4 ms·

Is there any industrialized, developed nation that is worse than the U.S.A. in this regard? I heard bad things about the U.K. as well. I turns out that having

Is there any industrialized, developed nation that is worse than the U.S.A. in this regard? I heard bad things about the U.K. as well. I turns out that having next to no social security, no accessible education for the poor and the bizarre legality of “legacy scholarships” has a certain effect. How is it possible, I ask, that U.S.A. universities openly and notoriously give favorable treatment to the children of past alumni without this being shut down by the lawmaker or the courts?

sidewndr46 4y ago
If you're referring to George W. getting admitted to Yale, it's a private institution. They can do basically whatever they want.
- eesmith 4y ago
  Of all the people whose received preferential treatment for college admissions due to family connections, why do you think anyone is singling out the former president? Yale cannot do "basically whatever they want". For example, they accept students who receive federal financial assistance so must follow Title IX requirements. The government could use the same power of the purse to reduce legacy admissions. Since you mentioned Bush and Yale. He graduated in 1968. Yale didn't accept women until 1969. Title IX was enacted in 1972. In 1980, Alexander v. Yale was the first use of Title IX in charges of sexual harassment against an educational institution, and established that sexual harassment of a student could be considered illegal sex discrimination. In any case, some public schools use legacy admissions - it's not a private-college-only thing.
  - sidewndr46 4y ago
    Because it is the most notorious case? I don't think anyone who has listened to George W talk could make the argument "Yeah, this guy is an shining example of Yale!" You misinterpret my statement "whatever they want" as some sort of collegiate equivalent of a "license to kill". Presently, Yale chooses to engage with federal funding in a variety of ways. They can stop doing that if they want to, thus dropping their obligations. But furthermore, realize that a student would need to prove that legacy admissions somehow violates Title IX if they wanted to end the process. The members of the various courts that would ultimately decide that case are the same families that benefit from legacy admissions. Also it's really weird to bring up Alexander v. Yale. If you actually read into the decision most of the plaintiffs allegations were simply dismissed.
    - eesmith 4y ago
      I had no idea it was a notorious case. If I did, after 13 years that memory has faded. Do a search for "legacy admissions", like https://hn.algolia.com/?q=legacy+admissions https://hn.algolia.com/?q=legacy+admissions and see how rarely people mention Bush. I've heard much more about minorities at prestigious colleges are viewed as being there as the result of affirmative action, while legacy students ... aren't. Or how those schools offer scholarships for athletes in water polo, tennis, sailing, rowing, and other sports which more accessible to affluent white kids. Hence the question "How is it possible, I ask, that U.S.A. universities openly and notoriously give favorable treatment to the children of past alumni without this being shut down by the lawmaker or the courts?" > thus dropping their obligations Except the question was, why isn't that practice illegal? Responding with something like "because it's legal" isn't that insightful. > somehow violates Title IX I wasn't making that argument. If it were that easy, it would be done long ago. I was pointing out that the fed can also use the power of the purse to change things, even if the courts say separation of powers prevents a direct law. > it's really weird to bring up Alexander v. Yale What benefited Bush more, legacy admission or rampant sexism that prevented half the population from being able to apply? In any case, "Although the women did not win their case, they achieved their objectives: Yale instituted a grievance procedure and a court held that sexual harassment constituted sex discrimination. ... As a result of Alexander v. Yale most U.S. universities instituted grievance procedures for sexual harassment." Lost the battle and won the war.
GiorgioG 4y ago
> How is it possible, I ask, that U.S.A. universities openly and notoriously give favorable treatment to the children of past alumni without this being shut down by the lawmaker or the courts? Private institutions can do as they see fit. Public universities not so much. So yes, Harvard alumni will have favorable treatment for their kids. SUNY Buffalo, not so much.
- eesmith 4y ago
  Private institutions which accept government funding, like Harvard, have many more restrictions than those like Hillsdale College which don't. The latter, for example, don't need to follow civil rights rules - https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/07/the-controversial-reason-some-religious-colleges-forgo-federal-funding/490253/ https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/07/the-co... . Most colleges - public included - have legacy admissions. Why are you so certain SUNY Buffalo does not have legacy admissions? https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/colleges-that-consider-legacy-status https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/colleges-that-c... says SUNY at Albany, SUNY College at Geneseo, SUNY College at Oswego, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, and SUNY Cortland consider legacy status. It says SUNY at Purchase College, SUNY College at Potsdam, and SUNY Oneonta do not. It doesn't mention SUNY Buffalo.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    Correction. Looks like only 6% of public universities have legacy admissions, not "most". https://www.savingforcollege.com/article/legacy-admissions https://www.savingforcollege.com/article/legacy-admissions
- Blikkentrekker 4y ago
  Private universities in and of itself is a bizarre idea. These institutions give out degrees recognized by governments which correspond to the legal competence to practice law or to perform surgery. As far as I know, there is no such thing as a “private university” where I live. All educational facilities receive funding from the government, and are beholden to it's standards and rules. Even apart from that, a private company cannot legally here hire people because their parents worked there first. – That is illegal employment discrimination. It very often seems legal to do in the U.S.A. what is illegal discrimination almost everywhere else. Except of course when it concerns their almighty “protected classes”, because then it suddenly matters, though it's of course woefully ineffective, a system where one can be fired for any reason including no reason, but not for, say, skin color. It makes it very easy to find another reason, or just no reason. If I were to be terminated, they have to give me the reason and be transparent with the books so that I can easily show in court that though they claimed I was fired for performance, others who performed worse, were strangely not. — Such is how matters are done in normal, civilized, industrialized countries.
aetherson 4y ago
This paper is saying that the US distributes a greater share of high income people's income to lower income than Europe. Did you read the article?
- defrost 4y ago
  This paper is also saying that the US concentrates high income more (ie. fewer people are a lot richer) and thus there is more "back pressure" of money flowing from a few very wealthy to many not so wealthy .. and despite that European countries have a "better off" class of "poor" - as they tend to be better paid to begin with than their equivilents in the USofA.
nine_k 4y ago
> U.S.A. universities openly and notoriously give favorable treatment to the children of past alumni Are these public colleges, paid for by tax money? I suppose that private institutions have more leeway. To my mind, the problem of the US higher education is that it was made "too" accessible by offering tuition loans, which result in young people taking on a large debt which they cannot even shake off by a personal bankruptcy. These "easy" money made tuition prices grow, while also producing some degrees that don't help to pay them off. This is not the most helpful kind of higher education.
- eesmith 4y ago
  Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences "almost three-quarters of research universities and nearly all liberal arts colleges grant legacy preferences in admissions" > by offering tuition loans I think you missed a qualifier. Tuition loans have always existed in the US. What happened a few decades ago was they became much harder to discharge through bankruptcy, thus shifting risk to the student.
  - RHSeeger 4y ago
    What that "yes" an answer to the question of whether or not they're public institutions? Because I was unable to find anything in the link that pointed one way or the other. Though it did not that it may be illegal for public institutions to do so (which slightly implies that at least some are). Note that I'm not saying that public institutions don't do it; I was just curious about your answer and link.
    - eesmith 4y ago
      Looks like "6 percent of public universities consider alumni relations in their admissions policies" - https://www.savingforcollege.com/article/legacy-admissions https://www.savingforcollege.com/article/legacy-admissions . Quoting it: "Public universities that do consider alumni relations in their admissions process include Auburn University in Alabama, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and University of Virginia" Only recently has it been made illegal in some states. Colorado was the first: https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2021/06/01/legacy-admissions-banned-at-colorados-public-colleges/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2021/06/01/legacy-ad... . The article mentions how Colorado School of Mines (a public school) had legacy admissions, and "found the legacy preference useful because the children of alums are the most likely to decide to attend once they are accepted." My understanding appears to be out-of-date. That is, I could have sworn that my alma mater had legacy admissions, but that does not appear to be the case. It may have changed since I went to college.
skwirl 4y ago
USA universities and the US labor markets are so bad. Famously, nobody wants to come here for either.
hackeraccount 4y ago
The US Federal budge is something like 5 trillion dollars. 15% or 20% is spent on the military and another 10% is spent on debt servicing. The rest is pretty much Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Add to that what the US States spend which is again mostly social programs and education for the poor. There's an idea out there that the U.S. is some sort 'red in tooth and claw' Nation that's one step off anarchy. That may or may not be the case but it's not for lack of spending; whether that spending is being done wisely is another question but it's hard to say it's not being done at all.

sidewndr46 4y ago

If you're referring to George W. getting admitted to Yale, it's a private institution. They can do basically whatever they want.

eesmith 4y ago
Of all the people whose received preferential treatment for college admissions due to family connections, why do you think anyone is singling out the former president? Yale cannot do "basically whatever they want". For example, they accept students who receive federal financial assistance so must follow Title IX requirements. The government could use the same power of the purse to reduce legacy admissions. Since you mentioned Bush and Yale. He graduated in 1968. Yale didn't accept women until 1969. Title IX was enacted in 1972. In 1980, Alexander v. Yale was the first use of Title IX in charges of sexual harassment against an educational institution, and established that sexual harassment of a student could be considered illegal sex discrimination. In any case, some public schools use legacy admissions - it's not a private-college-only thing.
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  Because it is the most notorious case? I don't think anyone who has listened to George W talk could make the argument "Yeah, this guy is an shining example of Yale!" You misinterpret my statement "whatever they want" as some sort of collegiate equivalent of a "license to kill". Presently, Yale chooses to engage with federal funding in a variety of ways. They can stop doing that if they want to, thus dropping their obligations. But furthermore, realize that a student would need to prove that legacy admissions somehow violates Title IX if they wanted to end the process. The members of the various courts that would ultimately decide that case are the same families that benefit from legacy admissions. Also it's really weird to bring up Alexander v. Yale. If you actually read into the decision most of the plaintiffs allegations were simply dismissed.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    I had no idea it was a notorious case. If I did, after 13 years that memory has faded. Do a search for "legacy admissions", like https://hn.algolia.com/?q=legacy+admissions https://hn.algolia.com/?q=legacy+admissions and see how rarely people mention Bush. I've heard much more about minorities at prestigious colleges are viewed as being there as the result of affirmative action, while legacy students ... aren't. Or how those schools offer scholarships for athletes in water polo, tennis, sailing, rowing, and other sports which more accessible to affluent white kids. Hence the question "How is it possible, I ask, that U.S.A. universities openly and notoriously give favorable treatment to the children of past alumni without this being shut down by the lawmaker or the courts?" > thus dropping their obligations Except the question was, why isn't that practice illegal? Responding with something like "because it's legal" isn't that insightful. > somehow violates Title IX I wasn't making that argument. If it were that easy, it would be done long ago. I was pointing out that the fed can also use the power of the purse to change things, even if the courts say separation of powers prevents a direct law. > it's really weird to bring up Alexander v. Yale What benefited Bush more, legacy admission or rampant sexism that prevented half the population from being able to apply? In any case, "Although the women did not win their case, they achieved their objectives: Yale instituted a grievance procedure and a court held that sexual harassment constituted sex discrimination. ... As a result of Alexander v. Yale most U.S. universities instituted grievance procedures for sexual harassment." Lost the battle and won the war.

GiorgioG 4y ago

> How is it possible, I ask, that U.S.A. universities openly and notoriously give favorable treatment to the children of past alumni without this being shut down by the lawmaker or the courts? Private institutions can do as they see fit. Public universities not so much. So yes, Harvard alumni will have favorable treatment for their kids. SUNY Buffalo, not so much.

eesmith 4y ago
Private institutions which accept government funding, like Harvard, have many more restrictions than those like Hillsdale College which don't. The latter, for example, don't need to follow civil rights rules - https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/07/the-controversial-reason-some-religious-colleges-forgo-federal-funding/490253/ https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/07/the-co... . Most colleges - public included - have legacy admissions. Why are you so certain SUNY Buffalo does not have legacy admissions? https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/colleges-that-consider-legacy-status https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/colleges-that-c... says SUNY at Albany, SUNY College at Geneseo, SUNY College at Oswego, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, and SUNY Cortland consider legacy status. It says SUNY at Purchase College, SUNY College at Potsdam, and SUNY Oneonta do not. It doesn't mention SUNY Buffalo.
- eesmith 4y ago
  Correction. Looks like only 6% of public universities have legacy admissions, not "most". https://www.savingforcollege.com/article/legacy-admissions https://www.savingforcollege.com/article/legacy-admissions
Blikkentrekker 4y ago
Private universities in and of itself is a bizarre idea. These institutions give out degrees recognized by governments which correspond to the legal competence to practice law or to perform surgery. As far as I know, there is no such thing as a “private university” where I live. All educational facilities receive funding from the government, and are beholden to it's standards and rules. Even apart from that, a private company cannot legally here hire people because their parents worked there first. – That is illegal employment discrimination. It very often seems legal to do in the U.S.A. what is illegal discrimination almost everywhere else. Except of course when it concerns their almighty “protected classes”, because then it suddenly matters, though it's of course woefully ineffective, a system where one can be fired for any reason including no reason, but not for, say, skin color. It makes it very easy to find another reason, or just no reason. If I were to be terminated, they have to give me the reason and be transparent with the books so that I can easily show in court that though they claimed I was fired for performance, others who performed worse, were strangely not. — Such is how matters are done in normal, civilized, industrialized countries.

aetherson 4y ago

This paper is saying that the US distributes a greater share of high income people's income to lower income than Europe. Did you read the article?

defrost 4y ago
This paper is also saying that the US concentrates high income more (ie. fewer people are a lot richer) and thus there is more "back pressure" of money flowing from a few very wealthy to many not so wealthy .. and despite that European countries have a "better off" class of "poor" - as they tend to be better paid to begin with than their equivilents in the USofA.

nine_k 4y ago

> U.S.A. universities openly and notoriously give favorable treatment to the children of past alumni Are these public colleges, paid for by tax money? I suppose that private institutions have more leeway. To my mind, the problem of the US higher education is that it was made "too" accessible by offering tuition loans, which result in young people taking on a large debt which they cannot even shake off by a personal bankruptcy. These "easy" money made tuition prices grow, while also producing some degrees that don't help to pay them off. This is not the most helpful kind of higher education.

eesmith 4y ago
Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences "almost three-quarters of research universities and nearly all liberal arts colleges grant legacy preferences in admissions" > by offering tuition loans I think you missed a qualifier. Tuition loans have always existed in the US. What happened a few decades ago was they became much harder to discharge through bankruptcy, thus shifting risk to the student.
- RHSeeger 4y ago
  What that "yes" an answer to the question of whether or not they're public institutions? Because I was unable to find anything in the link that pointed one way or the other. Though it did not that it may be illegal for public institutions to do so (which slightly implies that at least some are). Note that I'm not saying that public institutions don't do it; I was just curious about your answer and link.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    Looks like "6 percent of public universities consider alumni relations in their admissions policies" - https://www.savingforcollege.com/article/legacy-admissions https://www.savingforcollege.com/article/legacy-admissions . Quoting it: "Public universities that do consider alumni relations in their admissions process include Auburn University in Alabama, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and University of Virginia" Only recently has it been made illegal in some states. Colorado was the first: https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2021/06/01/legacy-admissions-banned-at-colorados-public-colleges/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2021/06/01/legacy-ad... . The article mentions how Colorado School of Mines (a public school) had legacy admissions, and "found the legacy preference useful because the children of alums are the most likely to decide to attend once they are accepted." My understanding appears to be out-of-date. That is, I could have sworn that my alma mater had legacy admissions, but that does not appear to be the case. It may have changed since I went to college.

skwirl 4y ago

USA universities and the US labor markets are so bad. Famously, nobody wants to come here for either.

hackeraccount 4y ago

The US Federal budge is something like 5 trillion dollars. 15% or 20% is spent on the military and another 10% is spent on debt servicing. The rest is pretty much Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Add to that what the US States spend which is again mostly social programs and education for the poor. There's an idea out there that the U.S. is some sort 'red in tooth and claw' Nation that's one step off anarchy. That may or may not be the case but it's not for lack of spending; whether that spending is being done wisely is another question but it's hard to say it's not being done at all.