• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Legacy admissions - more favoritism than racial quotas, but no social benefits

chromium

chromium

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
16,968
Reaction score
3,770
Location
A2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
My school was forced to drop racial quotas by state ballot, so clearly that was unpopular. However, it still gives an edge to legacy applicants. Well, turns out 75% oppose legacy admissions, where just being the kid of a wealthy donor increases your chances greatly. Even if you get rejected - usually because your grades suck so bad it would damage the school's US News ranking - you'll be told to join a junior college for a year and then transfer (this is called the Z list at Harvard)

Now there has been a study showing the edge given on SAT scores at elite schools:

Blacks: +230
Hispanics: +185
Asians: -50
Recruited athletes: +200
Legacies (children of alumni): +160
.
Espenshade, Thomas J.; Chung, Chang Y.; Walling, Joan L. (December 2004)


Lo and behold, unqualified admits graduate at a much lower rate, and those whose last names aren't Bush or similar face a tough time getting hired. There is the valid question then of does this even benefit those getting preferential treatment? Perhaps this is why the UCal system, MIT, and CalTech all ended legacies

My question is how can someone justify this but oppose racial quotas? How can you object to the "unfairness" of minority admissions, which was fought all the way to the Supreme Court, but defend this?

It seems to me there can potentially be a 'greater good' argument in support of racial quotas, but not at all for admitting some rich white kid. In fact, that seems to just perpetuate the plutocracy at the top of the country's financial and political systems
 
I dont see a problem with legacy admissions, don't you want your kid to have the same college experience that you did?
 
chromium said:
My school was forced to drop racial quotas by state ballot, so clearly that was unpopular. However, it still gives an edge to legacy applicants. Well, turns out 75% oppose legacy admissions, where just being the kid of a wealthy donor increases your chances greatly. Even if you get rejected - usually because your grades suck so bad it would damage the school's US News ranking - you'll be told to join a junior college for a year and then transfer (this is called the Z list at Harvard)

Now there has been a study showing the edge given on SAT scores at elite schools:

Blacks: +230
Hispanics: +185
Asians: -50
Recruited athletes: +200
Legacies (children of alumni): +160
.
Espenshade, Thomas J.; Chung, Chang Y.; Walling, Joan L. (December 2004)


Lo and behold, unqualified admits graduate at a much lower rate, and those whose last names aren't Bush or similar face a tough time getting hired. There is the valid question then of does this even benefit those getting preferential treatment? Perhaps this is why the UCal system, MIT, and CalTech all ended legacies

My question is how can someone justify this but oppose racial quotas? How can you object to the "unfairness" of minority admissions, which was fought all the way to the Supreme Court, but defend this?

It seems to me there can potentially be a 'greater good' argument in support of racial quotas, but not at all for admitting some rich white kid. In fact, that seems to just perpetuate the plutocracy at the top of the country's financial and political systems
Click to expand...

It seems that the legacy admission argument is much the same as that for athletes - the financial benefit to the institution justifies the very few other admissions that get displaced because of it.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It seems that the legacy admission argument is much the same as that for athletes - the financial benefit to the institution justifies the very few other admissions that get displaced because of it.
Click to expand...

Yale recently all but did away with athlete preferences, and others like CalTech and Chicago never had them. But athletes at least do *something* for the community. If the dumbass rich white kid is gone from Harvard and a future Jonas Salk takes his place, really which is better for everyone? Does Harvard with its $40 billion endowment really need the $

At the Ivies, it's not just a very few either. The study found that up to 40% of this year's freshman class are the spoiled brat inheritors. How many of them would get in based on merit? Well considering the rejection rate Harvard is 95%, probably very few. In fact, how many kids truly earn a place at Harvard every year? Out of 39,000 applicants, i estimate about 700. This is compared to a 20% chance if you are the kid of an alum, and 100% if on their Z List (the kid of a president, or wealthy donor)
 
Crovax said:
I dont see a problem with legacy admissions, don't you want your kid to have the same college experience that you did?
Click to expand...

If one subscribes to the principal of admissions by merit - another words - only the best of the best applicants get in and we use test scores and GPA's as the rubric to determine who is the best of the best - then legacy admissions are just as inherently unfair as admissions for race or any other factor other than pure merit.

If one is to be intellectually consistent - one cannot support legacy admissions while railing against affirmative action programs for minorities.
 
haymarket said:
If one subscribes to the principal of admissions by merit - another words - only the best of the best applicants get in and we use test scores and GPA's as the rubric to determine who is the best of the best - then legacy admissions are just as inherently unfair as admissions for race or any other factor other than pure merit.

If one is to be intellectually consistent - one cannot support legacy admissions while railing against affirmative action programs for minorities.
Click to expand...

Only a couple of problems, test scores and GPA aren't the only way to measure merit and you are assuming that having the best students (by measure of test scores) is the main goal of universities.
 
Crovax said:
Only a couple of problems, test scores and GPA aren't the only way to measure merit and you are assuming that having the best students (by measure of test scores) is the main goal of universities.
Click to expand...

I agree with that point about GPA's and test scores. But its the general rule rather than the exception and until we find something better that is the method we use for the vast vast vast majority of admissions. Then we fiddle with subjective things and season to taste as it were.
 
chromium said:
Yale recently all but did away with athlete preferences, and others like CalTech and Chicago never had them. But athletes at least do *something* for the community. If the dumbass rich white kid is gone from Harvard and a future Jonas Salk takes his place, really which is better for everyone? Does Harvard with its $40 billion endowment really need the $

At the Ivies, it's not just a very few either. The study found that up to 40% of this year's freshman class are the spoiled brat inheritors. How many of them would get in based on merit? Well considering the rejection rate Harvard is 95%, probably very few. In fact, how many kids truly earn a place at Harvard every year? Out of 39,000 applicants, i estimate about 700. This is compared to a 20% chance if you are the kid of an alum, and 100% if on their Z List (the kid of a president, or wealthy donor)
Click to expand...

Considering that Jonas Salk didn't go to Harvard and things seemed to turn out just fine, I don't know what point you are trying to make
 
Crovax said:
Only a couple of problems, test scores and GPA aren't the only way to measure merit and you are assuming that having the best students (by measure of test scores) is the main goal of universities.
Click to expand...

no they aren't, but the entire purpose of giving a boost to kids of wealthy donors is that *they are not academically qualified* Even the Harvard president admits they do this
 
Crovax said:
Considering that Jonas Salk didn't go to Harvard and things seemed to turn out just fine, I don't know what point you are trying to make
Click to expand...

He could've been rejected in favor of the dumbass rich white kid, and in modern times there are two possible consequences: Harvard loses reputation as a serious institution that benefits the public good, or the next young Jonas Salk can't even get his research off the ground because he doesn't have the labs or funding that come with a $40 billion endowment. Instead, those resources are wasted on a bumbling idiot's trust fund
 
chromium said:
He could've been rejected in favor of the dumbass rich white kid, and in modern times there are two possible consequences: Harvard loses reputation as a serious institution that benefits the public good, or the next young Jonas Salk can't even get his research off the ground because he doesn't have the labs or funding that come with a $40 billion endowment. Instead, those resources are wasted on a bumbling idiot's trust fund
Click to expand...

Yes that "dumbass rich white kid" yale legacy who became president. universities certainly dont want future presidents attending their school.

Sound like the only school you need to attend is jelly school
 
Crovax said:
Yes that "dumbass rich white kid" yale legacy who became president. universities certainly dont want future presidents attending their school.

Sound like the only school you need to attend is jelly school
Click to expand...

i give a **** all what *they* want, this is about criticizing them, and my own school as i said already. I don't have anything to be jealous about either. I'm quite content with where i'm at, and if you must know, 40,000 got rejected here this year. 75% oppose legacy admissions, a sizeable number of whom never went to college, but i guess they all must be "jelly" too
 
Crovax said:
I dont see a problem with legacy admissions, don't you want your kid to have the same college experience that you did?
Click to expand...

When I was in college, I remember having a discussion with our most prominent professor of political Science-Robert Dahl (RIP) who was a well known socialist. He surprised me by saying he completely supported legacy admission preferences. He noted

1) Legacy admissions at Yale actually had higher GPAs than non-legacy admissions
2) because of Legacies, he could afford to work at Yale (he held an endowed professorship) rather than at places like the Rand corporation which paid far more than a top professor at many state schools
3) it builds a sense of continuity that works both ways in that many kids who could have gone to other top schools applied only to Yale knowing they would get in early

racial quotas violate title VII in state schools

based on the information I get from Yale in terms of alumni giving, legacies in my class are more likely to give
 
chromium said:
Yale recently all but did away with athlete preferences, and others like CalTech and Chicago never had them. But athletes at least do *something* for the community. If the dumbass rich white kid is gone from Harvard and a future Jonas Salk takes his place, really which is better for everyone? Does Harvard with its $40 billion endowment really need the $

At the Ivies, it's not just a very few either. The study found that up to 40% of this year's freshman class are the spoiled brat inheritors. How many of them would get in based on merit? Well considering the rejection rate Harvard is 95%, probably very few. In fact, how many kids truly earn a place at Harvard every year? Out of 39,000 applicants, i estimate about 700. This is compared to a 20% chance if you are the kid of an alum, and 100% if on their Z List (the kid of a president, or wealthy donor)
Click to expand...

this seems to be indicator of some serious bitterness on your part. My son is not applying to Yale and two of my nieces didn't apply either. One is at williams and is a varsity athlete who was all conference as an academic standout. She could have attended Yale. My son is going to school that is recruiting him for a sport where he ranks in the top twenty in the country-Yale's team isn't that strong. I suspect he will apply to graduate school at Yale in 4-5 years.

I met a few legacies at Yale who had poor grades and were only there due to connections. But these people all added a lot to the school environment. One ended up basically running the intramural sports program. Another managed a varsity team and has given that team tons of money since she graduated. Legacy admissions graduated with a higher GPA and fewer failed to graduate.

My other brother's daughter is a freshman at Yale-was she a "legacy admission"

yes. she also had near perfect SATs, and graduates with the top honors from one of the most rigorous schools in the USA. In other words, she was pretty much a shoe in any place she applied. her scores and numbers were far superior than the average in her class and she's in a special program for gifted freshmen.
 
Crovax said:
I dont see a problem with legacy admissions, don't you want your kid to have the same college experience that you did?
Click to expand...

not if that will result in the denial of a more qualified kid to attend that university
 
TurtleDude said:
this seems to be indicator of some serious bitterness on your part. My son is not applying to Yale and two of my nieces didn't apply either. One is at williams and is a varsity athlete who was all conference as an academic standout. She could have attended Yale. My son is going to school that is recruiting him for a sport where he ranks in the top twenty in the country-Yale's team isn't that strong. I suspect he will apply to graduate school at Yale in 4-5 years.

I met a few legacies at Yale who had poor grades and were only there due to connections. But these people all added a lot to the school environment. One ended up basically running the intramural sports program. Another managed a varsity team and has given that team tons of money since she graduated. Legacy admissions graduated with a higher GPA and fewer failed to graduate.

My other brother's daughter is a freshman at Yale-was she a "legacy admission"

yes. she also had near perfect SATs, and graduates with the top honors from one of the most rigorous schools in the USA. In other words, she was pretty much a shoe in any place she applied. her scores and numbers were far superior than the average in her class and she's in a special program for gifted freshmen.
Click to expand...

Points well taken. Just because a student is a dumb ass rich kid doesn't mean that they won't do well at school or later in life, and that Salk kid could very well have a superior lab in a building with the rich kid's name on the door. I'm more concerned with the +240 SAT'ers failing to succeed due to being placed above their skill level.
 
justabubba said:
not if that will result in the denial of a more qualified kid to attend that university
Click to expand...

black and hispanic kids who were let in due to affirmative action faired far more poorly than white legacy kids. It wasn't even close.
 
TurtleDude said:
this seems to be indicator of some serious bitterness on your part. My son is not applying to Yale and two of my nieces didn't apply either. One is at williams and is a varsity athlete who was all conference as an academic standout. She could have attended Yale. My son is going to school that is recruiting him for a sport where he ranks in the top twenty in the country-Yale's team isn't that strong. I suspect he will apply to graduate school at Yale in 4-5 years.

I met a few legacies at Yale who had poor grades and were only there due to connections. But these people all added a lot to the school environment. One ended up basically running the intramural sports program. Another managed a varsity team and has given that team tons of money since she graduated. Legacy admissions graduated with a higher GPA and fewer failed to graduate.

My other brother's daughter is a freshman at Yale-was she a "legacy admission"

yes. she also had near perfect SATs, and graduates with the top honors from one of the most rigorous schools in the USA. In other words, she was pretty much a shoe in any place she applied. her scores and numbers were far superior than the average in her class and she's in a special program for gifted freshmen.
Click to expand...

I didn't take the SAT II to get into Yale, so how could i be bitter? Although i found out later it's known as "the gay Ivy," i'm perfectly content here. Plus there's always grad school and as i told another who made this accusation **i criticized my own school for doing the same thing with legacies**

No, i just don't like people who simultaneously cheat to get ahead and act like they're better than everyone else. And there's a ****load of those at Harvard and Yale, up to 40% of their undergrads in fact. Why would i want to go to a place like that? It's like i met someone at orientation who whined he couldn't take his dad's private jet. But the difference is there's relatively few of those extremes here

As to your claim that legacies had better outcomes, i flat out don't believe it for the same reason racial minorities have much worse outcomes - they aren't qualified. At my school blacks and hispanics graduated at almost *half* the rate, until the quotas ended. But i also don't believe you have any way to access such information, as all selective schools are very tight lipped about their highly unpopular legacies, who in turn like to act as if they earn everything they get in life

Your brother's daughter, well, i can tell you haven't been to Yale in decades. A top SAT doesn't mean much since the population boom. They reject upwards of *70 percent* with perfect SAT. So yes, if she was admitted, there's a very good chance it's due to legacy and as for her high school education, as i told you before, getting into those places as well is highly determined by legacy. Not saying she isn't smart, but this is my point about acting as if she earned her chops as much as the daughter of a single mother crack addict with no ties to the school

Finally, you dodged the question on why you support legacies but not racial quotas. Is an unqualified black applicant for some reason incapable of these ironically athletic contributions to the school environment? I mean if that's the best reason you can come up with...
 
TurtleDude said:
black and hispanic kids who were let in due to affirmative action faired far more poorly than white legacy kids. It wasn't even close.
Click to expand...

prove it

anyway, the article i read pointed out that there are many advantages to being a legacy kid once on campus - access to fraternies, eating clubs, private tutors (which the poor could never afford), and anything else they could want except literally bribing the professors for grades

although that is possible too i suppose
 
chromium said:
I didn't take the SAT II to get into Yale, so how could i be bitter? Although i found out later it's known as "the gay Ivy," i'm perfectly content here. Plus there's always grad school and as i told another who made this accusation **i criticized my own school for doing the same thing with legacies**

No, i just don't like people who simultaneously cheat to get ahead and act like they're better than everyone else. And there's a ****load of those at Harvard and Yale, up to 40% of their undergrads in fact. Why would i want to go to a place like that? It's like i met someone at orientation who whined he couldn't take his dad's private jet. But the difference is there's relatively few of those extremes here

As to your claim that legacies had better outcomes, i flat out don't believe it for the same reason racial minorities have much worse outcomes - they aren't qualified. At my school blacks and hispanics graduated at almost *half* the rate, until the quotas ended. But i also don't believe you have any way to access such information, as all selective schools are very tight lipped about their highly unpopular legacies, who in turn like to act as if they earn everything they get in life

Your brother's daughter, well, i can tell you haven't been to Yale in decades. A top SAT doesn't mean much since the population boom. They reject upwards of *70 percent* with perfect SAT. So yes, if she was admitted, there's a very good chance it's due to legacy and as for her high school education, as i told you before, getting into those places as well is highly determined by legacy. Not saying she isn't smart, but this is my point about acting as if she earned her chops as much as the daughter of a single mother crack addict with no ties to the school

Finally, you dodged the question on why you support legacies but not racial quotas. Is an unqualified black applicant for some reason incapable of these ironically athletic contributions to the school environment? I mean if that's the best reason you can come up with...
Click to expand...

all I see in this post of yours appears to be the bitterness of someone who was turned down. Sorry about your bad luck but the fact remains, a girl that graduates as one of the top five in her class of a school that is commonly regarded as the top HS in the country (I will give you a hint, the head of "The Nation" is an alum) and has a top one percent SAT and was selected for "Directed Studies" as a Yale Freshman-is going to be more likely than not to get into any top college. And she sure didn't get any racial favors being half WASP and half Chinese.
 
jimbo said:
Points well taken. Just because a student is a dumb ass rich kid doesn't mean that they won't do well at school or later in life, and that Salk kid could very well have a superior lab in a building with the rich kid's name on the door. I'm more concerned with the +240 SAT'ers failing to succeed due to being placed above their skill level.
Click to expand...

you don't think +160 is substantial as well? After being so spoiled and with all the tutors they want all thru high school, the reverse should be the policy frankly, because they *should* do much better than other applicants
 
chromium said:
prove it

anyway, the article i read pointed out that there are many advantages to being a legacy kid once on campus - access to fraternies, eating clubs, private tutors (which the poor could never afford), and anything else they could want except literally bribing the professors for grades

although that is possible too i suppose
Click to expand...

why should I have to prove something to YOU. We get from your posts that you are apparently very bitter about an admissions decision of some college. "fraternities" at Yale-LOL. eating clubs-LOL.
 
TurtleDude said:
all I see in this post of yours appears to be the bitterness of someone who was turned down. Sorry about your bad luck but the fact remains, a girl that graduates as one of the top five in her class of a school that is commonly regarded as the top HS in the country (I will give you a hint, the head of "The Nation" is an alum) and has a top one percent SAT and was selected for "Directed Studies" as a Yale Freshman-is going to be more likely than not to get into any top college. And she sure didn't get any racial favors being half WASP and half Chinese.
Click to expand...

My school rejected 40,000 applicants last year. This is an ignorant accusation to say the least
 
chromium said:
you don't think +160 is substantial as well? After being so spoiled and with all the tutors they want all thru high school, the reverse should be the policy frankly, because they *should* do much better than other applicants
Click to expand...


this shows a tremendous amount of bitterness and a complete bankruptcy of facts

I never had any private tutors. Spoiled-you are assuming anyone who has parents that went to top schools are somehow spoiled. what stupid rot
 
chromium said:
My school rejected 40,000 applicants last year. This is an ignorant accusation to say the least
Click to expand...


So what-every kid accepted at Harvard Law School couldn't have gone to say Cornell law school because Cornell only has 175 seats per class and Harvard has 550. Harvard is generally ranked 2-3 and Cornell 7-10.

if your school is so damn exclusive why so much bitterness about Yale and Harvard
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom