3 ms·

Articles like this drive me nuts. There is a world of people that do have a large amount of liquid capital. However, it’s a ridiculous claim to make that 1/3

Articles like this drive me nuts. There is a world of people that do have a large amount of liquid capital. However, it’s a ridiculous claim to make that 1/3 of the people are some how more privileged than you in society and that’s why they go there. The truth is that Harvard, Yale, Cambridge...etc are REALLY good at fostering loyalty and a sense of legacy. Very rarely is there a sense of legacy at “state university of X”. Harvard simply is good at promoting legacy, while 2/3 of their student population are not legacy.

theoh 7y ago
"State university of X" typically doesn't have a great academic reputation in comparison with Harvard. That's a very significant reason not to go there if you can get accepted at a top school.
jrochkind1 7y ago
It is well-documented that these school give admission preferences to 'legacy' applicants, and that's why there's a high proportion of such students, and the OP cites and links to some of this documentation. It is not a case, as you seem to be suggesting, that children of alumni are simply more likely to want to go to them. The desire to attend elite schools is obviously quite widespread, as having a degree from such is seen, not without cause, as granting you access to all sorts of opportunities. Also, where I'm from it is not at all uncommon for multiple generations of family to have gone to the University of Michigan or Michigan State (both of which are fine schools, one is more prestigious than the other). For whatever reasons. The desire (or parental pressure) to go to a school your parents went to, when your parents went to university, is in fact not limited to Ivies and elite schools. While most public universities don't seem to give 'legacy' preferences... the U of Michigan in fact does. It is also an especially prestigious public university.
- codeddesign 7y ago
  Having grown up in East Lansing, having family that have graduated from Michigan State, and currently work there, they do prioritize legacy. It’s even asks on the admissions form. This is a country and world of competition. This includes students but also thriving schools. The best way to create a successful business is loyalty, which bring value to your asset. Ivy League schools would not be what they are today (Ivy League) without legacy. Sorry, but you can’t have both capitalism and socialism.
  - jrochkind1 7y ago
    Prioritizing "legacy" admissions and making it easier to get admitted if you are "legacy" is quite a different thing than what I thought you were originally suggesting, that schools have a disproportionate number of "legacy" students because they are "simply good at promoting legacy." It's because they make it _easier to get in_ if you are legacy. You can consider that a method of "promotion", but it's not that they "simply go there" because they disproportionately _desire_ to, it's that the schools preferentially admit them. You can think this is fine, but in fact it makes most people kinda mad, especially in the case of elite schools, because they know how valuable a degree from an elite school is as a credential, and prioritizing the children of people who already have such a credential to get it seems unfair. You can think it's appropriate, but it's dishonest to imply it's not happening. I do like your implied admission that we should not expect "meritocracy" from capitalism. Let's start being clear about that, agreed.

theoh 7y ago

"State university of X" typically doesn't have a great academic reputation in comparison with Harvard. That's a very significant reason not to go there if you can get accepted at a top school.

jrochkind1 7y ago

It is well-documented that these school give admission preferences to 'legacy' applicants, and that's why there's a high proportion of such students, and the OP cites and links to some of this documentation. It is not a case, as you seem to be suggesting, that children of alumni are simply more likely to want to go to them. The desire to attend elite schools is obviously quite widespread, as having a degree from such is seen, not without cause, as granting you access to all sorts of opportunities. Also, where I'm from it is not at all uncommon for multiple generations of family to have gone to the University of Michigan or Michigan State (both of which are fine schools, one is more prestigious than the other). For whatever reasons. The desire (or parental pressure) to go to a school your parents went to, when your parents went to university, is in fact not limited to Ivies and elite schools. While most public universities don't seem to give 'legacy' preferences... the U of Michigan in fact does. It is also an especially prestigious public university.

codeddesign 7y ago
Having grown up in East Lansing, having family that have graduated from Michigan State, and currently work there, they do prioritize legacy. It’s even asks on the admissions form. This is a country and world of competition. This includes students but also thriving schools. The best way to create a successful business is loyalty, which bring value to your asset. Ivy League schools would not be what they are today (Ivy League) without legacy. Sorry, but you can’t have both capitalism and socialism.
- jrochkind1 7y ago
  Prioritizing "legacy" admissions and making it easier to get admitted if you are "legacy" is quite a different thing than what I thought you were originally suggesting, that schools have a disproportionate number of "legacy" students because they are "simply good at promoting legacy." It's because they make it _easier to get in_ if you are legacy. You can consider that a method of "promotion", but it's not that they "simply go there" because they disproportionately _desire_ to, it's that the schools preferentially admit them. You can think this is fine, but in fact it makes most people kinda mad, especially in the case of elite schools, because they know how valuable a degree from an elite school is as a credential, and prioritizing the children of people who already have such a credential to get it seems unfair. You can think it's appropriate, but it's dishonest to imply it's not happening. I do like your implied admission that we should not expect "meritocracy" from capitalism. Let's start being clear about that, agreed.