8 ms·

The point is that legacy admissions have always been an egregious injustice. One effect of affirmative action was to (partially and imperfectly) ameliorate the

by s17n 3y ago

The point is that legacy admissions have always been an egregious injustice. One effect of affirmative action was to (partially and imperfectly) ameliorate the admissions situation. Now that's gone. As far as the freedom of association goes, that's not an argument in favor of legacy admissions but it is possibly an argument that the government should stay out of it. Given the central role that universities play in our society, and the fact that they depend on government support, I think it's a complicated question. Ultimately I think it's also an uninteresting question - the important thing is building a societal consensus legacy admissions are wrong and should end.

mc32 3y ago
Depends. Often well to do alumni donate significantly to their alma maters which grow their endowments and allow the institutions to offer more in terms of scholarships. That said, I agree with removing this priv.
kulahan 3y ago
I never really understood the complaint. Rich people spend massive amounts of money to send their kid to a school. That massive, completely unnecessary investment is then reinvested across the students attending the school, who come from all different backgrounds. This is, in effect, one of the most common ways wealth is redistributed in the US. Why is it so bad? Maybe we should limit it, but the actual practice itself is probably more good than bad.
- consp 3y ago
  You can do one without the other. The biggest problem in my oppinion is the lack of the mentioned redistribution for the first 18 years of the poor sob's life who lucks out since that's way more important than the extra money for the already extremely wealthy institutions.
- Shacklz 3y ago
  > This is, in effect, one of the most common ways wealth is redistributed in the US. Why is it so bad? Because the government could simply tax those with wealth more and use taxation as a means of redistribution. Like most western countries do. Anand Giridharadas dissects this topic rather convincingly in his "Winners Take All", see also his infamous google talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM
  - oatmeal1 3y ago
    > Because the government could simply tax those with wealth more and use taxation as a means of redistribution. I don't think the word "simply" applies when you are suggesting the government take money from billionaires with their armies of lobbyists and redistribute the money to the masses.
    - saghm 3y ago
      So because billionares will try to fight legislation to keep them from trying to make things more equal, instead we should have them just voluntarily give their money to universities, as if that somehow isn't even more susceptible to being spent the way they want rather than to make things more equal? I admit I'm biased in favor of using taxes instead of university donations to redistribute wealth, but even for a position I disagree with, this seems like a fairly weak argument.
      - kelnos 3y ago
        Using taxes would be (IMO) ideal, but that just isn't politically feasible in the US. I'm not sure I'm convinced that university donations from the wealthy is anywhere near as good when it comes to wealth distribution, but it's pointless to say "doing this with taxes is better" if we don't have those taxes and can't have those taxes. > So because billionares will try to fight legislation They don't "try". They succeed. Time and time again. Maybe at some point they'll stop succeeding, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
      - everforward 3y ago
        I just don't see a reason to pick a fight if the status quo is "everybody wins". Billionaires get to send their kids to good schools and everyone else at the school gets their education subsidized by those billionaires voluntarily. The only difference I can see with using taxes is that the billionaires' kids don't get to pick their school, and the government now has to waste time and effort collecting and auditing those tax dollars. I don't see a gain that's worth the effort. They can still donate money to the school or its employees if they want to influence the school's policy, or maybe just make some phone calls to accomplish the same. I'm sympathetic to the idea that billionaires have a lot of advantages that we should try to even out, but this feels like picking a fight for the sake of it. There are better things to try to fix in the world.
- sangnoir 3y ago
  The fundamental question is: do we want admissions based on merit (or not)? Saying "Yes" and then carving out an exception for the wealthy is dishonest (IMO); if the answer is "No, admission is not on merit" then we need to talk about what other considerations would be fair game. Also, implicit in your argument is that universities getting more money is always a good thing - I take umbrage at that prior as universities should not be driven by the desire for perpetual capital growth.
  - sangnoir 3y ago
    Upon further reflection, I can see how it is advantageous to the elite if "wealth" and "merit" are seen as interchangeable terms by the public.
- oblio 3y ago
  This perspective seems naive. Rich people tend to not spend a lot of money on stuff that doesn't make them more money. So if they do spend a lot, they think it's worth the expenses, including the "charity" part.
- pnemonic 3y ago
  > reinvested across the students attending the school I do not know this for a fact, but I WILDLY doubt what you said here, and I cannot imagine what could possess anyone to believe this. Especially at so-called "elite" schools.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > That massive, completely unnecessary investment is then reinvested across the students attending the school You're confusing legacy and donor. My only issue with children of donors getting on the Dean's List is the donation's tax deductibility. Legacy, on the other hand, isn't linked to resource contribution.
- somethoughts 3y ago
  Yes perhaps the unstated benefit of elite private schools is the long term relationships formed between children of legacy (i.e. generational wealth) and highly capable and hungry individuals who are getting in on merit alone. The two problems I see with legacy admissions is that: 1.) It has never been explicitly stated as a policy. If it were an upfront "get one admission for every 10 full price admissions/tuitions you buy" that would seem fairer. That said - I can see why a private school might be hesitant to be so transparent... 2.) The schools need to grow in order to keep the percentage of new admits to legacy admits constant as every generation of graduates is likely to produce at least 2x increase in legacy admits.
  - xp84 3y ago
    > every generation of graduates is likely to produce at least 2x increase in legacy admits. If you're implying that people are having kids at the 2 per couple replacement rate, US is below that. Also it's forgetting that each couple likely took up 2 ivy league seats during their college years, so even if mom went to Yale and Dad went to Harvard, but their 2 kids both go to Harvard, that would be consuming 2 "legacy admit" seats which is 1x the number of seats from last generation. My hypothesis is disproven though, if it is super common that ivy leaguers very frequently marry outside the ivy league, then 1 becoming 2+ with each generation would be a problem.
  - BryantD 3y ago
    Speaking as a legacy Harvard admission, I wouldn’t say you get a lot of long term relationships beteeen legacy students and merit students. Some, for sure, but there are different social circles at Harvard. Check out the Harvard social clubs sometime. That said this is a decades old anecdote rather than data.
- DragonStrength 3y ago
  They should be allowed to behave however they want, but whether we consider that behavior sufficient for non-profit status and tax-exempt endowments should be on the table. Donations for admission of your kids feels especially gross when talking about granting tax-advantaged status to institutions. It's a change in how we view them, to be sure, but questioning our expectations of tax-exempt non-profits seems like exactly what we want the government doing.
- firebirdn99 3y ago
  A lot of the costs in modern college programs over the last 20 to 30 years has been due to increase in administrative personnel, building up sports programs, etc. Modern colleges appear more like resorts than educational institutions. The presidents of these colleges also make massive amounts of money, many of even public or state college, which is highly disingenuous.
- jimmydddd 3y ago
  I think "legacy kid" is different from "kid of rich donor." They'll just be fewer kids of middle class alums and more kids of Middle Eastern and Asian upper classes.
- synetic 3y ago
  It’s bad because government is much more efficient at this using taxation than relying on the benevolence of rich people. Harvard educated far fewer students than U.C. Berkeley and Berkeley has 1/5 the endowment. The budgets are probably more or less in line with each other but that excess endowment amount speaks to a major inefficiency in terms of allocation of resources.
dogleash 3y ago
> The point is that legacy admissions have always been an egregious injustice. To whom? Anyone who would have been accepted to CMU or Pitt but for the legacy apps will be accepted to another school and still be able to get a high quality education. What harm is caused? They have a slightly worse starting hand in status posturing games during the short period of their lives where anyone gives a shit where anyone went to school? I’m not saying it’s the ideal world or anything. But “egregious”? C’mon
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Anyone who was rejected because they didn’t have the right parents because the spot went to someone else because they did have the right parents.
- rayiner 3y ago
  Look at the list of people appointed to run executive agencies, serve as judges, etc., and see the degree to which our society is run by elites from a handful of schools. The Supreme Court that issued this decision has one Justice who didn’t go to either Harvard or Yale.
  - xp84 3y ago
    This is a really thought-provoking reply. I appreciate it. The thing it makes me wonder, though: Isn't this unmerited dominance of Ivy Leaguers in our society the real problem that both AA and the discussion about legacies, is purporting to "solve" or "improve"? It seems like every society has elites, and we're trying to put a thumb on the scale (or remove other thumbs on the scale really) in hopes we can propel the brightest (poor/nonwhite/non-upper-class) kids into the elite category, but I worry that this is doomed to make little difference because no matter what, not everyone can graduate from Harvard or Yale. No matter what there will be people just as smart/virtuous/etc as the ones admitted to Harvard and Yale who were just unlucky. I feel like it's more of a problem of humanity -- that we tend to be tribal and exalt some people based on things like what school you went to. Many of the most intelligent and thoughtful people I've worked with dropped out of college or didn't go at all.

by s17n 3y ago

mc32 3y ago

Depends. Often well to do alumni donate significantly to their alma maters which grow their endowments and allow the institutions to offer more in terms of scholarships. That said, I agree with removing this priv.

kulahan 3y ago

I never really understood the complaint. Rich people spend massive amounts of money to send their kid to a school. That massive, completely unnecessary investment is then reinvested across the students attending the school, who come from all different backgrounds. This is, in effect, one of the most common ways wealth is redistributed in the US. Why is it so bad? Maybe we should limit it, but the actual practice itself is probably more good than bad.

consp 3y ago
You can do one without the other. The biggest problem in my oppinion is the lack of the mentioned redistribution for the first 18 years of the poor sob's life who lucks out since that's way more important than the extra money for the already extremely wealthy institutions.
Shacklz 3y ago
> This is, in effect, one of the most common ways wealth is redistributed in the US. Why is it so bad? Because the government could simply tax those with wealth more and use taxation as a means of redistribution. Like most western countries do. Anand Giridharadas dissects this topic rather convincingly in his "Winners Take All", see also his infamous google talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM
- oatmeal1 3y ago
  > Because the government could simply tax those with wealth more and use taxation as a means of redistribution. I don't think the word "simply" applies when you are suggesting the government take money from billionaires with their armies of lobbyists and redistribute the money to the masses.
  - saghm 3y ago
    So because billionares will try to fight legislation to keep them from trying to make things more equal, instead we should have them just voluntarily give their money to universities, as if that somehow isn't even more susceptible to being spent the way they want rather than to make things more equal? I admit I'm biased in favor of using taxes instead of university donations to redistribute wealth, but even for a position I disagree with, this seems like a fairly weak argument.
    - kelnos 3y ago
      Using taxes would be (IMO) ideal, but that just isn't politically feasible in the US. I'm not sure I'm convinced that university donations from the wealthy is anywhere near as good when it comes to wealth distribution, but it's pointless to say "doing this with taxes is better" if we don't have those taxes and can't have those taxes. > So because billionares will try to fight legislation They don't "try". They succeed. Time and time again. Maybe at some point they'll stop succeeding, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
    - everforward 3y ago
      I just don't see a reason to pick a fight if the status quo is "everybody wins". Billionaires get to send their kids to good schools and everyone else at the school gets their education subsidized by those billionaires voluntarily. The only difference I can see with using taxes is that the billionaires' kids don't get to pick their school, and the government now has to waste time and effort collecting and auditing those tax dollars. I don't see a gain that's worth the effort. They can still donate money to the school or its employees if they want to influence the school's policy, or maybe just make some phone calls to accomplish the same. I'm sympathetic to the idea that billionaires have a lot of advantages that we should try to even out, but this feels like picking a fight for the sake of it. There are better things to try to fix in the world.
sangnoir 3y ago
The fundamental question is: do we want admissions based on merit (or not)? Saying "Yes" and then carving out an exception for the wealthy is dishonest (IMO); if the answer is "No, admission is not on merit" then we need to talk about what other considerations would be fair game. Also, implicit in your argument is that universities getting more money is always a good thing - I take umbrage at that prior as universities should not be driven by the desire for perpetual capital growth.
- sangnoir 3y ago
  Upon further reflection, I can see how it is advantageous to the elite if "wealth" and "merit" are seen as interchangeable terms by the public.
oblio 3y ago
This perspective seems naive. Rich people tend to not spend a lot of money on stuff that doesn't make them more money. So if they do spend a lot, they think it's worth the expenses, including the "charity" part.
pnemonic 3y ago
> reinvested across the students attending the school I do not know this for a fact, but I WILDLY doubt what you said here, and I cannot imagine what could possess anyone to believe this. Especially at so-called "elite" schools.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> That massive, completely unnecessary investment is then reinvested across the students attending the school You're confusing legacy and donor. My only issue with children of donors getting on the Dean's List is the donation's tax deductibility. Legacy, on the other hand, isn't linked to resource contribution.
somethoughts 3y ago
Yes perhaps the unstated benefit of elite private schools is the long term relationships formed between children of legacy (i.e. generational wealth) and highly capable and hungry individuals who are getting in on merit alone. The two problems I see with legacy admissions is that: 1.) It has never been explicitly stated as a policy. If it were an upfront "get one admission for every 10 full price admissions/tuitions you buy" that would seem fairer. That said - I can see why a private school might be hesitant to be so transparent... 2.) The schools need to grow in order to keep the percentage of new admits to legacy admits constant as every generation of graduates is likely to produce at least 2x increase in legacy admits.
- xp84 3y ago
  > every generation of graduates is likely to produce at least 2x increase in legacy admits. If you're implying that people are having kids at the 2 per couple replacement rate, US is below that. Also it's forgetting that each couple likely took up 2 ivy league seats during their college years, so even if mom went to Yale and Dad went to Harvard, but their 2 kids both go to Harvard, that would be consuming 2 "legacy admit" seats which is 1x the number of seats from last generation. My hypothesis is disproven though, if it is super common that ivy leaguers very frequently marry outside the ivy league, then 1 becoming 2+ with each generation would be a problem.
- BryantD 3y ago
  Speaking as a legacy Harvard admission, I wouldn’t say you get a lot of long term relationships beteeen legacy students and merit students. Some, for sure, but there are different social circles at Harvard. Check out the Harvard social clubs sometime. That said this is a decades old anecdote rather than data.
DragonStrength 3y ago
They should be allowed to behave however they want, but whether we consider that behavior sufficient for non-profit status and tax-exempt endowments should be on the table. Donations for admission of your kids feels especially gross when talking about granting tax-advantaged status to institutions. It's a change in how we view them, to be sure, but questioning our expectations of tax-exempt non-profits seems like exactly what we want the government doing.
firebirdn99 3y ago
A lot of the costs in modern college programs over the last 20 to 30 years has been due to increase in administrative personnel, building up sports programs, etc. Modern colleges appear more like resorts than educational institutions. The presidents of these colleges also make massive amounts of money, many of even public or state college, which is highly disingenuous.
jimmydddd 3y ago
I think "legacy kid" is different from "kid of rich donor." They'll just be fewer kids of middle class alums and more kids of Middle Eastern and Asian upper classes.
synetic 3y ago
It’s bad because government is much more efficient at this using taxation than relying on the benevolence of rich people. Harvard educated far fewer students than U.C. Berkeley and Berkeley has 1/5 the endowment. The budgets are probably more or less in line with each other but that excess endowment amount speaks to a major inefficiency in terms of allocation of resources.

dogleash 3y ago

> The point is that legacy admissions have always been an egregious injustice. To whom? Anyone who would have been accepted to CMU or Pitt but for the legacy apps will be accepted to another school and still be able to get a high quality education. What harm is caused? They have a slightly worse starting hand in status posturing games during the short period of their lives where anyone gives a shit where anyone went to school? I’m not saying it’s the ideal world or anything. But “egregious”? C’mon

lotsofpulp 3y ago
Anyone who was rejected because they didn’t have the right parents because the spot went to someone else because they did have the right parents.
rayiner 3y ago
Look at the list of people appointed to run executive agencies, serve as judges, etc., and see the degree to which our society is run by elites from a handful of schools. The Supreme Court that issued this decision has one Justice who didn’t go to either Harvard or Yale.
- xp84 3y ago
  This is a really thought-provoking reply. I appreciate it. The thing it makes me wonder, though: Isn't this unmerited dominance of Ivy Leaguers in our society the real problem that both AA and the discussion about legacies, is purporting to "solve" or "improve"? It seems like every society has elites, and we're trying to put a thumb on the scale (or remove other thumbs on the scale really) in hopes we can propel the brightest (poor/nonwhite/non-upper-class) kids into the elite category, but I worry that this is doomed to make little difference because no matter what, not everyone can graduate from Harvard or Yale. No matter what there will be people just as smart/virtuous/etc as the ones admitted to Harvard and Yale who were just unlucky. I feel like it's more of a problem of humanity -- that we tend to be tribal and exalt some people based on things like what school you went to. Many of the most intelligent and thoughtful people I've worked with dropped out of college or didn't go at all.