4 ms·

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 bac

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...

kevinventullo 3y ago
You claim “the facts are thrown out” but then don’t cite a single hard fact which remotely suggest anyone wants legacy status to count against. Instead you are extrapolating that removal of legacy from positive consideration will eventually lead to re-adding legacy for negative consideration, but no one is actually suggesting this. You are completely making it up. The California law you cite only applies to universities that collect and consider legacy data in the first place. Thus, your claim that “if a qualified legacy student is accepted, the data on students must be made public...” does not hold if the universities simply drop legacy status from consideration altogether, which is the goal here. If they don’t collect the data, they can’t be accused of anything. Honestly, this manipulation of facts and narrative leads me to believe that you are pushing an agenda and not arguing in good faith.
- onetimeusename 3y ago
  but then don’t cite a single hard fact which remotely suggest anyone wants legacy status to count against. Accusing it of being affirmative action for white people or for "the rich" pretty clearly means people want it to count against. I think you are deliberately ignoring that the SFFA lawsuit said this, politicians said this, and even people ITT said this and clearly these things reflect poorly on the university. There isn't any evidence that legacy admissions is affirmative action for white people or rich people though. simply drop legacy status from consideration altogether There isn't any evidence that legacy status counts for. You have never established that it does. Not one of the California schools in that article I cited says that legacy admits have an advantage. Here is Stanford's policy https://provost.stanford.edu/2020/06/26/admissions-considerations/ https://provost.stanford.edu/2020/06/26/admissions-considera.... CMU from the OP article said legacy status had no bearing on admissions for years. Harvard likewise. Their reasons for tracking legacy status are probably complicated. I concede at one point they were used to allow in less qualified students but that hasn't been the case for years. But tracking legacy status does not mean it is used to give favorable admissions. I do not believe it does and the legacy admits are probably qualified. That is clearly the case for Harvard. If you did not believe this, you are saying universities are lying about their policies. So since the accusation that legacy admissions is affirmative action for white people is disingenuous, I believe the people who continue to say that it is are actually the ones not arguing in good faith. edit: dropping legacy status from applications may not even change the percentage of 'legacy' admits and yet I am sure that universities know who they are. Including it on applications may harm the legacy applications because the universities are now under politically charged pressure which is what I am arguing would be wrong.
  - kevinventullo 3y ago
    Harvard likewise To be clear, you are claiming that Harvard explicitly does not consider legacy status when deciding on admissions? So, when a student is considered being cut in the final stage of the admissions process, i.e. on the “lop list”, and decision makers are provided with only four pieces of information: legacy status, athlete status, financial aid eligibility, and race; you are claiming that legacy status is included for… what, to satisfy the curiosity of admissions committee members? Give me a break. Also, you’re moving the goalposts from “legacy-based admissions are okay” to “actually, legacy-based admissions don’t exist.” https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf For the record, I don’t believe that legacy admissions are intended to be “affirmative action for white people”, but I do think the outcome is similar.

kevinventullo 3y ago

You claim “the facts are thrown out” but then don’t cite a single hard fact which remotely suggest anyone wants legacy status to count against. Instead you are extrapolating that removal of legacy from positive consideration will eventually lead to re-adding legacy for negative consideration, but no one is actually suggesting this. You are completely making it up. The California law you cite only applies to universities that collect and consider legacy data in the first place. Thus, your claim that “if a qualified legacy student is accepted, the data on students must be made public...” does not hold if the universities simply drop legacy status from consideration altogether, which is the goal here. If they don’t collect the data, they can’t be accused of anything. Honestly, this manipulation of facts and narrative leads me to believe that you are pushing an agenda and not arguing in good faith.

onetimeusename 3y ago
but then don’t cite a single hard fact which remotely suggest anyone wants legacy status to count against. Accusing it of being affirmative action for white people or for "the rich" pretty clearly means people want it to count against. I think you are deliberately ignoring that the SFFA lawsuit said this, politicians said this, and even people ITT said this and clearly these things reflect poorly on the university. There isn't any evidence that legacy admissions is affirmative action for white people or rich people though. simply drop legacy status from consideration altogether There isn't any evidence that legacy status counts for. You have never established that it does. Not one of the California schools in that article I cited says that legacy admits have an advantage. Here is Stanford's policy https://provost.stanford.edu/2020/06/26/admissions-considerations/ https://provost.stanford.edu/2020/06/26/admissions-considera.... CMU from the OP article said legacy status had no bearing on admissions for years. Harvard likewise. Their reasons for tracking legacy status are probably complicated. I concede at one point they were used to allow in less qualified students but that hasn't been the case for years. But tracking legacy status does not mean it is used to give favorable admissions. I do not believe it does and the legacy admits are probably qualified. That is clearly the case for Harvard. If you did not believe this, you are saying universities are lying about their policies. So since the accusation that legacy admissions is affirmative action for white people is disingenuous, I believe the people who continue to say that it is are actually the ones not arguing in good faith. edit: dropping legacy status from applications may not even change the percentage of 'legacy' admits and yet I am sure that universities know who they are. Including it on applications may harm the legacy applications because the universities are now under politically charged pressure which is what I am arguing would be wrong.
- kevinventullo 3y ago
  Harvard likewise To be clear, you are claiming that Harvard explicitly does not consider legacy status when deciding on admissions? So, when a student is considered being cut in the final stage of the admissions process, i.e. on the “lop list”, and decision makers are provided with only four pieces of information: legacy status, athlete status, financial aid eligibility, and race; you are claiming that legacy status is included for… what, to satisfy the curiosity of admissions committee members? Give me a break. Also, you’re moving the goalposts from “legacy-based admissions are okay” to “actually, legacy-based admissions don’t exist.” https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf For the record, I don’t believe that legacy admissions are intended to be “affirmative action for white people”, but I do think the outcome is similar.