7 ms·

> Merit admissions give the legacies legitimacy. Legacy admissions give the superhumans opportunity. On initial inspection, this seems like a really sensible e

> Merit admissions give the legacies legitimacy. Legacy admissions give the superhumans opportunity. On initial inspection, this seems like a really sensible explanation. Unfortunately, it does not match reality. Studies show that those who get into top schools and don't attend do as well as those who do get in and attend. In other words, the admissions itself serves as an indication that this person is top-notch and capable of great things. With this in mind, legacy admissions does nothing other than to help the legacy students network with the merit students. Merit students clearly get no benefit. Thus, the only conclusion is that merit students exist so that legacy students can continue to uphold their family's hegemony. Study: https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/the-college-solution/2011/03/01/the-ivy-league-earnings-myth https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/the-college-solution/...

cobbzilla 7y ago
> Merit students clearly get no benefit. If the merit students have talent and not so much money, wouldn't you want them to rub elbows with legacy students who maybe have lots of money but not so much talent? Entrepreneurs need investors.
- tathougies 7y ago
  But they do just as well if they hadn't rubbed elbows with legacy students. That's what the study found. > Entrepreneurs need investors. Investors also need entrepreneurs to create the mechanisms of wealth creation. Aside from angel investing, most VC money is via institutional funds (perhaps with substantial contributions from individual accredited investors). The VC, as a steward of others money, needs to find entrepreneurs who are able to drive a high enough possibility of a great rate of return. Actually, given that there are entrepreneurs who were able to make it without large substantial investment, whereas there are no investors able to make it without the involvement of entrepreneurs, I'm going to hazard to say that investors need entrepreneurs more than entrepreneurs need investors, even if marginally.
nessus42 7y ago
> Merit students clearly get no benefit You're basing this conclusion based on an earnings study? That's pretty questionable reasoning! I received an incredible education from MIT (and I was admitted based on merit), but I took that education and went to work for non-profit research institutes, because making as much money as possible was not my primary objective.
- tathougies 7y ago
  > I received an incredible education from MIT (and I was admitted based on merit), but I took that education and went to work for non-profit research institutes, because making as much money as possible was not my primary objective. That's a fair criticism if my comment was made in a vacuum. However, my comment was in response to an anecdote that claimed that legacy admissions are good because they offer a way up the social ladder for those who get into the same school through hard work and merit. While there are certainly ways up the social ladder via non-profits, etc, the fact of the matter is that those at the top of the social ladder -- those making decisions, etc -- are much richer than the rest of the populace, and money typically buys influence. Even Bernie Sanders, critic of capitalism that he is, has a net worth substantially higher than the typical American. Thus, I'm going to dismiss your critique as perhaps morally right, but realistically irrelevant.
  - nessus42 7y ago
    I'm still unclear about your point. MIT has claimed for as long as I can remember that they don't accept legacy admissions. Assuming that MIT is telling the truth on this matter, your reasoning seems to imply then that MIT has no purpose at all! As to whether legacy students would have helped me rise higher on any ladders, I can't say, since I climbed whatever ladders I did via some combination of merit, having a good education, having a prestigious education, and "white male American privilege". I have no idea how things would have turned out if some rich kid had been my roommate. I have gotten jobs due to connections, though, and more and better connections might have allowed me to get better jobs. Though I pretty much got the jobs that I wanted anyway, so it's not clear if better connections would have made much of a difference. Personally, my guess would be that legacy admissions exist mostly for a university to increase its stream of loyal donations from the well-to-do.

cobbzilla 7y ago

> Merit students clearly get no benefit. If the merit students have talent and not so much money, wouldn't you want them to rub elbows with legacy students who maybe have lots of money but not so much talent? Entrepreneurs need investors.

tathougies 7y ago
But they do just as well if they hadn't rubbed elbows with legacy students. That's what the study found. > Entrepreneurs need investors. Investors also need entrepreneurs to create the mechanisms of wealth creation. Aside from angel investing, most VC money is via institutional funds (perhaps with substantial contributions from individual accredited investors). The VC, as a steward of others money, needs to find entrepreneurs who are able to drive a high enough possibility of a great rate of return. Actually, given that there are entrepreneurs who were able to make it without large substantial investment, whereas there are no investors able to make it without the involvement of entrepreneurs, I'm going to hazard to say that investors need entrepreneurs more than entrepreneurs need investors, even if marginally.

nessus42 7y ago

> Merit students clearly get no benefit You're basing this conclusion based on an earnings study? That's pretty questionable reasoning! I received an incredible education from MIT (and I was admitted based on merit), but I took that education and went to work for non-profit research institutes, because making as much money as possible was not my primary objective.

tathougies 7y ago
> I received an incredible education from MIT (and I was admitted based on merit), but I took that education and went to work for non-profit research institutes, because making as much money as possible was not my primary objective. That's a fair criticism if my comment was made in a vacuum. However, my comment was in response to an anecdote that claimed that legacy admissions are good because they offer a way up the social ladder for those who get into the same school through hard work and merit. While there are certainly ways up the social ladder via non-profits, etc, the fact of the matter is that those at the top of the social ladder -- those making decisions, etc -- are much richer than the rest of the populace, and money typically buys influence. Even Bernie Sanders, critic of capitalism that he is, has a net worth substantially higher than the typical American. Thus, I'm going to dismiss your critique as perhaps morally right, but realistically irrelevant.
- nessus42 7y ago
  I'm still unclear about your point. MIT has claimed for as long as I can remember that they don't accept legacy admissions. Assuming that MIT is telling the truth on this matter, your reasoning seems to imply then that MIT has no purpose at all! As to whether legacy students would have helped me rise higher on any ladders, I can't say, since I climbed whatever ladders I did via some combination of merit, having a good education, having a prestigious education, and "white male American privilege". I have no idea how things would have turned out if some rich kid had been my roommate. I have gotten jobs due to connections, though, and more and better connections might have allowed me to get better jobs. Though I pretty much got the jobs that I wanted anyway, so it's not clear if better connections would have made much of a difference. Personally, my guess would be that legacy admissions exist mostly for a university to increase its stream of loyal donations from the well-to-do.