3 ms·

It's even simpler than that, the US has a codified system of nepotism in place called legacy admissions, which has been in place for several decades [1]. > In

It's even simpler than that, the US has a codified system of nepotism in place called legacy admissions, which has been in place for several decades [1]. > In a deposition, Rakesh Khurana, dean of the college, said a legacy preference can foster another kind of diversity: placing people with deep Harvard experience alongside those without it. They refer to nepotism as "deep Harvard experience", that's the only difference. [1] https://www.npr.org/2018/11/04/663629750/legacy-admissions-offer-an-advantage-and-not-just-at-schools-like-harvard https://www.npr.org/2018/11/04/663629750/legacy-admissions-o...

kbenson 6y ago
I view the legacy stuff as a but more nuanced. Universities want to admit people that really want to go there, and that will increase their prestige later through some combination of espousing the benefits of that school, becoming famous, or becoming successful. It's not hard to see how the legacy systems tick a few of these boxes automatically, making those candidates seem slightly better than others (if nothing else, the candidate probably really wants this as their college over any other choices, and will likely have more pressure from self and family to complete college and do well). The problem then, as I see it, is not legacy consideration helping people get admitted, but legacy considerations overriding the other criteria. If legacy considerations where only a 15-20% in applicant suitability, I think most people wouldn't be that upset about it. When it leads to wholly and obviously unsuitable people going, that's probably when the legacy system has gone out of control.
- quadrifoliate 6y ago
  More nuanced nepotism is...nepotism. You're basically saying that whether or not your parents went to some school should positively influence as much as one-fifth of the consideration of whether you could go to a school or not. That is, if you scored this in a rubric, some kid whose parents went to Harvard would score 20 and I would score 0. That is wrong on a fundamental level. It's a bit like anti-affirmative action. I am fine with this system as it stands. However, it is wildly inconsistent with the pearl-clutching top comment (I know, not you) spewing stuff about the "Western sense of morality".
  - kbenson 6y ago
    > That is, if you scored this in a rubric, some kid whose parents went to Harvard would score 20 and I would score 0. That is wrong on a fundamental level. Is it? Why? I think it depends on the amount of government funding they get. For a completely private university, is it wrong? I think it's wrong for a university that gets a majority of its funding from the state to act this way, but for universities that have giant billion dollar endowments? Sure, let them manage at least some of the admissions somewhat as they would as if private. > It's a bit like anti-affirmative action. It's exactly like affirmative action, except to benefit the university. I think being able to apply this on some small percentage of the students, maybe five percent, is acceptable. It's going to happen, why not account for it and control it rather than make everyone involved act like it isn't happening and then we just have a vague sense that it happens but little info and control over it?
unishark 6y ago
Technically nepotism means giving favors to your own family, not granting membership to your exclusive school to people of the same family. Your real issue is that this private school is still seen as exclusive despite doing this, and that the legacy admits gain unearned reputation due to their admission. But this is not Harvard's doing, they do not control what others think of their students. This is the rest of society being ignorant. A better example of nepotism in college admissions has occurred in the past where Governors or other politicians had the ability to give scholarships at major universities in their state, and they customarily gave these to their own children or those of friends. For that matter many school overtly give benefits to their faculty and staff such as free tuition for immediate family members. Perhaps even an easier chance at admission for some.
NineStarPoint 6y ago
Hmmm, there probably is actually a benefit to the other students there, but not “Harvard Experience.” Assuming the child of a previous Harvard grad is more likely to have important social connections than the average applicant, them being at the school gives other people potential opportunity to make connections through them. And connections do of course matter a lot. Regardless, the reason colleges actually do legacy admissions both seems obvious and isn’t something they’re likely to say. It makes Alumni happy, and keeping Alumni happy is how you get those fat $donations$.

kbenson 6y ago

I view the legacy stuff as a but more nuanced. Universities want to admit people that really want to go there, and that will increase their prestige later through some combination of espousing the benefits of that school, becoming famous, or becoming successful. It's not hard to see how the legacy systems tick a few of these boxes automatically, making those candidates seem slightly better than others (if nothing else, the candidate probably really wants this as their college over any other choices, and will likely have more pressure from self and family to complete college and do well). The problem then, as I see it, is not legacy consideration helping people get admitted, but legacy considerations overriding the other criteria. If legacy considerations where only a 15-20% in applicant suitability, I think most people wouldn't be that upset about it. When it leads to wholly and obviously unsuitable people going, that's probably when the legacy system has gone out of control.

quadrifoliate 6y ago
More nuanced nepotism is...nepotism. You're basically saying that whether or not your parents went to some school should positively influence as much as one-fifth of the consideration of whether you could go to a school or not. That is, if you scored this in a rubric, some kid whose parents went to Harvard would score 20 and I would score 0. That is wrong on a fundamental level. It's a bit like anti-affirmative action. I am fine with this system as it stands. However, it is wildly inconsistent with the pearl-clutching top comment (I know, not you) spewing stuff about the "Western sense of morality".
- kbenson 6y ago
  > That is, if you scored this in a rubric, some kid whose parents went to Harvard would score 20 and I would score 0. That is wrong on a fundamental level. Is it? Why? I think it depends on the amount of government funding they get. For a completely private university, is it wrong? I think it's wrong for a university that gets a majority of its funding from the state to act this way, but for universities that have giant billion dollar endowments? Sure, let them manage at least some of the admissions somewhat as they would as if private. > It's a bit like anti-affirmative action. It's exactly like affirmative action, except to benefit the university. I think being able to apply this on some small percentage of the students, maybe five percent, is acceptable. It's going to happen, why not account for it and control it rather than make everyone involved act like it isn't happening and then we just have a vague sense that it happens but little info and control over it?

unishark 6y ago

Technically nepotism means giving favors to your own family, not granting membership to your exclusive school to people of the same family. Your real issue is that this private school is still seen as exclusive despite doing this, and that the legacy admits gain unearned reputation due to their admission. But this is not Harvard's doing, they do not control what others think of their students. This is the rest of society being ignorant. A better example of nepotism in college admissions has occurred in the past where Governors or other politicians had the ability to give scholarships at major universities in their state, and they customarily gave these to their own children or those of friends. For that matter many school overtly give benefits to their faculty and staff such as free tuition for immediate family members. Perhaps even an easier chance at admission for some.

NineStarPoint 6y ago

Hmmm, there probably is actually a benefit to the other students there, but not “Harvard Experience.” Assuming the child of a previous Harvard grad is more likely to have important social connections than the average applicant, them being at the school gives other people potential opportunity to make connections through them. And connections do of course matter a lot. Regardless, the reason colleges actually do legacy admissions both seems obvious and isn’t something they’re likely to say. It makes Alumni happy, and keeping Alumni happy is how you get those fat $donations$.