5 ms·

We're not, we're heading towards tribalism. The concern about legacy admissions is more that the legacies may be disproportionately white more so than anything

We're not, we're heading towards tribalism. The concern about legacy admissions is more that the legacies may be disproportionately white more so than anything else. With limited data on other schools, Harvard recently reported that legacies actually had higher SAT scores than non-legacy admits.[1] That didn't stop people who wanted an alleged merit based admissions policy from continuing to call it a racist backdoor. Carnegie Mellon did not publish any stats on their legacy admits however. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, universities have promised to continue to look at race as a factor that still complies with the SC ruling which means a backdoor for race. FWIW white students are the most underrepresented on elite campuses so it would be hard to argue that there are admissions policies favoring them. [1]: https://features.thecrimson.com/2021/freshman-survey/academics-narrative/ https://features.thecrimson.com/2021/freshman-survey/academi... [2]: https://stanforddaily.com/2023/06/30/stanford-to-expand-outreach-efforts-as-supreme-court-strikes-affirmative-action/ https://stanforddaily.com/2023/06/30/stanford-to-expand-outr...

nova22033 3y ago
actually had higher SAT scores than non-legacy admits Is the SAT score the only measure of merit? The non-legacies are going to miss on the chance to make social connections with legacy admits who have a lot of connections...and access to a lot of resources..
- Apocryphon 3y ago
  Yeah how often does that actually happen. Did Tommy Lee Jones’ acting career really benefit from him being roommates with the son of Albert Gore, Sr.?
- kelipso 3y ago
  The legacy admits will just go to some other college where some other suckerfish can hop on to get access to a lot of resources..so what's the big difference socially.
JKCalhoun 3y ago
> The concern about legacy admissions is more that the legacies may be disproportionately white Disproportionally rich is my problem with legacy admissions.
kevinventullo 3y ago
Harvard recently reported that legacies actually had higher SAT scores than non-legacy admits… So you agree that Harvard shouldn’t need to factor in legacy status and instead use fairer metrics like SAT scores?
- onetimeusename 3y ago
  Not necessarily. I am neutral on it. I see both sides of the argument. I do think legacy admissions should not be a strike against which seems inevitable now to prevent lawsuits and bad press. I also think legacy admits shouldn't be tarred as less qualified (a polite way to say dumber), affirmative action beneficiaries for white people, and spoiled.
  - kevinventullo 3y ago
    Now I feel like you’re making up strawmen. Literally no one is saying anything about legacy status counting against applicants. Even if that was a concern, applicants could simply… not mention their legacy status? Or better yet, the application itself could just not collect that data?
    - onetimeusename 3y ago
      I'd hope it's not a strawman. I do think legacy admission status counts against now. The SFFA lawsuit accused Harvard of using legacy admissions of being a backdoor affirmative action for white people because the legacy admits were so disproportionately white. I think my point is that in a highly racial context, the facts are thrown out. To your point, in California, there was a law that was passed in 2019 that requires reporting on legacy admissions now[1] so I think the school is obligated to collect this data (so idk what happens if an applicant omits it). And again, legacy admission status is accused of broadly being affirmative action for white people[2] without evidence. The reason it counts against now is that if a qualified legacy student is accepted, the data on students must be made public, by law or by public interest. The higher the percent of legacy admits, the more the school is accused of letting unqualified people in, facts be damned. I think that is because of a highly tribal view of school admissions. [1]: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/california-legacy-college-admissions-18185847.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/california-lega... [2]: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/affirmative-action-white-people-legacy-college-admissions-renewed-100567037 https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/affirmative-action-white...
ceejayoz 3y ago
> Harvard recently reported that legacies actually had higher SAT scores than non-legacy admits. This likely indicates wealthy people can afford SAT preparation tutors.
- timmg 3y ago
  It could also mean: smarter people make more money -- and they pass down intelligence -- both genetically and through teaching.
dirtyid 3y ago
>reported that legacies actually had higher SAT scores than non-legacy admits About 30 points higher than non-legacy students whose average is brought down by affirmative action. VS Asian Americans who need to score 50-100+ points higher for comparable consideration, they're underperforming based on SAT merit.
- onetimeusename 3y ago
  I'm not sure I buy this because the only metric I have seen on racial categories at Harvard is using the old score where the average Asian SAT score was 767 out of 800[1]. Apparently roughly doubling this is equal to the score format reported in the link above for legacies so rounding up and using this chart I found which may or may not be reliable https://www.sparkadmissions.com/blog/comparing-your-new-sat-scores-to-the-old-sat-and-act/ https://www.sparkadmissions.com/blog/comparing-your-new-sat-... that gives us a 1500. The legacy score was 1523. Also, affirmative action may lower the legacy score. [1]: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/22/asian-american-admit-sat-scores/ https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/22/asian-american...
  - dirtyid 3y ago
    The 50-100 (really 140-450 points) is from Princeton study on Asian SAT stats for admission in private colleges vs other races. Apologies for wall of text. Alternate explanation is that particularly sneaky elite admissions boards have learned to coordinate to devalue SAT scores for Asians, they'd rather engineer their mean Asian SAT score around something not embarrassingly high as cover for other cohorts, especially legacy which AFAIK doesn't need AA skew, since they're... legacy. AA primarily brings down average scores of non-legacy, and in this case make legacy look better, like average at Harvard for non asian & non white is 1450 according to your link, which is low considering 1500+ scores is 9th percentile for 223k Asian takers [0&1]. This is slightly conspiratorial, but also essentially what started the anti-AA case was when an Asian applicant with 1590 got rejected from multiple elite colleges, and the case essentially revealed high scores make Asians seem like bland test takers with bad personality even though personality assessment showed otherwise. Asian scores are high enough to break Harvard's argument not just for AA but IMO legacy as well. Some other considerations, with respect to Harvard, according to latest admission data, @28% asian enrollment out of 2000 for class of 26, that's about 550 asians (previously this was ~20%). The real question the Harvard admissions stats don't show is how many Asians with 1550+ scores are being rejected due to "personality". If you look SAT score distribution [0], Asians are the only group where perfect math score is NOT 99+ percentile rank but "only" 95, and on ERW Asians 750+ score is 95 percentile vs other groups where it's 99+ except whites / multi racial at 98. Meaning Asians have disproportionate candidates with most perfect math and close to perfect ERW scores of all groups. Asians also total score outlier in that 1500+ is "only'' 91 percentile vs 98 to 99+ for everyone else. Collegeboard also has info that about 223k Asians (out of 2.2M takers) took SATs (2020 data [1]), so there's ~20k Asians with 1500+ scores (9th percentile). If extrapolated from 98th percentile of over 1500+ scores from 2.2M takers, that's ~44k total pool over 1500+ candidates of which 45% are Asians. 45% Asian is also in line with UCs where prop 209 banned AA and led to 40+% asian campuses. Question is how many of 1550+ ones are Asians, keeping in mind ~7000 Asians have perfect math scores. My gut feeling is there are many 1550+ Asians being rejected by elites for skewing scores too high to keep legacy admissions charade going, especially at Harvard, because any Asian who scores that high, which rough napkin math is multiple size of their annual enrollment, would have an application to Harvard and eager to accept. Hence the narrative harvard stats paints via omission even by their student journalists, is that legacy does better non-legacy whose down by affirmative action, and legacy slightly worse than Asian Americans, when reality is Asian Americans have more than enough candidates to saturate scores above legacy and affirmative actions so their aggregate score has to be kept down through admission shenanigans. [0] https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-percentile-ranks-gender-race-ethnicity.pdf https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-percentile-r... [1] https://i.redd.it/l6hb0eq4k5271.jpg https://i.redd.it/l6hb0eq4k5271.jpg

nova22033 3y ago

actually had higher SAT scores than non-legacy admits Is the SAT score the only measure of merit? The non-legacies are going to miss on the chance to make social connections with legacy admits who have a lot of connections...and access to a lot of resources..

Apocryphon 3y ago
Yeah how often does that actually happen. Did Tommy Lee Jones’ acting career really benefit from him being roommates with the son of Albert Gore, Sr.?
kelipso 3y ago
The legacy admits will just go to some other college where some other suckerfish can hop on to get access to a lot of resources..so what's the big difference socially.

JKCalhoun 3y ago

> The concern about legacy admissions is more that the legacies may be disproportionately white Disproportionally rich is my problem with legacy admissions.

kevinventullo 3y ago

Harvard recently reported that legacies actually had higher SAT scores than non-legacy admits… So you agree that Harvard shouldn’t need to factor in legacy status and instead use fairer metrics like SAT scores?

onetimeusename 3y ago
Not necessarily. I am neutral on it. I see both sides of the argument. I do think legacy admissions should not be a strike against which seems inevitable now to prevent lawsuits and bad press. I also think legacy admits shouldn't be tarred as less qualified (a polite way to say dumber), affirmative action beneficiaries for white people, and spoiled.
- kevinventullo 3y ago
  Now I feel like you’re making up strawmen. Literally no one is saying anything about legacy status counting against applicants. Even if that was a concern, applicants could simply… not mention their legacy status? Or better yet, the application itself could just not collect that data?
  - onetimeusename 3y ago
    I'd hope it's not a strawman. I do think legacy admission status counts against now. The SFFA lawsuit accused Harvard of using legacy admissions of being a backdoor affirmative action for white people because the legacy admits were so disproportionately white. I think my point is that in a highly racial context, the facts are thrown out. To your point, in California, there was a law that was passed in 2019 that requires reporting on legacy admissions now[1] so I think the school is obligated to collect this data (so idk what happens if an applicant omits it). And again, legacy admission status is accused of broadly being affirmative action for white people[2] without evidence. The reason it counts against now is that if a qualified legacy student is accepted, the data on students must be made public, by law or by public interest. The higher the percent of legacy admits, the more the school is accused of letting unqualified people in, facts be damned. I think that is because of a highly tribal view of school admissions. [1]: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/california-legacy-college-admissions-18185847.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/california-lega... [2]: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/affirmative-action-white-people-legacy-college-admissions-renewed-100567037 https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/affirmative-action-white...

ceejayoz 3y ago

> Harvard recently reported that legacies actually had higher SAT scores than non-legacy admits. This likely indicates wealthy people can afford SAT preparation tutors.

timmg 3y ago
It could also mean: smarter people make more money -- and they pass down intelligence -- both genetically and through teaching.

dirtyid 3y ago

>reported that legacies actually had higher SAT scores than non-legacy admits About 30 points higher than non-legacy students whose average is brought down by affirmative action. VS Asian Americans who need to score 50-100+ points higher for comparable consideration, they're underperforming based on SAT merit.

onetimeusename 3y ago
I'm not sure I buy this because the only metric I have seen on racial categories at Harvard is using the old score where the average Asian SAT score was 767 out of 800[1]. Apparently roughly doubling this is equal to the score format reported in the link above for legacies so rounding up and using this chart I found which may or may not be reliable https://www.sparkadmissions.com/blog/comparing-your-new-sat-scores-to-the-old-sat-and-act/ https://www.sparkadmissions.com/blog/comparing-your-new-sat-... that gives us a 1500. The legacy score was 1523. Also, affirmative action may lower the legacy score. [1]: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/22/asian-american-admit-sat-scores/ https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/22/asian-american...
- dirtyid 3y ago
  The 50-100 (really 140-450 points) is from Princeton study on Asian SAT stats for admission in private colleges vs other races. Apologies for wall of text. Alternate explanation is that particularly sneaky elite admissions boards have learned to coordinate to devalue SAT scores for Asians, they'd rather engineer their mean Asian SAT score around something not embarrassingly high as cover for other cohorts, especially legacy which AFAIK doesn't need AA skew, since they're... legacy. AA primarily brings down average scores of non-legacy, and in this case make legacy look better, like average at Harvard for non asian & non white is 1450 according to your link, which is low considering 1500+ scores is 9th percentile for 223k Asian takers [0&1]. This is slightly conspiratorial, but also essentially what started the anti-AA case was when an Asian applicant with 1590 got rejected from multiple elite colleges, and the case essentially revealed high scores make Asians seem like bland test takers with bad personality even though personality assessment showed otherwise. Asian scores are high enough to break Harvard's argument not just for AA but IMO legacy as well. Some other considerations, with respect to Harvard, according to latest admission data, @28% asian enrollment out of 2000 for class of 26, that's about 550 asians (previously this was ~20%). The real question the Harvard admissions stats don't show is how many Asians with 1550+ scores are being rejected due to "personality". If you look SAT score distribution [0], Asians are the only group where perfect math score is NOT 99+ percentile rank but "only" 95, and on ERW Asians 750+ score is 95 percentile vs other groups where it's 99+ except whites / multi racial at 98. Meaning Asians have disproportionate candidates with most perfect math and close to perfect ERW scores of all groups. Asians also total score outlier in that 1500+ is "only'' 91 percentile vs 98 to 99+ for everyone else. Collegeboard also has info that about 223k Asians (out of 2.2M takers) took SATs (2020 data [1]), so there's ~20k Asians with 1500+ scores (9th percentile). If extrapolated from 98th percentile of over 1500+ scores from 2.2M takers, that's ~44k total pool over 1500+ candidates of which 45% are Asians. 45% Asian is also in line with UCs where prop 209 banned AA and led to 40+% asian campuses. Question is how many of 1550+ ones are Asians, keeping in mind ~7000 Asians have perfect math scores. My gut feeling is there are many 1550+ Asians being rejected by elites for skewing scores too high to keep legacy admissions charade going, especially at Harvard, because any Asian who scores that high, which rough napkin math is multiple size of their annual enrollment, would have an application to Harvard and eager to accept. Hence the narrative harvard stats paints via omission even by their student journalists, is that legacy does better non-legacy whose down by affirmative action, and legacy slightly worse than Asian Americans, when reality is Asian Americans have more than enough candidates to saturate scores above legacy and affirmative actions so their aggregate score has to be kept down through admission shenanigans. [0] https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-percentile-ranks-gender-race-ethnicity.pdf https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-percentile-r... [1] https://i.redd.it/l6hb0eq4k5271.jpg https://i.redd.it/l6hb0eq4k5271.jpg