Basically value of degree generates wealthy alums, whether they started poor or not, who in turn donate those billions. In addition, Yale doesn't need to give preference to C students whose parents can cough up $50k/year any more, not when most qualified students will fall in the 1% anyway
I don't blame that kid's frustration, because those legacies have had *everything* handed to them, including undeserved admission AND a free education (parents pay for it), and a cruise trip during spring break etc etc.
What i find more disturbing is this notion of dem or repub judges. I mean wtf? I thought the law is supposed to be as clear as possible and not subject to political interpretation
BTW, MIT manages to fund their endowment without legacy admissions. It's an excuse for legacy admissions, not the reason for them.
All you see is black woman =====>>>> unqualified.
"When was the last time you obsessed about a white man's college record appointed to any political position? My guess is never. Without looking it up on wiki, you can't tell me the first thing about the education of Meese, Ashcroft, Thornburgh, etc. No one cares, or should care except as trivia, because it's irrelevant about 5 years after they left college and had a record in their careers."given how few blacks are really top law school graduates, your argument is silly. You act as if there are an equal number of blacks who really earned their way into top law schools as there are whites.
Last edited by JasperL; 04-26-15 at 11:39 AM.