5 ms·

I 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 universit

by rb808 7y ago

I 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 ago
  That'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 ago
    I 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 ago
      Yes, 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.
rayiner 7y ago
Endowments and reputation fading is a good thing. One of the things that drives up cost of college is the competition among universities. If we are going to publicly subsidize higher education, through loans or otherwise, we need to reduce differentiation. Obviously there will be better or worse ones still, but going across the country to attend a “top 50 school” is not something we should be encouraging. (And that phenomenon is much less common in Europe, where going to a local school is typical even for good students.)
- MiroF 7y ago
  Many of these top schools that have legacy programs don't have subsidized enrollment because they meet full need. Most public funding there goes to research, not subsidized loans.
wbl 7y ago
Caltech doesn't have legacy admits. They have a top notch reputation while Harvard somewhat unfairly has a reputation of being easy.
- MiroF 7y ago
  Like many public schools, the difficulty of Harvard is largely contingent on the classes you choose to take and the program you're in.
sweeneyrod 7y ago
I'm sure Harvard's reputation would be fine without admitting a load of thick kids who happen to come from privileged backgrounds (the smart ones would get in anyway). Maybe their endowment would suffer, but since they currently have about as much money as the whole of Latvia I expect they'd survive.
- rb808 7y ago
  Harvard and the Ivies have been doing what they do for centuries and they're still successful. I'd suggest they know what they are doing when they let in privileged kids. If I could get into an Ivy I'd probably like to have some "thick" privileged kids in my class too to help fund my startup.
  - sweeneyrod 7y ago
    Oxbridge are centuries older and the idea of legacy admissions would be abhorrent to most people there.
akhilcacharya 7y ago
> 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. This is great! I hope more elite universities follow suit (or preferably are forced to) if that’s the case.
wy35 7y ago
> you just get people who want to go there for the reputation and endowment. As opposed to people who only want to go there because Dad or Mom went there? Or, how about this -- people who want a world-class education without having to compete against other applicants with an unfair advantage. I would not have found a well-paying job without my univerity's resources and name recognition, and I would not have been able to pay for tuition (for any college out-of-state) without my university's very generous need-based financial aid. So you can call it reputation and endowment, but I prefer to call it social mobility. > generate loyal customer base Given these are non-profit institutions, I certainly hope not.

by rb808 7y ago

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 ago
That'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 ago
  I 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 ago
    Yes, 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.

rayiner 7y ago

Endowments and reputation fading is a good thing. One of the things that drives up cost of college is the competition among universities. If we are going to publicly subsidize higher education, through loans or otherwise, we need to reduce differentiation. Obviously there will be better or worse ones still, but going across the country to attend a “top 50 school” is not something we should be encouraging. (And that phenomenon is much less common in Europe, where going to a local school is typical even for good students.)

MiroF 7y ago
Many of these top schools that have legacy programs don't have subsidized enrollment because they meet full need. Most public funding there goes to research, not subsidized loans.

wbl 7y ago

Caltech doesn't have legacy admits. They have a top notch reputation while Harvard somewhat unfairly has a reputation of being easy.

MiroF 7y ago
Like many public schools, the difficulty of Harvard is largely contingent on the classes you choose to take and the program you're in.

sweeneyrod 7y ago

I'm sure Harvard's reputation would be fine without admitting a load of thick kids who happen to come from privileged backgrounds (the smart ones would get in anyway). Maybe their endowment would suffer, but since they currently have about as much money as the whole of Latvia I expect they'd survive.

rb808 7y ago
Harvard and the Ivies have been doing what they do for centuries and they're still successful. I'd suggest they know what they are doing when they let in privileged kids. If I could get into an Ivy I'd probably like to have some "thick" privileged kids in my class too to help fund my startup.
- sweeneyrod 7y ago
  Oxbridge are centuries older and the idea of legacy admissions would be abhorrent to most people there.

akhilcacharya 7y ago

> 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. This is great! I hope more elite universities follow suit (or preferably are forced to) if that’s the case.

wy35 7y ago

> you just get people who want to go there for the reputation and endowment. As opposed to people who only want to go there because Dad or Mom went there? Or, how about this -- people who want a world-class education without having to compete against other applicants with an unfair advantage. I would not have found a well-paying job without my univerity's resources and name recognition, and I would not have been able to pay for tuition (for any college out-of-state) without my university's very generous need-based financial aid. So you can call it reputation and endowment, but I prefer to call it social mobility. > generate loyal customer base Given these are non-profit institutions, I certainly hope not.