4 ms·
>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.t
by 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 agoWell, it appears my time finding a cite was a waste.
- lapcat 3y agoWhy 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.