4 ms·

This nonstop talk about getting rid of legacy admissions is funny. The subtext is that legacy admissions were acceptable as long as racial preferences were acce

by slibhb 3y ago

This nonstop talk about getting rid of legacy admissions is funny. The subtext is that legacy admissions were acceptable as long as racial preferences were acceptable. Apparently, only now that we've gotten rid of the latter do we need to address the former.

jayess 3y ago
It's no secret that racial preferences were a cover for legacy admissions.
- Pet_Ant 3y ago
  I legitimately don't buy that. Legacy seems like really a mechanism for nepotism and reinforcing elite networks. While due to their origin they probably have racial skews, but I really don't buy that is their driving force. After all, legacy are such a small percentage overall they can't sway the overall campus demographics much. Not saying they should or shouldn't be dismantled, just bothers me to see likely misattributed motivations.
  - monocasa 3y ago
    At Harvard, legacy admissions was about a third total of all admissions each year.
    - Pet_Ant 3y ago
      Okay, that’s interesting. I didn’t look for Harvard, but the numbers I found before posting was 14% in general.
mancerayder 3y ago
It's as if the racial preferences issue/controversy shielded the legacy preferences injustice. It was always well-known that the children of connected, rich people got preference. But focus on the pros and cons of affirmative action, and the arguments about historical racism, and no one pays attention. It's a debate or policy distraction that I think extends outside of the university and throughout the United States. It's as if the conversation around class inequality takes a back seat to the racial ones, and that the privileged take a very strong stance that it is the singular most important topic to address.
- ElFitz 3y ago
  Some would argue that many real issues, including racial ones, and most debates, such as those surrounding welfare, immigration and drugs, mainly exist to distract from class inequality.
petsfed 3y ago
I believe the real subtext was "it was easier to force 'diversity admissions' than it was to tell donors their idiot kids had to get in line like everybody else". There are a bunch of other issues that affirmative action was meant to solve as well, but it did exist explicitly as a counterbalance to the fact that the universities felt they needed legacy admissions to attract donors. Its just also the case that, going back to Jim Crow, grandfathering people in was a great way to fortify racial disparity whilst not having any explicitly racist policies on the books.
AbrahamParangi 3y ago
One might even notice how such issues often conveniently form a smokescreen for class disagreements.
afavour 3y ago
That would make sense if the talk about getting rid of legacy admissions only started in the last month. But it pretty obviously hasn't, it's been a discussion topic for as long as I can remember. I'll grant that it's being talked about more but even that is hardly surprising: affirmative action was struck down because it was deemed unfair to give some applications a boost over other applicants. Yet legacy admissions is exactly that and continues. It's hypocrisy and I don't think it's particularly surprising people point it out.
lapcat 3y ago
> The subtext is that legacy admissions were acceptable as long as racial preferences were acceptable. No, it's just that the hypocrisy of legacy admissions is even more evident now that affirmative action has been eliminated.
treis 3y ago
Legacies usually had slightly better academic records than their fellow students. Racial preferences usually resulted in students with worse academic records being admitted compared with their fellow students. It's still unfair in that they're being picked from a large number of equally qualified students but at least they're still qualified. Also the legal argument is a bit more of a stretch and was probably doomed so long as explicit racial discrimination was allowed. Ultimately, I think it's good because legacy preference is unfair to those born to the wrong parents. But practically, I think there's less impact here than I think most anticipate. Offspring of Harvard parents still have a bunch of economic, social, and genetic advantages. They're still going to have objectively the best academic records. It might cut down on Harvard parent => Harvard child but that will be replaced by Harvard parent => Random Ivy League child.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > Legacies usually had slightly better academic records than their fellow students. Racial preferences usually resulted in students with worse academic records being admitted compared with their fellow students. Citation needed. Why would they even need legacy admissions if they outperformed the non-legacy admissions?
  - treis 3y ago
    >Legacy students also had a higher average SAT score than non-legacy students, at 1523 for legacy students and 1491 for non-legacy students. https://features.thecrimson.com/2021/freshman-survey/academics-narrative/ https://features.thecrimson.com/2021/freshman-survey/academi... >Why would they even need legacy admissions if they outperformed the non-legacy admissions? It's not clear that they do which was the point of my last paragraph.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > https://features.thecrimson.com/2021/freshman-survey/academics-narrative/ https://features.thecrimson.com/2021/freshman-survey/academi... 1. Are SAT scores the only criterion for admission? 2. "Recruited athletes had an average SAT score of 1397, whereas non-athletes averaged 1501." How much of the 32 point difference in legacy vs. non-legacy can be attributed to the 104 point difference in athletes vs. non-athletes? Presumably most of the recruited athletes are non-legacy. 3. Where are the stats for affirmative action? 4. Averages don't tell the whole story. I'd like to see where the bottom is for legacy non-athlete vs non-legacy non-athlete. > It's not clear that they do which was the point of my last paragraph. Then there should be no debate about eliminated legacy admission. ;-)

by slibhb 3y ago

jayess 3y ago

It's no secret that racial preferences were a cover for legacy admissions.

Pet_Ant 3y ago
I legitimately don't buy that. Legacy seems like really a mechanism for nepotism and reinforcing elite networks. While due to their origin they probably have racial skews, but I really don't buy that is their driving force. After all, legacy are such a small percentage overall they can't sway the overall campus demographics much. Not saying they should or shouldn't be dismantled, just bothers me to see likely misattributed motivations.
- monocasa 3y ago
  At Harvard, legacy admissions was about a third total of all admissions each year.
  - Pet_Ant 3y ago
    Okay, that’s interesting. I didn’t look for Harvard, but the numbers I found before posting was 14% in general.

mancerayder 3y ago

It's as if the racial preferences issue/controversy shielded the legacy preferences injustice. It was always well-known that the children of connected, rich people got preference. But focus on the pros and cons of affirmative action, and the arguments about historical racism, and no one pays attention. It's a debate or policy distraction that I think extends outside of the university and throughout the United States. It's as if the conversation around class inequality takes a back seat to the racial ones, and that the privileged take a very strong stance that it is the singular most important topic to address.

ElFitz 3y ago
Some would argue that many real issues, including racial ones, and most debates, such as those surrounding welfare, immigration and drugs, mainly exist to distract from class inequality.

petsfed 3y ago

I believe the real subtext was "it was easier to force 'diversity admissions' than it was to tell donors their idiot kids had to get in line like everybody else". There are a bunch of other issues that affirmative action was meant to solve as well, but it did exist explicitly as a counterbalance to the fact that the universities felt they needed legacy admissions to attract donors. Its just also the case that, going back to Jim Crow, grandfathering people in was a great way to fortify racial disparity whilst not having any explicitly racist policies on the books.

AbrahamParangi 3y ago

One might even notice how such issues often conveniently form a smokescreen for class disagreements.

afavour 3y ago

That would make sense if the talk about getting rid of legacy admissions only started in the last month. But it pretty obviously hasn't, it's been a discussion topic for as long as I can remember. I'll grant that it's being talked about more but even that is hardly surprising: affirmative action was struck down because it was deemed unfair to give some applications a boost over other applicants. Yet legacy admissions is exactly that and continues. It's hypocrisy and I don't think it's particularly surprising people point it out.

lapcat 3y ago

> The subtext is that legacy admissions were acceptable as long as racial preferences were acceptable. No, it's just that the hypocrisy of legacy admissions is even more evident now that affirmative action has been eliminated.

treis 3y ago

Legacies usually had slightly better academic records than their fellow students. Racial preferences usually resulted in students with worse academic records being admitted compared with their fellow students. It's still unfair in that they're being picked from a large number of equally qualified students but at least they're still qualified. Also the legal argument is a bit more of a stretch and was probably doomed so long as explicit racial discrimination was allowed. Ultimately, I think it's good because legacy preference is unfair to those born to the wrong parents. But practically, I think there's less impact here than I think most anticipate. Offspring of Harvard parents still have a bunch of economic, social, and genetic advantages. They're still going to have objectively the best academic records. It might cut down on Harvard parent => Harvard child but that will be replaced by Harvard parent => Random Ivy League child.

lapcat 3y ago
> Legacies usually had slightly better academic records than their fellow students. Racial preferences usually resulted in students with worse academic records being admitted compared with their fellow students. Citation needed. Why would they even need legacy admissions if they outperformed the non-legacy admissions?
- treis 3y ago
  >Legacy students also had a higher average SAT score than non-legacy students, at 1523 for legacy students and 1491 for non-legacy students. https://features.thecrimson.com/2021/freshman-survey/academics-narrative/ https://features.thecrimson.com/2021/freshman-survey/academi... >Why would they even need legacy admissions if they outperformed the non-legacy admissions? It's not clear that they do which was the point of my last paragraph.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > https://features.thecrimson.com/2021/freshman-survey/academics-narrative/ https://features.thecrimson.com/2021/freshman-survey/academi... 1. Are SAT scores the only criterion for admission? 2. "Recruited athletes had an average SAT score of 1397, whereas non-athletes averaged 1501." How much of the 32 point difference in legacy vs. non-legacy can be attributed to the 104 point difference in athletes vs. non-athletes? Presumably most of the recruited athletes are non-legacy. 3. Where are the stats for affirmative action? 4. Averages don't tell the whole story. I'd like to see where the bottom is for legacy non-athlete vs non-legacy non-athlete. > It's not clear that they do which was the point of my last paragraph. Then there should be no debate about eliminated legacy admission. ;-)