3 ms·

> Legacies usually had slightly better academic records than their fellow students. Racial preferences usually resulted in students with worse academic records

by 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. ;-)
  - treis 3y ago
    Well, it appears my time finding a cite was a waste.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      Why was it a waste? More data is good. If your only goal was to definitively "win" an argument and end all discussion immediately, then maybe it was a waste in your opinion, but otherwise it wasn't. The citation brought more nuance into the argument, and raised more questions.

by lapcat 3y ago

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. ;-)
- treis 3y ago
  Well, it appears my time finding a cite was a waste.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    Why was it a waste? More data is good. If your only goal was to definitively "win" an argument and end all discussion immediately, then maybe it was a waste in your opinion, but otherwise it wasn't. The citation brought more nuance into the argument, and raised more questions.