Legacy Admissions Bill

[financeguy]

The "Fair College Admissions for Students Act" has a 0% chance of passing, which is so bizarre to me. Legacy Admissions polls negatively among almost every demographic group and yet there is no possibility of it ever ending. I am always surprised when I hear someone defend it in public, as Larry Summers did a few years ago.

I put this in the same category as spousal hires and the hundreds of federal jobs that are given to the idiot child of every elected official on the planet. I have no problem with private institutions hiring everyone who's put their legs at the 10 and the 2 for a current employee or admitting all of their offspring absent any remote cognitive ability to perform the work, until they are getting massive federal funds that I am responsible for contributing to.

Even if no funds are directly given,  when you have an endowment in the billions (well over 50 universities in the U.S.) why are these people getting a tax deduction to buy in their subpar offspring? I wish the faculty members at these institutions who seem to care so much about access and inequality would look inward within their own walls to something that is becoming more and more unjustifiable.

[mamselle]

As a female who's worked in the sciences (although not myself a scientist per se) I take anything Summers says with about a bucket-and-a-half of salt...

His only claim to fame may be that he follows in Dunster's footsteps in being asked to demit himself of his position.

M.

[financeguy]

Many problems with his economic philosophy, but I do think it is absurd that someone steps down by even mentioning that another person (Pinker) has written about the subject he was being asked about. (Cognitive differences in gender.) Apparently those in the sciences are opposed to using their eponymous method to test the validity of these things.

[Katrina Gulliver]

There are always going to be inequities when there are admissions processes around "crafting a class", and various other nebulous bullshit that is subjective as hell but framed as "holistic".

What fascinates me is that the number of non-white students attending elite colleges has really grown in the last 30 years, so it's now we're getting to a point that POC alumni have the opportunity to want legacy admissions for their kids. SURPRISE, suddenly everyone wants to get rid of legacy admits. Like every case in history where a perk or entitlement disappears once the "wrong" people start getting access to it. Hmmm.

[financeguy]

There's always going to be someone that wants a pendulum to swing back in their direction instead of actual equality. What I find questionable (and what guarantees this tug of war) is the throwing out of objective standards such such as test scores. Holistic = not objective = biased and subjective = eventually discriminatory.

[Stockmann]

The US is probably the only democracy on the planet where anything like legacy admissions flies - it's such a blatant case of aristocratic privilege that I'm sure in any of the monarchies of Europe, for example, it wouldn't stand up in court, not for any institution even indirectly (as in being eligible for student loans, tax breaks, etc) being subsidized by the taxpayer, or as a minimum would be politically suicidal to try it. For all the SJWs in academia, and the US mythology of standing for equality against aristocratic tyranny, it's remarkable how American academia preserves legacy admissions, which have more than a whiff of feudalism about them (hereditary privilege subsidized by the taxpayer).

[mamselle]

UK, Eton, anyone?

M.

[Wahoo Redux]

Then again, how much control do we want to give to government?

I am uncomfortable with the ever increasing calls to have a bureaucratic entity telling us what to do under the aegis of "leveling the playing field" or some such ultimately vague and unattainable ideal.

If the private colleges pay payroll taxes, and the professors and administrators on hiring committees pay income, property etc. taxes, they too should have a say in how they admit or hire.  It's their tax money too.  You may not want your tax money going to legacies, but they might want their tax money going to legacies.  They have been tasked with running an institution; let them.

And it would be one thing if we had only a handful of colleges that people could attend, but that is not the case.  Yes, I know, there are all sorts of prestige and access issues----the point is that a legacy may not be fair, but what is?  And a legacy admit does not mean another applicant has no access to education.

Plus we have to remember that "legacy admissions" really only affect a tiny number of institutions.  Most schools are begging for students these days.

Legacies are idiotic and anti-meritocratic, but they are also not that big a deal.  And schools DO tend to get rich alumni who will probably provide part of the family fortune for years to come.  In the meantime, we have bigger things to worry about.

[Katrina Gulliver]

Not to mention some count "children of faculty" under the legacy banner. Try banning those admits and see how many faculty are with you.

[Hibush]

The US is probably the only democracy on the planet where anything like legacy admissions flies - it's such a blatant case of aristocratic privilege that I'm sure in any of the monarchies of Europe, for example, it wouldn't stand up in court, not for any institution even indirectly (as in being eligible for student loans, tax breaks, etc) being subsidized by the taxpayer, or as a minimum would be politically suicidal to try it. For all the SJWs in academia, and the US mythology of standing for equality against aristocratic tyranny, it's remarkable how American academia preserves legacy admissions, which have more than a whiff of feudalism about them (hereditary privilege subsidized by the taxpayer).

In Italy it appears still to be possible to inherit one's father's professorship.

[marshwiggle]

Question from a Canadian for whom this is all foreign:
With legacy admissions, is there some sort of definite minimum standard that legacies must obtain for admission, or are they basically "in" regardless?

(For instance, programs often have stated cutoffs for admissions, but based on the number applications the operational cutoff may be higher. This is often the case in competitive programs. I could see if legacies could get in with the stated cutoff; it makes much less sense if they fall below that.)

[Ruralguy]

I don't think most schools, or at least not private ones, would have clearly stated legacy cutoffs, but that there would be discussions regarding chances at success, and "fit" and all that for any individual student. At a highly competitive school probably most would not get in (but perhaps higher % than average). At a 100 ish ranked SLAC, probably almost all with minimum qualifications (right number of years of math, english, language, etc.) would be admitted. We've had some multi-generation legacies, including descendants of founders, who have done quite well and some who have bombed.

[Wahoo Redux]

Question from a Canadian for whom this is all foreign:
With legacy admissions, is there some sort of definite minimum standard that legacies must obtain for admission, or are they basically "in" regardless?

(For instance, programs often have stated cutoffs for admissions, but based on the number applications the operational cutoff may be higher. This is often the case in competitive programs. I could see if legacies could get in with the stated cutoff; it makes much less sense if they fall below that.)

Dubya got into Yale.

That should tell you everything.

[Ruralguy]

He got into Yale about 55 years ago, so it doesn't say much of anything about current 
admissions, but the point is in some sense correct: They probably have some sort of standard, but its likely to be quite a bit lower than the normal one. Also, not all legacies are created equal. By that point, Dubya's father and grandfather had served in House and Senate respectively, and it was clear that Papa Bush had ambitions. Also, they care if you are a big donor.

[financeguy]

This varies a lot based on institution. The Price of Admission by Daniel Golden is a great read on this. I got the audible version which also has a section following about the recent sports admission scandal. He goes over how it works at specific institutions, particularly Princeton, Notre Dame and a hand full of others. There used to be an explicitly stated standard at Princeton, for example, which was just "will they graduate if admitted" independent of how qualified vs other applicants.

I actually knew (in brief passing) one of the people mentioned in the book as an example legacy. I specifically remember a conversation twenty years ago that included, "How the F did she go to ____" but now I know! I am firmly convinced she would not be in her current role if she had gone to the state institution twenty miles away from "east ivy u."