> 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?
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. ;-)
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.
Citation needed.
Why would they even need legacy admissions if they outperformed the non-legacy admissions?