7 ms·

Something of a hot take, but I'd contend the Legacy admissions are there to the benefit of the people who earned their place! As someone who got into an "elite

Something of a hot take, but I'd contend the Legacy admissions are there to the benefit of the people who earned their place! As someone who got into an "elite" university despite not coming from an "elite" background - the Legacy admissions are the reason people like me got the opportunity to integrate with people who otherwise wouldn't have given me a second glance. Being in a study group with a prince, going to a club with an heiress, or sculling with a billionaires' kid is not an opportunity most parents can give their children outside of sending them to a place like Harvard. It's horrible that the world is so fixated on status, but you don't get to choose what game you play always - just how you play it. Ingratiating yourself with a Fortune 100 CEO's son can reap many orders of magnitude more benefit than being surrounded by randos who are better than him at calculus. The value prop of a place like Harvard isn't that they're particularly good at teaching, it's the idea that, as a sufficiently smart and lucky regular person, you might have a shot at getting into an otherwise exclusive circle. No guarantees, and may people can't crack it (or choose not to, because it feels so slimy) even when given the opportunity - but Legacies are part of Harvard's value proposition.

opportune 3y ago
I also went to an elite university from a non-elite background, and in technology, it has not benefitted me - few of the Uber rich people I met went into technology-proper, those that did are largely mediocre and not valuable connections, and as far as I know none are VCs either. I would have rather gone somewhere like MIT or Caltech where there are fewer legacy admissions/admissions from uber wealthy feeder schools, as I feel the value of my connections would have improved. I don’t think those schools are particularly suffering for reputation either
uoaei 3y ago
Interesting angle, but feels like post-hoc rationalization more than anything. Events where students can meet alumni seem far more productive, if slightly harder to organize. I'm sure Harvard can incentivize their alums well enough to attend, considering their sizeable endowment.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  Harvard's alumni are so powerful exactly because of legacy admissions. Politicians and executives and supreme court justices generally aren't coming from MIT.
Timon3 3y ago
Without legacy admissions these people would distribute themselves over more schools, meaning more people would have access to them. The more they are bunched up, the fewer people have access.
DrBenCarson 3y ago
You're not wrong. Harvard wouldn't be Harvard without its legacy admits. It's how universities perpetuate their status. Graduate becomes wealthy, their children become powerful, get into the school, make friends in their graduating class, help vault new graduates to the same circle. Rinse and repeat. The real answer is taking some of their $$ and expanding seats. With how low acceptance rates are now, they could double their class size and still be very exclusive.
nemo44x 3y ago
Yeah, it's how the rich kids get to connect with the smart kids. If it was all just smart kids then where is the value? The entire point of an institution like Harvard is to manage and cycle elites. Existing elites get to group their kids with the the types of up-and-coming kids from non-elite backgrounds but with elite level skills. New elites are made and the elites that weren't even good enough to get in on legacy will have their future lineage recycled back into the pool of non-elites.
twic 3y ago
Oxford doesn't have legacy admissions, and there are still plenty of that sort of people around.
aikinai 3y ago
This was in incredibly insightful comment for me, thanks! And I think you can take it further, as it goes both ways. The value proposition is specifically the mix and ambiguity between the legacy and smart students. You’re selling the legacy students a chance to associate with (and, most importantly, appear to be themselves) smart students. And you’re selling the smart students the chance to associate with the legacy students (as you said).
mcdonje 3y ago
Let's say they get rid of legacy admissions. Kids of rich and powerful people will still ostensibly need college educations. Not all of them will get into the elite schools, so they'll be spread out among more schools. That'd increase the overall exposure between wealthy and other classes, which would benefit both the wealthy and the other classes because exposure to other groups helps for better understanding humanity. It would also encourage rich kids to focus more on their educations so they can have a better chance of getting into their preferred schools. A more educated elite benefits everyone. I see no downsides to society as a whole, just downsides for some value propositions.
- nemo44x 3y ago
  I think you first have to ask yourself why does an institution like Harvard, or Yale, or any other elite institution exist? The formal answer of course is that they exist to give the best and brightest an opportunity to learn from the best and brightest. But this isn't why these types of institutions exist. They exist to recycle/refresh and to create elites. Any society (and organization for that matter) will have a minority group of elites. A healthy society has a function that can recycle and select for elites. An unhealthy society does not do a good job of this and the elites are inbred and only legacy. This is the purpose of an institution like Harvard and why legacy admissions exist. Now the "best and brightest" are connected with the "rich and connected" and new elites are born. Existing elites with kids that can't make it in with legacy are recycled into the general pool in time and new elites are made from the best of the general pool. This is the social function Harvard serves. It's a good thing if the elites are being recycled frequently enough by moving weak elites into the general pool and with deserving candidates from the general pool replacing those weak elites.
  - TheCoelacanth 3y ago
    I think you have that backwards. They exist to preserve privilege for legacy kids. They let in some of the best and brightest so that some of the prestige from their accomplishments rubs off on the legacies.
    - 3y ago
crote 3y ago
The issue is that this leads to the Harvard label being misused as an indication of skill or capability. You see, suddenly those princes aren't being hired because they are a prince - no, it is because they went to Harvard so obviously they must be very smart and capable. It'd be a lot harder to justify that hiring when they went to Random Mediocre State University instead. I agree that it is beneficial to the lucky few "low-class" people who manage to get into Harvard, but that's at the cost of eroding the concept of meritocracy for all those who don't.
bee_rider 3y ago
I disagree with your conclusion (imo we should make the country more meritocratic so that meeting a rich personal kid isn’t a huge perk) but must commend the spiciness of this take.
HDThoreaun 3y ago
Right, legacies are obviously the biggest value add of ivy's for the non legacy students, and it's not particularly close.

opportune 3y ago

I also went to an elite university from a non-elite background, and in technology, it has not benefitted me - few of the Uber rich people I met went into technology-proper, those that did are largely mediocre and not valuable connections, and as far as I know none are VCs either. I would have rather gone somewhere like MIT or Caltech where there are fewer legacy admissions/admissions from uber wealthy feeder schools, as I feel the value of my connections would have improved. I don’t think those schools are particularly suffering for reputation either

uoaei 3y ago

Interesting angle, but feels like post-hoc rationalization more than anything. Events where students can meet alumni seem far more productive, if slightly harder to organize. I'm sure Harvard can incentivize their alums well enough to attend, considering their sizeable endowment.

HDThoreaun 3y ago
Harvard's alumni are so powerful exactly because of legacy admissions. Politicians and executives and supreme court justices generally aren't coming from MIT.

Timon3 3y ago

Without legacy admissions these people would distribute themselves over more schools, meaning more people would have access to them. The more they are bunched up, the fewer people have access.

DrBenCarson 3y ago

You're not wrong. Harvard wouldn't be Harvard without its legacy admits. It's how universities perpetuate their status. Graduate becomes wealthy, their children become powerful, get into the school, make friends in their graduating class, help vault new graduates to the same circle. Rinse and repeat. The real answer is taking some of their $$ and expanding seats. With how low acceptance rates are now, they could double their class size and still be very exclusive.

nemo44x 3y ago

Yeah, it's how the rich kids get to connect with the smart kids. If it was all just smart kids then where is the value? The entire point of an institution like Harvard is to manage and cycle elites. Existing elites get to group their kids with the the types of up-and-coming kids from non-elite backgrounds but with elite level skills. New elites are made and the elites that weren't even good enough to get in on legacy will have their future lineage recycled back into the pool of non-elites.

twic 3y ago

Oxford doesn't have legacy admissions, and there are still plenty of that sort of people around.

aikinai 3y ago

This was in incredibly insightful comment for me, thanks! And I think you can take it further, as it goes both ways. The value proposition is specifically the mix and ambiguity between the legacy and smart students. You’re selling the legacy students a chance to associate with (and, most importantly, appear to be themselves) smart students. And you’re selling the smart students the chance to associate with the legacy students (as you said).

mcdonje 3y ago

Let's say they get rid of legacy admissions. Kids of rich and powerful people will still ostensibly need college educations. Not all of them will get into the elite schools, so they'll be spread out among more schools. That'd increase the overall exposure between wealthy and other classes, which would benefit both the wealthy and the other classes because exposure to other groups helps for better understanding humanity. It would also encourage rich kids to focus more on their educations so they can have a better chance of getting into their preferred schools. A more educated elite benefits everyone. I see no downsides to society as a whole, just downsides for some value propositions.

nemo44x 3y ago
I think you first have to ask yourself why does an institution like Harvard, or Yale, or any other elite institution exist? The formal answer of course is that they exist to give the best and brightest an opportunity to learn from the best and brightest. But this isn't why these types of institutions exist. They exist to recycle/refresh and to create elites. Any society (and organization for that matter) will have a minority group of elites. A healthy society has a function that can recycle and select for elites. An unhealthy society does not do a good job of this and the elites are inbred and only legacy. This is the purpose of an institution like Harvard and why legacy admissions exist. Now the "best and brightest" are connected with the "rich and connected" and new elites are born. Existing elites with kids that can't make it in with legacy are recycled into the general pool in time and new elites are made from the best of the general pool. This is the social function Harvard serves. It's a good thing if the elites are being recycled frequently enough by moving weak elites into the general pool and with deserving candidates from the general pool replacing those weak elites.
- TheCoelacanth 3y ago
  I think you have that backwards. They exist to preserve privilege for legacy kids. They let in some of the best and brightest so that some of the prestige from their accomplishments rubs off on the legacies.
  - 3y ago

crote 3y ago

The issue is that this leads to the Harvard label being misused as an indication of skill or capability. You see, suddenly those princes aren't being hired because they are a prince - no, it is because they went to Harvard so obviously they must be very smart and capable. It'd be a lot harder to justify that hiring when they went to Random Mediocre State University instead. I agree that it is beneficial to the lucky few "low-class" people who manage to get into Harvard, but that's at the cost of eroding the concept of meritocracy for all those who don't.

bee_rider 3y ago

I disagree with your conclusion (imo we should make the country more meritocratic so that meeting a rich personal kid isn’t a huge perk) but must commend the spiciness of this take.

HDThoreaun 3y ago

Right, legacies are obviously the biggest value add of ivy's for the non legacy students, and it's not particularly close.