4 ms·

I'm curious what people think about places that grant places in this way. If you see a Harvard grad, do you care whether they were a legacy? Does anyone even as

I'm curious what people think about places that grant places in this way. If you see a Harvard grad, do you care whether they were a legacy? Does anyone even ask this when interviewing? Is there any difference between how legacies and non-legacies perform at the uni?

TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
I absolutely care if they were legacy because it means I'm not seeing a different Harvard grad who might have been less rich and more able.
- lordnacho 3y ago
  So do you ask them about it? Is it normal to reveal on one's CV? I would guess not.
- chii 3y ago
  > who might have been less rich and more able. but why would someone being less rich also imply they're more able? And why would someone richer not be capable just as much? It's just another form of discrimination - except that it feels justified, because it came from the axiom that legacy admissions must be worse for merit.
  - lordnacho 3y ago
    Berkson's Paradox would be one potential reason. Say you have some criteria like "potential future donor" and "really smart". They might not be connected in the general population, but when you select on the total donor+smart, such that only people with a high combined score are admitted, you get a correlation among the admitted population. It's not hard to see why: either you have loads of money and thus only need a little smarts, or you have lots of smart and need minimal money.
  - Timon3 3y ago
    > but why would someone being less rich also imply they're more able? And why would someone richer not be capable just as much? The less rich person must be able to get in. The more rich person doesn't have to be able to get in. This means that the average rich person that got in is less able than the average less-rich person. Where do you disagree with this logic?
    - chii 3y ago
      So getting in determines the graduate's capability, rather than their time spend there?
      - Timon3 3y ago
        For those who are filtered purely on capability? Yes.
1letterunixname 3y ago
The wealthy ensure their perpetual dominance by making it easier for their kids to be successful, in a myriad of ways beyond legacy admissions and trust funds, at the expense of everyone else. Another issue is the perpetual amplification cycle effects on winners and losers these systems of exclusive selection (discrimination) create.

TheOtherHobbes 3y ago

I absolutely care if they were legacy because it means I'm not seeing a different Harvard grad who might have been less rich and more able.

lordnacho 3y ago
So do you ask them about it? Is it normal to reveal on one's CV? I would guess not.
chii 3y ago
> who might have been less rich and more able. but why would someone being less rich also imply they're more able? And why would someone richer not be capable just as much? It's just another form of discrimination - except that it feels justified, because it came from the axiom that legacy admissions must be worse for merit.
- lordnacho 3y ago
  Berkson's Paradox would be one potential reason. Say you have some criteria like "potential future donor" and "really smart". They might not be connected in the general population, but when you select on the total donor+smart, such that only people with a high combined score are admitted, you get a correlation among the admitted population. It's not hard to see why: either you have loads of money and thus only need a little smarts, or you have lots of smart and need minimal money.
- Timon3 3y ago
  > but why would someone being less rich also imply they're more able? And why would someone richer not be capable just as much? The less rich person must be able to get in. The more rich person doesn't have to be able to get in. This means that the average rich person that got in is less able than the average less-rich person. Where do you disagree with this logic?
  - chii 3y ago
    So getting in determines the graduate's capability, rather than their time spend there?
    - Timon3 3y ago
      For those who are filtered purely on capability? Yes.

1letterunixname 3y ago

The wealthy ensure their perpetual dominance by making it easier for their kids to be successful, in a myriad of ways beyond legacy admissions and trust funds, at the expense of everyone else. Another issue is the perpetual amplification cycle effects on winners and losers these systems of exclusive selection (discrimination) create.