4 ms·

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 thro

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?

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?