5 ms·

Another group that stands to lose are those students who were admitted on merit and no longer have access to “mediocre” students with good connections.

virtuous_signal 7y ago
That's true, and in addition to the claim that legacy admits make the entire college experience more affordable for everyone else, is probably the strongest objection. I would venture the following: if we agree on the norm that "power should stop being transferred dynastically or through nepotism in a modern civilized society", and abolishing legacy preferences bring us closer to this norm, then the negative effects will be transient, and worth it.
- protomyth 7y ago
  That's never going to happen unless you truly change human nature. We are tribal and protect our families. Nepotism is a family member making life better for other members of the family. I'm not sure we will still be a society if we eliminate family bonds.
  - throwawayjava 7y ago
    > I'm not sure we will still be a society if we eliminate family bonds. There's a significant difference between not having nepotism and eliminating family bonds. > We are tribal and protect our families. Many of virtuous_signal's arguments boiled down to the observation that protecting your family via nepotism or dynastic preference isn't even necessarily good for the effected family member in the long run. I think that poster makes a good argument that dynastic preference in university admissions is a net negative for its beneficiaries. The negatives of nepotism also show up in business, where, with rare exception, nepotism tends to genereate a huge drain on both productivity and external respect.
- jeegsy 7y ago
  I always hesitate with these sorts of effects calculations. Depending on how long or how transient these negative effects are, a lot of folks could get screwed through no fault of their own.
dan-robertson 7y ago
This relies on a correlation between “legacy” and “good connections”. But if it’s about good connections, why not just have a policy like: “if you’re sufficiently good you get in and if you don’t have a ton of money we can provide scholarships to make things more affordable or free; and if you’re ok but rich, you can pay 2x the usual rate for admission up to some quota of these admissions” You could even replace “rich” with “rich and well-connected” though it may be hard to determine the second part. This seems like a more honest system and it doesn’t strike me as obviously unfair or unreasonable to have. Someone paying double fees isn’t taking someone else’s place so much as providing for someone else’s place.
- sackofmugs 7y ago
  That's the current system. The rich people pay the MRSP (about 70K/year), and the poor pays half as much on average due to various scholarships / grants / aid. Your way is just that in terms of outcome, except it's more antagonizing to the rich.
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    They pay more than that. Legacy enrolment is one of the key ways that colleges grow their endowments, which are (amongst other things) used for scholarships.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > You could even replace “rich” with “rich and well-connected” though it may be hard to determine the second part. Connections are traditionally determined through the very old method of asking for letters of recommendation. US military academies still work this way; you can't be admitted without a recommendation from one of the three (3) legislators representing you in the federal government, or the vice president. The method is cheap and accurate; you test someone's connections by having them exercise those connections. For some reason universities still ask for letters of recommendation, but they've shifted to asking for letters from random teachers. This completely defeats the purpose; a recommendation from someone who is unknown to you [where "you" are the admissions officer] and who holds no power of any kind is obviously worthless.
blululu 7y ago
Maybe this is an added benefit since those well connected kids will go somewhere else and increase the access to those networks.
guelo 7y ago
The good connections' access to outstanding smart college kids would also be threatened. Which means these connections will have to find other, hopefully less dynasty-reinforcing ways to recruit.
jugg1es 7y ago
Love this point. Not sure if it can be called cynical or not, but a really smart kid would definitely miss out on a networking opportunity with the parents of a legacy friend. Think Bighead from Silicon Valley.

virtuous_signal 7y ago

That's true, and in addition to the claim that legacy admits make the entire college experience more affordable for everyone else, is probably the strongest objection. I would venture the following: if we agree on the norm that "power should stop being transferred dynastically or through nepotism in a modern civilized society", and abolishing legacy preferences bring us closer to this norm, then the negative effects will be transient, and worth it.

protomyth 7y ago
That's never going to happen unless you truly change human nature. We are tribal and protect our families. Nepotism is a family member making life better for other members of the family. I'm not sure we will still be a society if we eliminate family bonds.
- throwawayjava 7y ago
  > I'm not sure we will still be a society if we eliminate family bonds. There's a significant difference between not having nepotism and eliminating family bonds. > We are tribal and protect our families. Many of virtuous_signal's arguments boiled down to the observation that protecting your family via nepotism or dynastic preference isn't even necessarily good for the effected family member in the long run. I think that poster makes a good argument that dynastic preference in university admissions is a net negative for its beneficiaries. The negatives of nepotism also show up in business, where, with rare exception, nepotism tends to genereate a huge drain on both productivity and external respect.
jeegsy 7y ago
I always hesitate with these sorts of effects calculations. Depending on how long or how transient these negative effects are, a lot of folks could get screwed through no fault of their own.

dan-robertson 7y ago

This relies on a correlation between “legacy” and “good connections”. But if it’s about good connections, why not just have a policy like: “if you’re sufficiently good you get in and if you don’t have a ton of money we can provide scholarships to make things more affordable or free; and if you’re ok but rich, you can pay 2x the usual rate for admission up to some quota of these admissions” You could even replace “rich” with “rich and well-connected” though it may be hard to determine the second part. This seems like a more honest system and it doesn’t strike me as obviously unfair or unreasonable to have. Someone paying double fees isn’t taking someone else’s place so much as providing for someone else’s place.

sackofmugs 7y ago
That's the current system. The rich people pay the MRSP (about 70K/year), and the poor pays half as much on average due to various scholarships / grants / aid. Your way is just that in terms of outcome, except it's more antagonizing to the rich.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  They pay more than that. Legacy enrolment is one of the key ways that colleges grow their endowments, which are (amongst other things) used for scholarships.
thaumasiotes 7y ago
> You could even replace “rich” with “rich and well-connected” though it may be hard to determine the second part. Connections are traditionally determined through the very old method of asking for letters of recommendation. US military academies still work this way; you can't be admitted without a recommendation from one of the three (3) legislators representing you in the federal government, or the vice president. The method is cheap and accurate; you test someone's connections by having them exercise those connections. For some reason universities still ask for letters of recommendation, but they've shifted to asking for letters from random teachers. This completely defeats the purpose; a recommendation from someone who is unknown to you [where "you" are the admissions officer] and who holds no power of any kind is obviously worthless.

blululu 7y ago

Maybe this is an added benefit since those well connected kids will go somewhere else and increase the access to those networks.

guelo 7y ago

The good connections' access to outstanding smart college kids would also be threatened. Which means these connections will have to find other, hopefully less dynasty-reinforcing ways to recruit.

jugg1es 7y ago

Love this point. Not sure if it can be called cynical or not, but a really smart kid would definitely miss out on a networking opportunity with the parents of a legacy friend. Think Bighead from Silicon Valley.