Maybe I'm old or insufficiently woke, but I don't see legacy or identity as substitutes for demonstrated learning. I see the decay of rigor and achievement as signals of decline of excellence and the crumbling of knowledge. The mythology of "everyone needs degrees" created a wealth transfer scam and a lowering of standards to sell more student loan debt for sheepskins. Maybe we need to throw away arbitrary employment requirements and make universities run on merit. Oh and there's a gender imbalance in most undergraduate programs where the bar is effectively higher for women because men aren't keeping up or have been left behind.
“Legacy” applicants is the opposite of woke, it’s been how the “old boys network” has run for hundreds of years, getting under qualified students into top Universities.
That's an urban myth perpetuated by people interested in generalized grievance. At least from the period I attended prep school, and beyond. From the mid-1990's.
Almost in-total, the "old boys" applicants are not under-qualified. When compared to almost any kid that attended lesser secondary schools than the privileged kid attended, on average.
These kids have almost always proven themselves in elite educational environments. Most of those who skate by in such environments don't go Ivy. They will instead attend one of the many more numerous elite Liberal Arts colleges that most others ignore but that carry almost equivalent cache.
There are no Stuyvesant valedictorians missing Ivy admissions. In the same vein, there are plenty of prep school kids who do. I've only rarely seen underqualified kids go Ivy, and the only one that I can actually think of was a poor kid.
Today, Ivy's are skipping qualified lesser privileged kids for diversity. In eliminating the SAT/ACT, they are essentially gambling that their reputation rather than their student body will continue to qualify them as Elite. Over time, I have doubts. The curriculums will have to be adjusted so as to avoid the pall of racism or classism that will occur when wildly divergent grades become apparent.
If they are so qualified, why not let them compete on the even ground with the rest of the applicants? Why is there a need to special track them via legacy?
Legacy should have been abolished long time ago. It’s the epitome of systematic racism.
Possible! But my previous answer was based on the "If they are so qualified" scenario. The important takeaway is that the legacy special track has a reason to exist whether or not they let unqualified students in.
You seem to have missed the point of my prior post, and you misunderstand how legacy admissions work. Dropping the rhetorical nuke of "systemic racism" doesn't cover for that. Read my prior post again.
Legacy gets one looked at. Its not an automatic admission.
Unlesss you are simply stating that legacy admissions should be disqualified (this would be ridiculous), then also consider that:
you may be making the "research" error of uncontrolled variables that include the fact that legacy kids are likely to be smart, their parents are astute enough to track them in a manner that makes them better candidates on average, and that their parents are more aware of the process that they can relate to the child.
Al leading to a statistically significant rate of legacy admissions that has nothing at all to do with unfairness.
Legacy boosts admission rating. That’s all needed to be said.
It's systematic racism because legacy admission has been part of the official admission system for the longest time. It's a system to favor the incumbents, the riches, the powerful, and the non-minority.
I'm not that familiar with the US legacy system but even if it is just "we'll definitely take a look at your application" that isn't competing on even ground is it?
It might not guarantee you a place but it's clearly an unfair advantage.
No one is disputing the fact that there are advantages to being legacy, at least in terms of giving the application a hard look so as not to unduly disappoint donors and other people in the "club" that is the entire reason that non-legacy candidates want in.
Versus say a public school (American) candidate who gets filtered out earlier because they graduated in the middle of their class.
I don't recall anyone promising anyone else a perfectly even playing field down to the most minuscule detail.
The people arguing that point seem to be demanding a social standard and then working from the assumption that it is a shared standard, value, and may even be the law. None of which is true.
But the more important points are at the end of my last post, which point to the fact that people arguing against the rate of legacy admissions haven't a leg to stand on without first controlling for obvious variables.
> I don't recall anyone promising anyone else a perfectly even playing field down to the most minuscule detail.
Neither do I but that doesn't mean that we should make trivial changes to even the playing field where possible. Especially when that trivial change is just to stop doing something that is very obviously unfair.
At this point I'm guessing you or your children benefited from the legacy system and don't want to feel guilty about it because I can't really imagine any other reason to defend the system. It's very obviously unfair, and there is very obviously no good reason to keep it (other than money of course).
> people arguing against the rate of legacy admissions haven't a leg to stand on without first controlling for obvious variables.
You don't need to do any statistical analysis to prove it has an effect to know that it is unfair. Like, if you took fair dice and then sanded one side slightly, you don't need to actually do any actual analysis to know that you shouldn't do that because there are no possible good effects and one possible bad effect.
This is typically what legacy admits tell themselves to cope with the fact that they do not deserve to be there. But it has no relation to reality. With the data that Harvard tried so desperately to hide, we can confidently dismiss these false claims
You were the one who started suggesting that "legacy" was "woke", which you are not. Now you seem to have switched to defending it.
Legacy isn't fairness "down to the most minuscule detail" it is a significant part of admissions procedures, written into the rules. It would be reduce the complexity of admissions to simply throw out all legacy-related text. If it indeed provides no help to those legacy students, surely that's a win-win for everyone?
I actually disagree that the first is true, in and of itself. If you have two otherwise identical candidates except one is a Legacy candidate, then the answer is (tautologically) no, having a parent does not make you more qualified. But it's also true that that being a legacy gives that student an advantage, even if its limited to just getting put at the top of the pile to be reviewed. And if a segment of the population has been historically barred from attending these institutions, then I think it qualifies as an "unfair" advantage.
Calling it "systematic racism" may bring with it a lot of other cultural baggage at the moment, but I think fundamentally we can at least agree that Legacy Admissions are a way of preserving the status quo, in opposition to social mobility.
I also went to an elite prep school except it was the 2010s. You're right that the kids there prove themselves. The top ~15% of students there would have found the top universities under-challenging, except maybe MIT. The top 50% would've been on par.
But guess who got into the top private universities from that prep school, not the top students. Most were legacy, donor families, or really crafty liars. So overall I would consider the prep school kids going into top private schools under-qualified (public unis are different), though not exactly because they're from prep school.
