leather and a few dents. To me, it’s a moving piece of metal. I will reluctantly be getting something else. It won’t be new, that’s wasteful.
I think to call us elitist would be foolhardy. People helped us a lot and I had a lot of great opportunities in life due to others. We have also given others opportunities and probably will continue to do that.
I can tell you that barring income, if the Ivy I attended-- compared stats and personality, they would basically get the same kid if they accepted my child 30 years later. The work ethic, personality and love for learning is still there.
The issue is really, there are too few places for too many qualified people. And that makes people create an us v. them mentality.
Part of the character of some schools is the legacy aspect (here I think of Ivy’s and LACs), for others it’s athletics (here I think Alabama and Ohio State), and others is tech and science (here I think CalTech and MIT). I’m just comfortable with that and I don’t know how or why swapping one set of preferences for another set benefits them.
How do schools benefit from removing legacy? And when we say removing “other preferences” what do we mean? And what preferences are we replacing them with?
Looking at all the posts is like a Rorschach test on what people think is fair and how their definition of fairness should be mandated. To me it’s simpler to allow (within the law) many variations of college preferences and let students/parents decide where they want to apply.
How do you know the things you assure yourselves you know? You read it somewhere? Same as sitting there 12-20 weeks every year, going through thousands of apps? Or some researcher or journalist says…?
You know it’s unfair because…? Because 90% of top stats applicants get rejected? (Formerly available info tables from Brown, Dart, Princeton, Stanford, and others. This info there one year, gone another, sometimes back. I dont see any now.)
Or you know because some chunk of legacies enrolled? Or rich kids. Some without perfect stats? (And you think what about the 2/3 legacies rejected? This, despite claims they have better test prep, better hs, life privileges. )
Meanwhile, it’s more than the resume. Or the things that make
a kid Top Dawg in his own hs. (You’re not applying to another high school.) And any old written responses you feel are “you.”
Frankly, the nature of some CC advice misleads. Some of it specific (just do what you want, they’ll see “passion.” Not. Or, the prediction some kid applying to all 8 Ivies will get into at least one, despite the fact 90+ percent get rejected. Or the essay advice.)
But you smell a rat?
@Rivet2000 Fairness on CC, almost always veers to discussions about how one’s child “deserves” some extra modicum based on whatever fits their kid ( legacy, sports, URM, income, etc).
Schools can and will decide what is best for them.
Removing legacy preferences wouldn’t turn Stanford or Harvard into Caltech or MIT, or vice versa, would it? They would still be distinct institutions with their different missions. Unless, somehow, one of the missions of some of these colleges is to perpetuate hereditary advantages?
If you prefer the opportunities at a flagship or CTCL, one sort of curriculum over another, rural vs city, small vs big, by all means, apply to those.
If you prefer the Oxbridge or Canadian systems, fine, apply there.
I find it very interesting that these “elite” colleges are highly sought after by students, employers, and society in general because of their very make-up of their students body and yet we complain about how they determine that make-up?!
The “elite” colleges lose their very identity if they change their admission standards to strictly GPA, course rigor, and/or test scores or some other criteria. We already have many, many colleges that do that.
Secondly, the “elites” by definition are a very, very small subset of colleges in the U.S. (25 out of 5,000?). If you don’t like their admission standards (and what they stand for) than apply to the hundreds and hundreds of other colleges out there.
While I wish there was more transparency in the selection process, if I’m attracted to say Harvard because of its extremely smart and international student body and the wealth of opportunities, facilities, and prestige garnered through its huge endowment, it’s disingeneous for me to want to radically change the selection process to one of strictly high stats criteria or some other “more fair” method.
Let’s accept the “elites” for who they are (warts and all) and if you don’t like their rules than you don’t have to play the game.
Do you even know how ridiculous this sounds? Imagine if Harvard had told Judge Burroughs, she couldn’t possibly understand Harvard’s admissions process unless she spent 12-20 weeks for multiple years going through thousands of individuals apps . Furthermore, she should discount the opinions of researchers. Harvard’s counsel would have been laughed out of court and they would have lost the lawsuit.
I certainly hope not. 
Yes, it’s ridiculous to think you can deem it unfair because it may not serve you or your kid. And because you don’t know what it really is. Or you see shadows.
How do YOU know, R?
Burroughs weighed in favor of H, vis a vis the charges. Some CC posters, in contrast, are certain.
?
“Not, “You’re a top college and I want a top college.”) You do it well, okay, or not at all.”
I think we both know, and I factually know that if you’re in as an athlete at Harvard (and most other places), you do not need a superb why us essay, they’re basically told just do an okay job. The question is are legacies given the same leniency.
“do, you want to know why Billy didn’t get in, with his 4.0/1600 and EC titles, but Mary did, and she’s a 3.7/1550 legacy. But you’d need to see the apps, what each was offering beyond stats, the whole of it.”
It’s not jus Billy vs Mary, we need to know the parental wealth of Billy and Mary, Harvard admits families as much as they admit individuals.
“But don’t try to stratify a holistic practice or expect there to be fixed “weights” for hooks.”
Harvard does stratify a holistic process by assigning numerical ratings to the applicants, in the end it comes down to numbers for them as well. Now they do take a lot of time to figure out who gets the 1s and 2s, but once you’re rated, you’re a number now.
In the lawsuit, SFFA came out with a statistical argument on why Harvard discriminates, if Harvard was as holistic as people are making them out to be, they should have responded with holistic comments - we craft a class of the best of the best. But they didn’t, they hired an economist from Berkeley to come up with even more numbers.
“One more thing: what does “fighting the inequities” of legacy admits even look like? What is your practical idea for real people to fix that problem?”
The NYT wrote a scathing editorial on legacy:
“Preferential treatment for legacy admissions is anti-meritocratic, inhibits social mobility and helps perpetuate a de facto class system. In short, it is an engine of inequity. Little wonder that it is unpopular with most Americans, yet supported by the affluent who both oversee the college admissions process and are its primary beneficiaries.”
If you’re perpetuating a de-facto class system to benefit the affluent, guess what, you’re elitist. NYT recommended that all schools do it at once, and we know that MIT, Cal Tech, the UCs have already done it. However they can do it a lot easier, since as I posted earlier, their admissions are not based on legacy, Harvard’s is. So practically even if they say they’re removing, I agree it couldn’t be done for them and maybe other colleges built on legacy like Harvard.
“It needs to be fought in public K-12. Fight it there, and the gains are broader, longer lasting, and more profound.”
That’s a fair point, but that doesn’t mean we have to accept a class system like legacies.
News Flash for the NYT: College admissions are not meritocratic. If they are proposing a purely meritocratic system I’ll listen. Until then…
Hmmmm, nope. I am retired though.
Oh, Dear! The NYT editorial board is against legacy!! But based on the same old positons, boiling down to ‘AA for the rich.’ Is THAT your proof? “I think it, so it’s true” ? Or its sister, “I read it somewhere, so I know it is.” ? NYT says it, so that’s true?
Ime, the legacy issue is NOT what keeps your kid out. It starts with his app, what the elites want to see, besides just top stats and titles, whether or not your kid has that to offer. Whether or not he shows it.
Then how he couches it all in the written parts. Not 3rd grade, the dog or (to use some CC examples,) the terrible bickering among family adults, how you made your first 50k, why your grades dropped, etc, which isn’t what they need to learn about you.
It’s a challenge for most kids to put this together well. Of course it is, it’s the first experience with an app of this nature and importance for most of them. The more one works with kids, I think, the more respect for them. They’re our future.
But that does NOTmean they can put together a decent app.
Remember, I’m not an acdom, just a team person, so I feel I have some liberty to express my experiences. And that’s:
Sorry, but IMHE, most apps don’t hit it. You love your kids, you believe they deserve an elite, you’d borrow, if you need to, put the decal in the car window…and I believe they’re probably great kids. Truly. But did they submit an effective app? The whole thing?
But, nooooo! You know his chances are down because you’re sure some uncertain legacies get a boost. How about focusing on what you and your kids can control for? The hs experience with rigor, focused on cores; depth and breadth in ECs, some impact, commitment to issues outside your hs box; and stats. An understanding of what the top colleges do want to see in and learn about the applicant, to make their choices.
You control for what you can.
I am so glad Asian Americans didn’t take that approach. It is truly remarkable how they, as a group, received low personal scores by Harvard for years until the lawsuit was filed, and the very next year have personal scores comparable to other groups-a fact we only know because of legally compelled disclosure.
1 Like
One clue is we can see that LDC applicants are generally strong, doing well in the rating categories. However, the reverse happens among the admitted pool. LDC admits average worse ratings in all sub-categories than non-ALDC admits except athletics. LDC admits have objectively average worse EC ratings, worse LOR ratings, worse GC recommendations, worse alumni interview ratings, … worse all other rated sub-categories except athletics. I’d expect the same is true for essays. Worse does not mean they bombed any of these criteria, just not as superb as typical non-LDCs. Only a very small portion of LDCs received bad 4 ratings in any criteria. I expect athletics is an exception because being a recruited athlete is associated with a far stronger admissions advantage than LDC. Whatever group has the most recruited athlete applicants is going to have the most recruited athlete admits, and LDCs are more likely to be athletes than non-LDC.
The meaning of regression coefficients and odds ratios that encompass many different criteria are often lost. For simplicity, I’ll list the admit rate by academic rating and reader guidelines for assigning these ratings. I realize that academic rating is only a small part of the overall decision. As I recall, academic rating alone only explains something on the order of 10% of variance in decision. The vast majority of the decision depends on other factors. That said, there are still some clear and large differences between 3 groups – non-ALDC, LDC, and athletes… large enough to suggest the relative strength of these 3 categories.
One can also see that the ALDC categories dominate the admit pool, among admits that do not have high 1-2 academic ratings. If a Harvard student does not have high academic ratings, they are most likely a member of the ALDC hook group, which is associated with having a high SES. A similar statement can be made about all other available reader sub-ratings except athletic and potential future donations (many of the D in ALDC group are given a numerical rating based on “applicant’s (or the family of the applicant’s) donation history and future donation prospects.”)
Reader Guidelines: Academic
- Summa potential. Genuine scholar; near-perfect scores and grades (in most
cases) combined with unusual creativity and possible evidence of original
scholarship. - Magna potential: Excellent student with superb grades and mid-to high-700
scores (33+ ACT). - Cum laude potential: Very good student with excellent grades and mid-600 to
low-700 scores (29 to 32 ACT). - Adequate preparation. Respectable grades and low-to mid-600 scores (26 to 29)
ACT). - Marginal potential. Modest grades and 500 scores (25 and below ACT).
Admit Rate by Academic Rating and ALDC group
Academic = 1: Unhooked* = NA, Non-ALDC = 66%, LDC =97%, Athlete = 100%^
Academic = 2: Unhooked* = 9%, Non-ALDC = 10%, LDC =49%, Athlete = 96%
Academic = 3: Unhooked* = 1%, Non-ALDC = 2%, LDC =18%, Athlete = 87%
Academic = 4: Unhooked* = 0.0%, Non-ALDC = 0.0%, LDC =3.5%, Athlete = 80%
Academic = 5: Unhooked* = 0.0%, Non-ALDC = 0.0%, LDC =0.0%, Athlete = 50%^
*“Unhooked” = Non-ALDC & Non-URM
^Very small sample