8 ms·

“Today, according to Harvard, legacy students make up around 14 percent of the undergraduate population.” https://www.npr.org/2018/11/04/663629750/legacy-admis

by goler 8y ago

“Today, according to Harvard, legacy students make up around 14 percent of the undergraduate population.” https://www.npr.org/2018/11/04/663629750/legacy-admissions-offer-an-advantage-and-not-just-at-schools-like-harvard https://www.npr.org/2018/11/04/663629750/legacy-admissions-o...

betterunix2 8y ago
Which is 14 percent more than they should make up, at least if we are going to pretend that Harvard is interested in any reasonable standard of admissions. I understand the arguments for diversity in the student body; legacy admissions work against that goal. I understand the arguments for a strictly objective standard; legacy admissions work against that goal too.
- mac01021 8y ago
  Money is an effective tool to further almost any mission. I'm not sure exactly what Harvard's mission statement is, but if the money that comes with a legacy student is enough, then taking on the student is almost certainly a good way to advance the mission.
  - betterunix2 8y ago
    LMFTFY: Harvard's admission process is corrupt and people can buy a spot for their children regardless of academic qualifications. (Not claiming this is shocking news.)
- nugget 8y ago
  Given that IQ seems to be >50% hereditary, wouldn’t we expect legacies to be over-represented in any meritocracy that partially selects for such a trait? I don’t think Harvard is a pure meritocracy, it’s more of a theoretical question.
  - lawrenceyan 8y ago
    > Given that IQ seems to be >50% hereditary, You're kidding right? That is such a painfully incorrect statement. Intelligence is an incredibly complex hugely conserved trait. Bloodlines and power/intellect passed down through the generations is a great fantasy novel setting, but not so much for reality.
    - wycs 8y ago
      You are just wrong:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ I know it is ideologically uncomfortable but this is a fact you will have to get used to. Cognitive genomics is coming. The undeniable is becoming laughable to deny.
      - lawrenceyan 8y ago
        Have you considered the possibility that confounding variables exist? I have no doubt that coming from a family where your parents have received a good education makes it much more likely for you to personally also go on to get the same education for example. But these are different than the pure genetics by themselves. The Wikipedia article you link to yourself highlights the importance of how it defines the meaning of "heritability" that I think you should take a closer look at. I'm sure at some point in the future, we will be able to genetically engineer our children to be smarter. Yet this is still a completely different idea compared to the paired mating of people which has currently been proposed. Intelligence is something that is incredibly complex, and humans are likely very close if not already at its peak within some local maxima.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        wycs 8y ago
        >Have you considered the possibility that confounding variables exist? I have no doubt that coming from a family where your parents have received a good education makes it much more likely for you to personally also go on to get the same education for example. Yes. If you read the citations you will see this is based on twin adoption studies, which control for confounding variables almost perfectly. I assure you, ever single objection you can think of off the top of your head has been raised and overcome. The heritability of IQ is not a conclusion psychologists wanted to affirm. It is fact the field was forced to come to from the data, despite the ideological drifts of the last 50 years yearning (or in the case of Stephen Jay Gould outright falsifying data) for the opposite conclusion.
- FakeComments 8y ago
  You’re missing the notion of cultural continuity - legacy admissions support that effort.
- LanceH 8y ago
  Harvard wouldn't have nearly the prestige that it does without legacy and purchased admissions.
- csa 8y ago
  You’re assuming that no children of Harvard alum would be qualified to get in even without legacy status. This is a woefully incorrect assumption. Also note that a full 70% of legacies are denied admission. Being a legacy is hardly a golden ticket.
  - betterunix2 8y ago
    It is not that no legacy students would get in purely on their academic achievements or that being a legacy is a golden ticket. The legacy admission process seems to serve no reasonable purpose and to be in direct conflict with Harvard's other goals with its admissions process. It would be better to fill that 14 percent with randomly selected applicants -- at least that would given Harvard a control group to measure the impact of their admissions criteria against.
    - chongli 8y ago
      Is it not reasonable for Harvard to try to grow their endowment? If an alumnus wants to donate a new library or a new scholarship to Harvard, what's wrong with letting their kid attend, assuming she has the grades? The library or scholarship could benefit far more than what we lose by not admitting the one kid for the place the legacy took.
      - betterunix2 8y ago
        No, it is corrupt for Harvard to try to solicit donations by tipping the scale in favor of admitting the children of their alumni. "Assuming she has the grades" is exactly the problem here -- legacy admissions are not held to the same standard as everyone else and have an easier time gaining admission. We are also not talking about "one kid," we are talking about 14 percent of their student body. Harvard does not get a new library or big donation for every one of the hundreds of legacies it admits each year. What is the cost/benefit analysis of having having such a large fraction of the incoming class held to a lower standard?

by goler 8y ago

betterunix2 8y ago

Which is 14 percent more than they should make up, at least if we are going to pretend that Harvard is interested in any reasonable standard of admissions. I understand the arguments for diversity in the student body; legacy admissions work against that goal. I understand the arguments for a strictly objective standard; legacy admissions work against that goal too.

mac01021 8y ago
Money is an effective tool to further almost any mission. I'm not sure exactly what Harvard's mission statement is, but if the money that comes with a legacy student is enough, then taking on the student is almost certainly a good way to advance the mission.
- betterunix2 8y ago
  LMFTFY: Harvard's admission process is corrupt and people can buy a spot for their children regardless of academic qualifications. (Not claiming this is shocking news.)
nugget 8y ago
Given that IQ seems to be >50% hereditary, wouldn’t we expect legacies to be over-represented in any meritocracy that partially selects for such a trait? I don’t think Harvard is a pure meritocracy, it’s more of a theoretical question.
- lawrenceyan 8y ago
  > Given that IQ seems to be >50% hereditary, You're kidding right? That is such a painfully incorrect statement. Intelligence is an incredibly complex hugely conserved trait. Bloodlines and power/intellect passed down through the generations is a great fantasy novel setting, but not so much for reality.
  - wycs 8y ago
    You are just wrong:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ I know it is ideologically uncomfortable but this is a fact you will have to get used to. Cognitive genomics is coming. The undeniable is becoming laughable to deny.
    - lawrenceyan 8y ago
      Have you considered the possibility that confounding variables exist? I have no doubt that coming from a family where your parents have received a good education makes it much more likely for you to personally also go on to get the same education for example. But these are different than the pure genetics by themselves. The Wikipedia article you link to yourself highlights the importance of how it defines the meaning of "heritability" that I think you should take a closer look at. I'm sure at some point in the future, we will be able to genetically engineer our children to be smarter. Yet this is still a completely different idea compared to the paired mating of people which has currently been proposed. Intelligence is something that is incredibly complex, and humans are likely very close if not already at its peak within some local maxima.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - wycs 8y ago
        >Have you considered the possibility that confounding variables exist? I have no doubt that coming from a family where your parents have received a good education makes it much more likely for you to personally also go on to get the same education for example. Yes. If you read the citations you will see this is based on twin adoption studies, which control for confounding variables almost perfectly. I assure you, ever single objection you can think of off the top of your head has been raised and overcome. The heritability of IQ is not a conclusion psychologists wanted to affirm. It is fact the field was forced to come to from the data, despite the ideological drifts of the last 50 years yearning (or in the case of Stephen Jay Gould outright falsifying data) for the opposite conclusion.
FakeComments 8y ago
You’re missing the notion of cultural continuity - legacy admissions support that effort.
LanceH 8y ago
Harvard wouldn't have nearly the prestige that it does without legacy and purchased admissions.
csa 8y ago
You’re assuming that no children of Harvard alum would be qualified to get in even without legacy status. This is a woefully incorrect assumption. Also note that a full 70% of legacies are denied admission. Being a legacy is hardly a golden ticket.
- betterunix2 8y ago
  It is not that no legacy students would get in purely on their academic achievements or that being a legacy is a golden ticket. The legacy admission process seems to serve no reasonable purpose and to be in direct conflict with Harvard's other goals with its admissions process. It would be better to fill that 14 percent with randomly selected applicants -- at least that would given Harvard a control group to measure the impact of their admissions criteria against.
  - chongli 8y ago
    Is it not reasonable for Harvard to try to grow their endowment? If an alumnus wants to donate a new library or a new scholarship to Harvard, what's wrong with letting their kid attend, assuming she has the grades? The library or scholarship could benefit far more than what we lose by not admitting the one kid for the place the legacy took.
    - betterunix2 8y ago
      No, it is corrupt for Harvard to try to solicit donations by tipping the scale in favor of admitting the children of their alumni. "Assuming she has the grades" is exactly the problem here -- legacy admissions are not held to the same standard as everyone else and have an easier time gaining admission. We are also not talking about "one kid," we are talking about 14 percent of their student body. Harvard does not get a new library or big donation for every one of the hundreds of legacies it admits each year. What is the cost/benefit analysis of having having such a large fraction of the incoming class held to a lower standard?