It is entirely likely that future generations will look back on present policies with as much disdain as we currently look back on practices which hurt Catholics, Jews, etc. But I am sure those policies, too, had their defenders, and change is never easy and requires multiple avenues to be successsful.
By the way, my kids are past the college admissions scene and launched.
@roycroftmom, I am asking a sincere question: how do you define the group who needs protecting from discrimination?
There seems to be an implication by some that if you don’t go to a private elite college that you are somehow at a disadvantage. In my 35 years in the work force I have seen absolutely no evidence of this. Plenty of elite graduates are supervised by “lower tier” state college graduates here. And by the way, when someone enters an elite school with tough admissions and a curriculum to match, is that student who slid in through the side door advantaged once the hard coursework begins? Seems like a recipe for ulcers to me.
Both of these statements are misleading.
Harvard may have rejected 67% of all LDC applicants, but it also rejected 95.5% of all non-ALDC applicants. Moreover, ALDC applicants are not better, academically, than the non-ALDC applicants, or, more correctly, their percent of top academic performers is not higher than can be found in the non-ALDC applicants.
There is no difference in the percent of LDC applicants in the top three deciles and the percent of non-ALDC applicants in the top deciles. The main difference is in the two bottom deciles - LDC have fewer at the bottom and more in the mid range.
This means that the LDC group did not show any higher level of academic “excellence” than the non ALDC pool. Having a larger proportion of academically average applicants does not really demonstrate that LDC applicants are a top-notch group, academically.
Furthermore, the worse the applicants were academically, the bigger the advantage in admissions that the LDC applicants had over the non-ALDC applicants. As result, the LDC applicants who were actually admitted were NOT as good, academically, as the non-ALDC admits.
So, if the LDC applicants were being accepted at a higher rate because they were better, why did Harvard not care nearly as much about their academics as it did for the non-ALDC applicants?
Again, the major reason that LDC are being accepted is that they are LDC.
Re: "buckets. According the the data presented at the Harvard trial, the number of legacy and athletes acceptances did not change between 2000 and 2017, nor did the number of non ALDC acceptances, However, in that period, the number of ALDC applicants increased from 14,800 to 27,500, while the number of legacy and athlete applicants did not change. The number and percent of admits who were athletes/legacies did not change in that period, even though the percent of legacies/athlete from the applicant pool dropped by almost 50%.
No matter how you look at it, that is clear and unequivocal evidence that these buckets exist, at least at Harvard.
I think you are asking the wrong question, @CateCAParent . Shouldn’t the default position be all applicants are treated equally, and then we justify exceptions to that as needed/wanted? So some schools will justify exceptions for those donating $20 million, or those who play football, or low SES, or certain races, or whatever. And if they justify it, they should own up to it, and how much it affects admissions. Including for ALDC kids.
I will give an example of what I would like to see. At most colleges in the US, female applicants outnumber male applicants. Most colleges attempt to maintain some type of rough gender parity, and as a result, female applicants have lower acceptance rates than male applicants to a given college. Exactly how much lower is shown on the common data set; applicants are often surprised by the extent of the difference, but can act accordingly. If it was widely known in the past how much of an advantage legacy is at Harvard, it is likely fewer non legacy would have bothered to apply and there may have been an interesting discussion at Harvard about that approach
Comments on the other pages beyond what you call the “one summary page” imply that specific applicants would not have been admitted, without “tip from lineage.” You can find some example reader comments that are quoted from the later pages, earlier in this thread.
Harvard does not deny this boost for legacy. Instead a document with the first author of Harvard Dean of Admissions says they have preference for legacies and gives a variety of reasons why that legacy preference exists. Harvard’s Office of Internal Research published multiple reports that show this strong admission boost for legacies and explicitly says recruited athlete status and legacy status were 2 of the 3 most powerful analyzed variables in admissions decisions.
Both sides of the lawsuit used a model with criteria that included far more than the first page summaries, and with these models both sides were able to explain the majority of variance in admissions decisions – far more than just 100-90 = 10%. Both of these models found that legacies were given a strong admission boost and the vast majority of legacies would not have been admitted with a change in hook preferences. During the 90s lawsuit, the DOJ came to a similar conclusion about legacies getting a strong admissions preference, which was one of the key reasons why they sided with Harvard.
The previously linked Duke study also found a strong preference for legacies, with admitted LDCs averaging lower ratings than non-LDC in all categories except athletics. As far as I know, every other review or study of legacies at Harvard found that legacies are given a strong admissions boost at Harvard.
Or if you want to ignore all reviews, studies, and comments from Harvard itself; one could just look at it intuitively. If you believe legacies are stronger applicants on average, you might expect them to have a somewhat higher admit rate. But would you really expect legacies to have a 34% admit rate at a college where non-legacies have a ~5% admit rate?
I like my question. In part, because it is what the US Supreme Court asks.
Schools have a right to have more than oboes in their orchestra, and and can give preference to bassoons if they need to. Oboes aren’t treated equally if the school needs a bassoon. It is impossible to treat everyone equally. If Harvard thinks wealthy people improve their campus, whether or not I agree isn’t the test. Your idea of fair and equal is different than mine, so whose opinion rules the day? Equal treatment isn’t always desireable or possible. It just isn’t. Your whole premise that equal treatment should be the goal is a fallacy.
Per the Supreme Court (Paraphrasing big time - forgive me con law scholars out there), this is how the analysis goes: The first question is, do they have a reason to have a preference for legacies? Yes. Money. Tradition.
Next question: who is harmed by the preference? I don’t know what you think the answer is - I don’t think the Supreme Court would go for “everyone who isn’t a legacy but didn’t get in even though they had a 1600 on their SAT”.
The school better have a darn good reason if their preference is against a protected class like race or gender or religion. Other than for those protected groups, you can have a stupid reason for your preference, but it isn’t illegal. Money and tradition doesn’t cut it. Which is what the Harvard litigation is about - they can’t discriminate against Asians. But they can have good reasons for how they pick students that may end up with fewer Asians. Especially if the intention is not discriminatory.
Do I think legacies are fair? Not really. But what you or I think doesn’t matter, per the Supreme Court. Schools can pretty much have whatever stupid preference they like, if it doesn’t target a protected class.
So, I’ll ask again - what group is being harmed?
Perfect example of gender discrimination that isn’t illegal. Are you ok with it?
People have always known about legacies on some level, but now people are unhappy about it. So they can choose to not apply. That’s pretty much my point.
Really? “People have always known about legacies at some level” is a far cry from 43% of white admitees are hooked, or the difference between a sub 5% admission rate and a 34% rate. The discussion now is prompted by the compelled disclosures Harvard did not voluntarily make.
I am fully aware that Harvard is within its legal rights to do so; I have practiced law before the Supreme Court you cite. The fact that it is legal does not make it right or wise.
Cool.
Anyway, who is the group that is harmed?
How do you propose operationalizing your sense of fairness?
We do know specifics about Harvard legacies now. And it is startling. But Harvard has never hidden the fact that they consider legacies. Not sure your point.
Given how shocked people are by the actual data and how strongly Harvard tried to protect it, I would not say Harvard has never hidden the legacy impact. It was, at least in the past, often presented as a slight tip, a deciding factor between otherwise equal applicants. Now we know better.
It isn’t my sense of fairness we need to enshrine. Many people, including many at Harvard, find the present policies unjust.
When a practice has a racially discriminatory impact, but not a racially discriminatory intent (e.g., legacy preference), what is its status, vis a vis the “strict scrutiny” standard for discriminatory practice?
As a separate comment, suppose that every legacy is in the top 50% of the Harvard applicant pool. Then the legacies are indeed stronger than non-legacy applicants, on the whole. It’s a bit exaggerated–what I really mean is that the distribution of the legacy applicants overlaps the distribution of the non-legacy applicants, but there are more in the higher ranges, up to (say) the top 90%. That would be consistent with saying that the legacy applicants are stronger.
But that is not where the action is, when it comes to admission. Then the question is: What do the two distributions look like, within the top 5.2% of applicants? Or maybe out to the top 7% or 8%. That is where the greater strength of the legacies disappears. But that is where the legacy boost really matters.
One more distinct comment: CateCAParent asked who was harmed by Harvard’s admissions policies?
The information that emerged during the lawsuit showed that Asian American applicants received lower personal ratings that did not jibe with the ratings by the interviewers, except for Asian American applicants in the top academic category (1, probable summa). This looks a little suspicious to me, and I think this is an issue that warrants further careful investigation.
If there is actual discrimination, then everyone is harmed by that, including people in the favored category.
Hi…I’m jumping in on this and not exactly following the most current string of conversation.
Here’s a thought from the NYT Article, “What College Admissions Offices Really Want”
It refers to the high-endowment schools that don’t need tuition to run the operation and can afford to admit plenty of qualified lower SES students…
"Why don’t the most selective colleges do more? The answer, in Boeckenstedt’s opinion, is that staying “elite” depends not just on admitting a lot of high-scoring students. It also depends on admitting a lot of rich ones. And he has a point: The researchers Nicholas A. Bowman and Michael N. Bastedo showed in a 2008 paper that when colleges take steps to become more racially or socioeconomically diverse, applications tend to go down in future years. “Maybe — just maybe — the term ‘elite’ means ‘uncluttered by poor people,’ ” Boeckenstedt wrote. “And maybe that’s the problem?
If you can get behind the paywall this is an excellent article about the mechanics of admissions at Trinity, a highly selective, but tuition-dependent LAC. The focus is on tuition dependent schools, but it makes interesting comments on the highly endowed schools as well.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/10/magazine/college-admissions-paul-tough.html
^Many of these “elite” schools want influences in all aspect of the society to help build their brands. Admitting higher scoring students may only achieve that goal in a few areas. To built influences across the board, they need some academic stars, but more students who are likely to have better connections and influences in all the other areas: politics, business, etc.
“Given how shocked people are by the actual data and how strongly Harvard tried to protect it, I would not say Harvard has never hidden the legacy impact.”
Right, the first change has to be more transparency wrt how legacies are treated. And the push for transparency has already begun. From the Crimson:
“Harvard students and alumni, in conjunction with a number of organizations across 11 other colleges, called for greater transparency in the use of “legacy preferences” in a Feb. 14 letter sent to university administrators across the country.”
The Harvard Legacy Project, comprises University affiliates who hope to end the use of legacy preferences in college admissions. Evan J. Mandery ’89, a member of Harvard Legacy Project, said legacy preference as part of the admissions process at the College is in “fundamental contradiction” to the College’s efforts to create a more diverse student body. “Legacy has no plausible ethical basis as a factor in any college admissions process,” Mandery said. “They’re effectively running two separate admissions contests.”
“Anyway, who is the group that is harmed?”
Let’s see - first-gen, low SES, most of the non-white applicants are hurt.
Legacy, while legal is defacto discriminatory, Harvard undergrads definitely get that.
Trinity is a tough example. Regionally, considered by some to be very preppy. A fall back for a certain sort of kids. Not just bow ties; it’s where the tour guide asked the group, “Where do you prep?” And he didn’t mean std test prep. But that’s one anecdote.
High performing, full match, first gen, low SES and non-white are not “harmed” by efforts to increase their numbers and successes. The elephant in the room, the reason some posters are agitated by legacy, imo, is the less compelling, average excellent white kids. If they don’t stand out in the manner and to the degree that would raise individual chances, (despite stats/titles,) and considering the fierce competition, their shot is tougher.
You really can’t assess all this in the abstract. Nor by selected anecdotes. Or make assumptions based on which categories do see more success in admissions. You have to consider the wide range of factors that play in decisions. (Including, their apps, themselves.)
I am harmed by discrimination against members of any racial, gender, sexual preference, or socio-economic group, although I am white, hetero-, and in the top 1% by income within my state (though not nationally). I feel no more harmed by discrimination against women (though I am one) than I feel harmed by discrimination against African Americans. Discrimination is not right.