4 ms·
To me, a more interesting question is how the students do after four years. Are the legacy students clustered toward the bottom 20% of the class? Are they evenl
by xhkkffbf 3y ago
To me, a more interesting question is how the students do after four years. Are the legacy students clustered toward the bottom 20% of the class? Are they evenly distributed in a way that suggests that legacy status didn't matter? Or did they do better, at least on average?
The admissions formula is so non-scientific that I don't think you can measure whether they would have gotten in or not.
- smashface 3y agoWhile that's an interesting question, legacy students likely also have access to better resources outside of the classroom and office hours.
- xhkkffbf 3y agoReally? Pretty much every school I've ever seen has a special office of tutors that takes care of the various affirmative action admits. And also athletes. Definitely athletes. I don't think I've ever seen any such office for legacy students. Ever. Or even heard about some covert version. Can you explain a scenario where this might be the case? The only one I can imagine is assuming that legacy students are rich and so they can just toss around more money on private tutors. Perhaps. But then the right statement is to say that rich students have better access.
- HDThoreaun 3y agoThat's the point... They're accepted because their family resources make them more likely to be successful which is what Harvard is trying to select for.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]