Who Uses Legacy Admissions? (brookings.edu) 62
Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to end affirmative action in college admissions, there has been increased scrutiny on legacy admissions -- the practice of giving special considerations to the relatives of alumni. Critics say this practice disproportionately benefits white students from wealthy backgrounds. Much of the discussion and research on legacy admissions focuses on Ivy League and other highly selective schools, but these colleges enroll only a small share of students. How widespread is the practice of legacy admissions? Is it common among public colleges? Brookings: In this report, we document the prevalence of legacy admissions, as reported by colleges, across higher education around the time of the SFFA decision. Legacy admissions were more often used at selective and private institutions, but a substantial minority of public and less selective institutions also considered legacy status in admissions. The use of legacy preferences appears to have been most common in the Northeast and South and least common in the West. There is substantial -- but incomplete -- overlap in the colleges that considered legacy status and those that practiced affirmative action (AA) prior to SFFA. A number of colleges, including some public colleges, said they considered relationships to alumni but not racial identity in admissions.
While most state flagships don't consider legacy status in admissions, half have at least one scholarship opportunity that is catered to legacy students. Because the data are available with a lag, we do not know how many colleges have changed their legacy admissions policies in response to the Court's decision on affirmative action, but press reports and our conversations with admissions representatives indicate that some colleges have changed course in the past few years, including at least five state flagships.
The effect of legacy preferences on who enrolls at a particular university may not be substantial overall. Many of the colleges that use legacy admissions are not that selective, and the scholarships for relatives of alumni are typically small. Still, even if the number of students directly displaced by legacies who had a leg up is ultimately not that large, the practice sends students the wrong signal about what's important and is contrary to the mission of a public university. In a recent survey, half of first-generation college students said they thought legacy admissions practices may have hurt their chances. Perceptions of an unfair admissions process might also make some students less likely to apply or undermine the perceived legitimacy of higher education, though we did not find research on this topic.
While most state flagships don't consider legacy status in admissions, half have at least one scholarship opportunity that is catered to legacy students. Because the data are available with a lag, we do not know how many colleges have changed their legacy admissions policies in response to the Court's decision on affirmative action, but press reports and our conversations with admissions representatives indicate that some colleges have changed course in the past few years, including at least five state flagships.
The effect of legacy preferences on who enrolls at a particular university may not be substantial overall. Many of the colleges that use legacy admissions are not that selective, and the scholarships for relatives of alumni are typically small. Still, even if the number of students directly displaced by legacies who had a leg up is ultimately not that large, the practice sends students the wrong signal about what's important and is contrary to the mission of a public university. In a recent survey, half of first-generation college students said they thought legacy admissions practices may have hurt their chances. Perceptions of an unfair admissions process might also make some students less likely to apply or undermine the perceived legitimacy of higher education, though we did not find research on this topic.
Since becoming an adult (Score:5, Insightful)
To answer the question, your rolling class uses legacy admissions. People from those legacy admissions are then picked to work for a handful of extremely powerful management consulting firms and then CEOs are picked out of those management consulting firms. This way money and power stays in the "right" hands.
Re:Since becoming an adult (Score:4, Insightful)
A good proportion of the population won't do anything about the wealthy, because they consider themselves to be "Temporarily Embarrassed Millionaires". Why hit on the rich, if you might be one, some day?
It's a delusion, of course, but a powerful one.
Re: (Score:3)
Right, we're all told that someday we can be fabulously wealthy, and that anyone can become president one day, and so forth. And in our hearts we kind of believe it. Also, when a black man becomes president some of us freak out because that's not what "anyone" means to them.
Overall though, legacy admissions are small and serve the purpose of funding the university because the ultra wealthy, while on meds, occasionally feel the need to provide bequests to institutions.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, we're all told that someday we can be fabulously wealthy, and that anyone can become president one day, and so forth. And in our hearts we kind of believe it. Also, when a black man becomes president some of us freak out because that's not what "anyone" means to them.
I've been under the assumption that the reason we've fallen into fighting over two geriatric white men who have questionable appeal on the surface is simply a reactionary overcorrection propagated by the fears instilled in a certain contingent of folks over the younger black politician being elected to the highest office of the land. But if you look at policy, Obama was essentially Bush 2's equal, with a much better spoken public persona. Why anyone was fearful of him, but not of Bush 2, is beyond me unless
I think it's more than that (Score:2)
People also don't want to think that Karma doesn't exist. They want to believe that if somebody got that much money then they deserve it, because otherwise they're left with the realization that the world doesn't actually have Justice and that the evil are rarely punished.
Re: (Score:2)
A good proportion of the population won't do anything about the wealthy, because they consider themselves to be "Temporarily Embarrassed Millionaires". Why hit on the rich, if you might be one, some day?
It's a delusion, of course, but a powerful one.
Conversations with folks that land somewhere in the upper tier of the current middle class makes this abundantly clear. The upper management at my place of business, below the CEO, often get lost in circular discussion about how taxing folks who are ultra-wealthy would destroy the entire country. The exact words, "I'm glad people like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos exist." They can't quantify why, even if you ask them without confrontational wording, they're glad they exist, beyond the vague assertion that it off
Re:Since becoming an adult (Score:5, Insightful)
And becoming aware of the world around me I found it equal parts disturbing in amusing that the American people don't believe they have a ruling class.
To answer the question, your rolling class uses legacy admissions. People from those legacy admissions are then picked to work for a handful of extremely powerful management consulting firms and then CEOs are picked out of those management consulting firms. This way money and power stays in the "right" hands.
What I find funny is that rich people rage against 'affirmative action' to provide opportunities for minorities and the poor but when they finally succeed in abolishing affirmative action for these groups they were surprised to find out that legacy admissions is itself a form of affirmative action for a minority i.e. their own idiot kids. If you want to call yourself a winner of the greatest meritocracy in human history, having your rich daddy pull strings and bribe your way ahead of more able and intelligent applicants does not count as 'winning the meritocracy'.
Re:Since becoming an adult (Score:4, Insightful)
Nah it's merit all the way down. See those kids made the smart decision to be born to rich and powerful parents.
Re: (Score:2)
What I find funny is that rich people rage against 'affirmative action' to provide opportunities for minorities and the poor but when they finally succeed in abolishing affirmative action for these groups they were surprised to find out that legacy admissions is itself a form of affirmative action for a minority
Seriously, I've never heard anyone opine against racial preferences then say, "but that rich guy should definitely get in!" Legacy admissions suck, but they are a tiny, tiny problem comparatively. That's the reason people never really talk about them.
Why don't you try going up someone who's against affirmative action and asking their opinion on legacy admissions? I doubt you'll find none who like it.
Re: (Score:2)
Any who like it. Not "none." I gotta do better editing.
Re: (Score:1)
What I find funny is that rich people rage against 'affirmative action' to provide opportunities for minorities and the poor but when they finally succeed in abolishing affirmative action for these groups they were surprised to find out that legacy admissions is itself a form of affirmative action for a minority
Seriously, I've never heard anyone opine against racial preferences then say, "but that rich guy should definitely get in!"
Oh, they don't say it, but they definitely do it. Then they go on Fox News and talk about how affirmative action is bad for society, it's sapping the vitality of American civilization, feminizing the American Alpha Male, people should pull themselves out of poverty by their bootstraps .... blah, blah, blah ... They love rhetoric like this while also calming to be 'winners of the meritocracy' themselves. Trump talks about working his way up from nothing except a little pocket money from his dad when his dad
Yeah but Legacy adminission still exists (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The Americans thought Europe was too classist and so split off to form the 18th century's idea of an egalitarian society. Then somehow they got frozen into that with little change, except for a few updates like the prohbition of slavery and letting women vote.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's be fair; it wasn't *just* about persecuting Catholics.
They were also miffed that they couldn't make the Church of England do things the way they wanted/
But, yeah, the whole "religious freedom" notion was nonsense: the puritans were very much *against* the idea.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? I'm an american and I've known we have a ruling class for like forever. Rockefeller, Trump, Kennedy, etc... It's just a bit more fluid than, say, the UK's open nobility system.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Can you tell me 10 of these billionaires that came from poverty?
Some might be sports or movies or such but what about others.
And what percentage of billionaires?
And do you mean developed countries or undeveloped?
At least many places in Europe have higher mobility than the US.
Reminds me of crabs climbing out of a bucket (Score:2)
University campuses are becoming modern-day Indian reservations.
Legitimate use of legacy admissions (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Legitimate use of legacy admissions (Score:5, Insightful)
But the US Supreme Court have set the precedent of Fuck That, any attempt to compensate for past or current discrimination against one protected class is itself a form of discrimination against the other protected classes and not permitted (while doing absolutely nothing to address the original discrimination).
You can't then say, "well it doesn't really count for this because Money and Loyalty" or some other vague bullshit excuse, and "it's totally not racist or classest even though it just happens to benefit rich white people". If you vote for the Leopards Eating Faces Party, quit fucking acting surprised when the leopards eat your face.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't like the way some people seem to view university admission places as some kind of lottery prizes or welfare payments, it's very dangeous to do so. Admissions process is supposed to select people who are in the best position to benefit from higher education and most likely to turn into the best qualified professionals. I know the process is far from perfect but it should at least try to select the most qualified people. If I need a lifesaving surgery, I geniunely don't give a fuck about the backgroun
Re: (Score:2)
I know a few kids of very rich very smart people who couldn't make it in a community college, much less any place with a competitive admissions process. Not trying to put you or your kids down, but did they make the academic cut or were there some other (probably not given) reasons?
Re: (Score:2)
They are currently at universities slightly below (about 5 spots in US news rankings) of my alma mater.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, they were all accepted RD and my alma matter rejected them ED.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd call those uses rational, not legitimate. Institutional loyalty and alumni giving are only beneficial to the institution doing the admissions, and its not clear that they are a net-positive benefit to society in general.
Legacy Admissions is a business decision (Score:4, Informative)
Giving preference to the children of Alumni increases the likelihood that Alumni will donate to the college. They know that the money they give will benefit future generations of their family.
It is all part of the fundraising machine. And it works. Ivy-league universities have raised large enough endowments that they will be able to operate on the interest on their investments in perpetuity. They can afford to pay their professors and staff, and maintain (or even expand) their facilities forever, without relying on government handouts or charging tuition beyond a token amount.
Re: (Score:3)
A better solution would be public funding of higher education, paid for by taxing the wealthy, so that they don't have to send a load of money to their school, in order to get entry for their idiot child.
Re: (Score:1)
If that were the case, publicly funded universities - which do exist - would be the shining beacons of academic accomplishment.
Because we all know that having the government run things is so much more efficient and effective! Our world is full of examples!
Re: (Score:2)
The US does have partially publicly funded universities: the whole UC system.
UC Berkeley and other UC schools have good ratings.
Other countries manage it: Cambridge, Oxford, etc..
Re: (Score:2)
The current topic is not universities in other countries, it's universities in the US.
And California isn't the only state with a public university system. And it's had its share of questionable activities, too (Ricardo Asch anyone?)
Re: (Score:2)
So what you are saying is that the US is such a special country that publicly funded universities can't compete, unlike other countries?
As for the UC system and other states: do you not understand the concept of an example?
Re: (Score:2)
So what you are saying is that the US is such a special country that publicly funded universities can't compete, unlike other countries?
Every situation in America that has counter-examples in other countries are always rejected as "not here." Part of that wonderful American Exceptionalism that keeps us from progressing because we're so much better, so much more special, so much more important and shiny and wonderful that socialist hellholes that educate people, provide decent healthcare without bankrupting families for daring to have someone get sick, or are so abhorrently barbaric as to provide a social safety net for people when they fall
Re: (Score:2)
So what you are saying is that the US is such a special country that publicly funded universities can't compete, unlike other countries?
The US government has a long, and nearly perfect history of being very, very bad at running things like school systems. Very, very bad.
As for the UC system and other states: do you not understand the concept of an example?
Do you not understand the concept of outlier? Or, for that matter, the concept that your example doesn't demonstrate what you believe it demonstrates? I live in California; I know people who work for UC. It's better than many public universities, but that's not saying much.
Re: (Score:1)
Want that cheap schooling that people point to in other countries? the USA already has that also.
It is called community college.
You get the degree and education but you don't get the lifestyle that people are really looking for. So now i will be marked as troll.
Re: (Score:2)
A better solution would be public funding of higher education, paid for by taxing the wealthy, so that they don't have to send a load of money to their school, in order to get entry for their idiot child.
The wealthy will still find a way to help their offspring and never underestimate the ways the wealthy can adjust their income to minimise their taxes including these "donations"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The government should cut funding to colleges using legacy admissions that displace other students.
And remove tax exempt status for any university with an endowment the income from which covers 100% of their expenses. Need a $100 million tax write off? Don't donate it to Harvard!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, it's more than that in the Ivy League, where it's kind of the point of the institution.
Almost a full third of Harvard students are legacies. Now these kids, due to their previous educational advantages are marvelously polished, but aside from that, they are not exceptional. Nor are the offspring of captains of industry, potentates, and political leaders. But hoo, boy, the kid from an ordinary middle who makes it into Harvard is going to be f'in something.
It's not the brilliant poor kid who is gaining
Legacy admissions (Score:2)
Donor potential (Score:4, Insightful)
People think of legacy as a binary input: is the applicant a child of parent (grandparent in some cases) who went there. It is far more graduated, and reflects the previous donations of the parent who went there. Consider three different alumni along a continuum:
1) An affluent alum who has already given generously, been active in alumni activities (fundraising, etc.), arranged internships for students, is employed in an industry (finance, law) where connections are extremely important, has been bringing their kid to reunions for years, and who may have been a legacy admit themselves many years ago.
2) An affluent alum who has not given generously yet but has some potential (admissions will have a least an estimate of amassed wealth) , is in engineering/software where connections are important but not as crucial, has some connection to the institution, comes to reunions, but does not have a track record already of generous giving.
3) An alum who is not affluent, works in education or public service, who has not had much to do with the institution since graduating, but has fond memories of the institution.
These would all three be considered "legacy" applicants but it is certain that the admissions office would regard #1 as a much better "fit" for the institution than #2, and #3 may as well be someone with no connection to the campus.
Re:Donor potential (Score:5, Informative)
So what you're saying is that it's not exclusively nepotism, bribery is very important too?
Re: (Score:3)
So what you're saying is that it's not exclusively nepotism, bribery is very important too?
Not just bribery but $Bribery. The Varsity Blues Scandal [wikipedia.org] was all about wealthy alums who were not wealthy enough to donate large enough sums to move the needle. They could not afford to donate $billions so they resorted to unapproved channels where a mere half million was enough to ensure admission.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds right to me. As the saying goes, "follow the money."
Random (Score:4, Interesting)
All of these institutions should be assigned students at random, see how good they really are when they can't cherry pick their applicants.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather not buy a car or fly on an airplane designed by someone who got into engineering school at random, because they applied to school that specializes in MBAs.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather not buy a car or fly on an airplane designed by someone who got into engineering school at random, because they applied to school that specializes in MBAs.
Would you be happy to buy a car or fly on an aeroplane designed by someone who got into engineering school because they were the son of someone who got an MBA there 20 years previous to their sons enrolment?
Clue, they didn't get that engineering job though their own merit either. On the advent calendar of nepotism, all the doors are opened by your fathers contacts.
People making mountains of mole-hills.... (Score:2)
The number of "legacy admissions" happening in any given year aren't significant enough to realistically "prevent a student from getting accepted". I mean, at least no more than complaining that the school running ads caused more applicants and hurt someone's chances of acceptance....
We continue to refuse to accept (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
What about GOOD OL' BOY admissions? (Score:2)
See: https://www.utsystem.edu/sites... [utsystem.edu]
Schools for Ruling Elits (Score:2)
Who wants to go to Harvard or Yale and hobnob with a bunch of other bright people who lack social status and connections. Legacy emissions are part of the package that attracts students. People don't go to Harvard because it provides a great education, that is what small private colleges with actual professors teaching students provide. People put their resume together for admission to Harvard because it provides admission to the ruling elite. That admission depends on the presence of the sons and daughters
Money talks (Score:2)
I know someone who gave a large contribution to a sub-ivy school and voila her son got admitted.
If you don't like legacy admissions for some legal or Constitutional reason, simply allow admission to be bought. Then it's just commerce.
This is a really dumb take... (Score:1)
...also a class in how you use statistics to lie.
The approximate percentage of white people in the US is: 75.5%
The approximate percentage of blacks in the US is: 13.6% (Which they also do 62% of all violent crime, but that's another discussion)
Because there is a significantly HIGHER percentage of whites, statistically there SHOULD be a higher percentage of whites in college. JUST by the numbers. There's a larger pool to draw from...
It doesn't give whites an advantage or disparage against blacks....it's just