3 ms·
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 obj
by 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 agoThat'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 agoI 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.