11 ms·
Ending Legacy Admissions at Johns Hopkins
- Bostonian 7y agoThe principle that you should not be penalized by the family you are born into would also prohibit racial preferences, but I don't see that addressed in the article.
- eesmith 7y agoThe article doesn't seem to have anything to do with the "principle that you should not be penalized by the family you are born into".
- iecheruo 7y agoWhen deeply accustomed to privilege, attempts to restore merit often present as penalty. Removing legacy preference in favor of merit is not penalization. The article does not advocate admission based on racial preference. It does point out that a level playing field allows more applications of merit from races that would traditionally be displaced.
- Bostonian 7y ago"Removing legacy preference in favor of merit is not penalization." Yes, but almost all selective U.S. schools do have racial preferences in admissions, which do disadvantage students who do not receive those preferences. My son is applying to college this year. He will benefit from legacy preference at one school he is applying to, but at every other school, he will be discriminated against because he is not an under-represented minority and because his parents are well-educated -- he will not be a "first-gen" college student. Today the Left is inconsistent in its advocacy of merit-based admissions, opposing legacy preferences but not other preferences.
- WaxProlix 7y agoOh no, do you think he'll be okay? :'(
- notlukesky 7y agoSo long as admissions are not solely test based (like in many countries) then it will be gamed. The 2019 college admissions bribery scandal is the tip of the iceberg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_college_admissions_bribery_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_college_admissions_briber... There are also other ways of getting easier admission to selective schools in the US by saying you are for example Native American.
- eesmith 7y agoEnough people falsely believe they are Native American - the "Cherokee princess" myth; http://www.native-languages.org/princess.htm http://www.native-languages.org/princess.htm - that I can't believe that simply saying one is Native American is enough to get easier admission. Here's how I envision it. I write in my essay that "I'm proud that I'm part Native American. My grandmother told me that her great-grandmother was Cherokee. My ancestors were forced off their land, and I think that's a tragedy.", etc. Admissions officer reads it, rolls eyes, then plops it into the rejection pile. Do you have something more substantial in mind than just "saying" to get easier admission?
- yostrovs 7y agoPlease review the case of Elizabeth Warren. She became a Harvard professor by saying she's a native Cherokee.
- eesmith 7y agonotlukesky was talking about admissions to selective universities, not employment as a professor. Following your tangent, yes, I have reviewed it, and not, she did not. There is no evidence, despite considerable review, that that happened, and you are repeating false propaganda. Eg, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/elizabeth-warren-wealthy-native-american/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/elizabeth-warren-wealthy-n... : > But specific evidence that she gained her position at Harvard (at least in part) through her claims to Native American heritage is lacking. Warren denied applying for special consideration as a person of Native American heritage during her career, and when the matter was examined in 2012 in response to Brown’s claims, people with whom Warren had worked similarly denied her ancestral background’s factoring into the professional opportunities afforded her ... > In the most exhaustive review undertaken of Elizabeth Warren’s professional history, the Globe found clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools. At every step of her remarkable rise in the legal profession, the people responsible for hiring her saw her as a white woman.
- virtuous_signal 7y ago>The year I arrived, Hopkins had more legacy students in its freshman class (12.5 percent) than students who were eligible for Pell Grants (9 percent). Now those numbers are reversed—3.5 percent of students in this year’s freshman class have a legacy connection to the university, and 19.1 percent are Pell-eligible This change happened in five years. Such a policy change would be extremely popular. For proponents of race-based affirmative action, this would serve as somewhat of a proxy due to the correlation between race and class. For opponents, removing legacy preferences makes admissions more meritocratic. The only groups with something to lose are (i) mediocre children of alumni, and (ii) the university's endowments if alumni decrease their donations. I don't believe (i) is a strong factor in a university's calculations, which leaves (ii). I believe universities are happy to see the public fighting about race-based affirmative action: indeed, dividing and pitting the low- and middle-income groups against each other over their limited subset of the pie, means they will not be working together to increase their overall share of the pie. (I think this issue could and should be considered orthogonal to race-based affirmative action. Race-based AA was never put on a stable enough legal footing and will continue to bounce back and forth in the courts until it's resolved, while this could be resolved quickly and uncontroversially.)
- bradj 7y agoIt would be interesting to study the effect of this on donations and the endowment. There should be some measurable effect. Additionally, if there is an effect on donations and the endowment, it would be interesting to study the effect that that change has on endowment payouts. Does lower donations, due to lower legacy admissions result in less funds for University operations?
- virtuous_signal 7y agoI haven't heard of studies on this but I would say the effect is potentially huge. For instance, just going by numbers of legacy admits at Harvard: www.cnbc.com/2019/04/07/harvards-freshman-class-is-more-than-one-third-legacy.html And any natural experiment that could have been done due to JHU's change was probably messed up by the largest donation to a university, ever: www.nytimes.com/2018/11/18/us/michael-bloomberg-johns-hopkins-donation.html
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 7y agoLegacy admissions for nonprofit institutions are a scam on the public. If a university wants to keep legacy admissions, fine, that’s their right. But no more tax exemption for their revenues, property or endowments. (And no more, I’d argue, publicly-subsidised loans for its coffers.) Same for “institutional advancement,” i.e. granting the progeny of the rich seats in exchange for patronage.
- rb808 7y agoI think legacy admissions are a good thing for the organization and the other students who go there. People in the US have a close attachment to their university, they would like their children to go there and they donate a lot of money. Take away legacy admissions and you just get people who want to go there for the reputation and endowment. The endowment quickly fades because people are less likely to donate, and when your reputation slips suddenly your students dry up and there is no loyal customer base of families who are committed. Legacy admissions are a great way to generate loyal customer base. Top schools would be crazy to give this up.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago> People in the US have a close attachment to their university, they would like their children to go there and they donate a lot of money Why link first two to the last? Pride in one’s alma mater, and encouragement towards one’s children to attend, can remain without a codified edge in admissions. There are numerous advantages a parent familiar with the process and people at an institution can give their kids. Adding to that edge is superfluous.
- MiroF 7y agoThat's true, and I absolutely agree with this decision, however studies have found a clear empirical link between legacy admissions rate and fundraising rates.
- angry_octet 7y agoI wonder if this continues to hold in the presence of fees calculated on ability to pay? That is, some schools will charge full tuition to people with rich parents and discounted tuition to those with less well off parents.
- MiroF 7y agoYes, as the studies have confirmed this to be the case with Harvard alone - which has the model described. Indeed, most of the elite schools with controversial legacy admissions have practices like that and the effect is still noticeable.
- rm999 7y agoReally happy to hear this. As someone who went to Hopkins I would fully encourage my children to apply (I had a great time and got an amazing education). But the idea that I spent a few years of my life there 40 years ago feels irrelevant to the admissions process. Any advantage given would be counterproductive in several ways: 1. It would coddle the child at a time in their life when it's essential to learn independence. This can't be good for the values they are developing. 2. It has no correlation to their success at the school. Getting admitted to a tough school like Hopkins if they are not prepared would be incredibly stressful and would probably be negatively correlated to their future success. I saw a few students who got special admissions crash and burn their freshman year and transfer out. 3. The article goes into this a lot, but it's not good for equality and encourages stratification. This isn't good for society. And it decreases diversity which is probably bad for the university.
- _jasper 7y agoWith you on 1 and 3 and I'm curious how this decision polls with other stakeholders (i.e. alumni with college-age children whom they want the best for). Your #2 is basically a restatement of mismatch theory[1] which has generated tremendous controversy when applied to the affirmative action debate. [1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/the-needlessly-polarized-mismatch-theory-debate/420321/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/the-nee...
- zdragnar 7y agoMismatch is a very real thing, at least at the extremes. My friend was a teacher at a private technical school (for manufacturing, electrician work etc) that started having revenue problems. The attempted fix was to lower the bar of candidates they took in and pushed them through more and more remedial classes, including basic maths. Their graduation rate plummeted, enrollment kept shrinking, and they went under. I also saw a less extreme version of this in college and university while I was a student. Kids were being accepted well below standard, then pushed through remedial (aka developmental) courses to get them up to par on reading / writing / maths. The graduation rate for these students was far lower than those who didn't take the courses. Mind you, this isn't (or at least, just because of) affirmative action. The state in question had a massive gap between what high school students graduated knowing, and what colleges required, and so was a systemic issue that affected all races. Since then, common core was supposedly attempted, and colleges were banned from testing students into remedial courses if they met certain conditions. The end result is fewer students spending money without earning credit (remedial courses didn't count towards a degree) but it has been too recent to know whether it has had a positive impact on graduation rates or if the students who would have been forced to take them but now aren't are floundering.
- motohagiography 7y agoCommenting to register disappointment at this outcome, but no point in arguing a forgone conclusion. The opportunities this creates will be in how to satiate the need for validation for this new class of burghers. Imposter syndrome is a trillion dollar opportunity. Surely there is some new thing we can invent for them to take pictures of themselves with? Edit: the author is using the Atlantic to take a victory lap after having infiltrated, destroyed and dismantled something. Their cant deserves scorn.
- ryan93 7y agoAre you saying you support legacy admissions?
- xnyan 7y agoI am trying really hard to parse what you are saying. Please help. >Commenting to register disappointment at this outcome, but no point in arguing a forgone conclusion. Understood. It reads like you really want people to know you own a thesaurus, but register your forgones to your heart's content. >The opportunities this creates will be in how Huh? >to satiate the need for validatiom this new class of burghers. A new class of mid-level paramedieval bureaucracy will be created from the fact that rich kids who don't meet school admissions requirements don't get rich people admissions slots? >Imposter syndrome is a trillion dollar opportunity. Elaborate? >Surely there is some new thing we can invent for them to take pictures of themselves with? Why are you sure? >The author is using the Atlantic to take a victory lap after having infiltrated, destroyed and dsmantled something. How can you dismantle something that has been destroyed? >Their cant deserves scorn. Hypocritical and sanctimonious speech is fine with me. What do you have against cants?
- motohagiography 7y agoIndeed, your struggle is apparent.
- dang 7y agoPersonal attacks will get you banned here. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- peterwwillis 7y agoThere's huge waiting lists for international students to get into Hopkins. What this will probably result in is that it makes headroom for more international students to get in (because if you're sourcing "qualified and promising students from all backgrounds" there's probably gonna be more of those across the whole globe rather than locally). Also, the Pell Grant averages just over $4K, going up to about $6K. The tuition for JHU is about $52K, but with room and board, books, and other misc living expenses this goes up to $69K.
- MandieD 7y agoHopkins was pretty generous with financial aid ca. 20 years ago when I was there - our household income was in the $80-90k range, putting us well above US average at the time, but still well below the average JHU student's family. We forked out a total of about $55k between tuition and living expenses for my whole 4 years, and I vaguely remember the “sticker price” being in the $30k/yr neighborhood. I maxed out on federal student loans ($16k total), and my parents made up another $24k in PLUS (Parental Loans for Undergraduate Students) that we had a tacit understanding that I’d take over after graduation (I even managed to pay them back for what they’d paid while I was in school!), and I worked summers, but that just went towards living expenses. Most of my aid was straight-up need-based, on top of $2k/yr National Merit and federal Work-Study, the latter of which had me running around doing desk-side support and learning a TON about end-user behavior. Graduating into the post-DotCom bubble was a little rough, but unlike some of my CS classmates from more prosperous backgrounds, I felt absolutely no shame taking a boring government contracting job that covered my loans and what I thought was a nice lifestyle.
- jl2718 7y agoGood point. Somebody did the math and found out that internationals are worth more than legacies.
- jeegsy 7y agoAn important point. Internationals typically have to pay in full at a higher rate.
- lgleason 7y agoAdmissions should be 100% merit based. No special favors for anybody.
- xnyan 7y agoThat sounds very tidy, but reality is not that simple. Here is a very real situation many schools face: you have 100 slots in your school. You objectively determine that X skills are needed to do well in your school. 1000 applicants demonstrate meeting X level of skills. Some of the 1000 clearly show they have skills well above X, but most of the 1000 are roughly equivalent. Which 900 get turned away and how do you decide which?
- angry_octet 7y agoIs that really so hard? Random selection?
- patmorgan23 7y agoWhy is that better than any other method? Why not have legacy factor in after they've met the admissions standards?
- elfexec 7y agoI remember Harvard defending their race-based admissions policy because of privileges some groups had and disadvantages other groups had. But they never addressed their legacy admissions. After all, who is more advantaged/privileged than the children of harvard grads? If Harvard was truly interested in leveling the playing field, they would also eliminate legacy admissions. If Harvard and other elite schools were consistent, I'd be less annoyed by their admissions policy. Hopefully this move by Johns Hopkins gets the ball rolling and other schools will soon follow suit.
- dehrmann 7y agoTalking about disadvantages and privilege is great and all, but alumni donate money. Best to let in a few legacies and keep the cash flowing.