Poll: Should Legacies Be Given Special Consideration? Forum

[newyorker88]

Donations fund the non-governmental financial aid for non-legacies. If you took away the benefit to donors of legacies, what impact might that have on other, more academically qualified, candidates?

The ends justify the means for you.... interesting

I mean, think about it this way. Let's say in a class of 180, there are 5 legacies of big time donors to scholarship funds that have no business being there. People are pissed because those 5 people had an unfair advantage, and thus we are having this discussion. If you don't let the 5 in, the scholarship money pool shrinks. Less students get less aid.

Would we be having this discussion if, instead of having to take 5 legacies, the school could shrink its class size to 175 to be able to maintain the same amount of scholly money?

Interesting scenario but I think your premises are all wrong. I doubt most students who benefit from legacy's relatives have donated that much money. You're scenario has a lot of "ifs" and I think it'd be interesting to see if statistics support them.

[Kobe_Teeth]

This is an arbitrary arguement but if I work my butt off through HS, UG, & LS and then years of big law and I am the one in god knows how many who becomes a big shot, my kid better get special treatment somewhere. Otherwise, what's the point?

The special treatment comes from you and your mountains of $$$ from practicing BigLaw, not from the rest of the country/world.

Utterly stupid post.

that's clearly what I said in an earlier post. money talks, as well it should. That's all I'm saying.

And America is absolutley a meritocracy. I dislike rich kids coasting by on daddys/mommys money as much as the next guy, but I appreciate it as a necessary evil.

Thanks for heart warming response

Sorry, i've got a few whiskeys in me. However, I think money talks enough in that you've gone to the best schools in HS and UG and probably have good connections for jobs. Do you really need a bump in GPA/LSAT for LS admissions? I mean, honestly, money talks, but it has to shutup sometime. Have we not learned anything from the current woes of the country?

[fathergoose]

So, can we agree that simply having family graduate from the same program should not be enough to get a substantial boost? It should require some significant contribtuion to reputation (supreme court justice) or endowment (the 3 FatherGoose full ride scholarships given annually)?

[SimplyC26]

No, it's an unearned advantage that contributes to racial disparities in higher education.

You are assuming that all legacies are white. This is not the case. Like several posters have said, if a private school benefits from a certain alum's name, accomplishments or financial generosity, that person's children should get a boost.

Not true at all. I'm just assessing this matter with the facts of this country in mind. Whites have received a huge head start in this country through slavery, genocide against native americans, and racial oppression for hundreds of years. That's not an assumption but a fact. Legacy is a way for those that received that head start to give their descendants a head start as well.

and why do you feel the children are entitled to a boost?. and please just give your opinion don't speak for "several posters". everyone is capable of speaking for themselves.

Given that we both have agreed that whites are not the sole beneficiaries of a legacy boost, why does your post continue to revolve around race? If anything the disparity is between the economically advantaged and disadvantaged.

Alums who give significant amounts of money should have their children receive a boost, because through their generosity, the university and the students attending, have benefited. I'm not saying a legacy boost should be given to a applicant who is grossly unqualified, but if they're application is competitive or even borderline (Ex:3.75 172 legacy= In at Harvard. 3.4 165 legacy= ding); I personally see nothing wrong with it.

[KibblesAndVick]

Donations fund the non-governmental financial aid for non-legacies. If you took away the benefit to donors of legacies, what impact might that have on other, more academically qualified, candidates?

The ends justify the means for you.... interesting

I mean, think about it this way. Let's say in a class of 180, there are 5 legacies of big time donors to scholarship funds that have no business being there. People are pissed because those 5 people had an unfair advantage, and thus we are having this discussion. If you don't let the 5 in, the scholarship money pool shrinks. Less students get less aid.

Would we be having this discussion if, instead of having to take 5 legacies, the school could shrink its class size to 175 to be able to maintain the same amount of scholly money?

Do you think it would make equal sense for top schools to auction off a small percentage of their spots? For example, Harvard could take maybe 10-15 spots and give them to the highest bidder. This would allow a large pool of rich people (anyone with lots of money rather than just alumni with lots of money) to subsidize the rest of the class. It would, obviously, also provide the select few with something they are unqualified for. But, do you think the ends would still justify the means?

[Kobe_Teeth]

Donations fund the non-governmental financial aid for non-legacies. If you took away the benefit to donors of legacies, what impact might that have on other, more academically qualified, candidates?

The ends justify the means for you.... interesting

I mean, think about it this way. Let's say in a class of 180, there are 5 legacies of big time donors to scholarship funds that have no business being there. People are pissed because those 5 people had an unfair advantage, and thus we are having this discussion. If you don't let the 5 in, the scholarship money pool shrinks. Less students get less aid.

Would we be having this discussion if, instead of having to take 5 legacies, the school could shrink its class size to 175 to be able to maintain the same amount of scholly money?

Interesting scenario but I think your premises are all wrong. I doubt most students who benefit from legacy's relatives have donated that much money. You're scenario has a lot of "ifs" and I think it'd be interesting to see if statistics support them.

What you're saying speaks to what I was saying earlier...a ton of years at BigLaw will net you TONS of cash and even the type of cash to donate in big numbers to your alma mater, however, unless you're making microsoft money, or warren buffett money, whats the incentive for Yale or Harvard (who already have enormous amounts of money and beautiful facilities) to risk their reputation on your dumbass undeserving kid (quite a few assumptions in the "dumbass undeserving part as well...but you get my point)?

There are enough people making BigLawPartner and donating that they probably don't need your kid with his 162 LSAT and $500,000 donation. They'll just raise tuition again.

[qualster]

Donations fund the non-governmental financial aid for non-legacies. If you took away the benefit to donors of legacies, what impact might that have on other, more academically qualified, candidates?

The ends justify the means for you.... interesting

I mean, think about it this way. Let's say in a class of 180, there are 5 legacies of big time donors to scholarship funds that have no business being there. People are pissed because those 5 people had an unfair advantage, and thus we are having this discussion. If you don't let the 5 in, the scholarship money pool shrinks. Less students get less aid.

Would we be having this discussion if, instead of having to take 5 legacies, the school could shrink its class size to 175 to be able to maintain the same amount of scholly money?

Do you think it would make equal sense for top schools to auction off a small percentage of their spots? For example, Harvard could take maybe 10-15 spots and give them to the highest bidder. This would allow a large pool of rich people (anyone with lots of money rather than just alumni with lots of money) to subsidize the rest of the class. It would, obviously, also provide the select few with something they are unqualified for. But, do you think the ends would still justify the means?

Another great question.

[hiromoto45]

So, can we agree that simply having family graduate from the same program should not be enough to get a substantial boost? It should require some significant contribtuion to reputation (supreme court justice) or endowment (the 3 FatherGoose full ride scholarships given annually)?

+1 There is a big difference between a $100,000 donor and a donor that finances a wing, dorm or new building at a university,

[fathergoose]

The financial crisis stems far more from quants from math and physics phd programs who created financial instruments that relied on the falacies of the efficient market hypothesis and of normally distributed returns than a trust fund baby.

Not to say that rich idiots weren't also complicit

[newyorker88]

Donations fund the non-governmental financial aid for non-legacies. If you took away the benefit to donors of legacies, what impact might that have on other, more academically qualified, candidates?

The ends justify the means for you.... interesting

I mean, think about it this way. Let's say in a class of 180, there are 5 legacies of big time donors to scholarship funds that have no business being there. People are pissed because those 5 people had an unfair advantage, and thus we are having this discussion. If you don't let the 5 in, the scholarship money pool shrinks. Less students get less aid.

Would we be having this discussion if, instead of having to take 5 legacies, the school could shrink its class size to 175 to be able to maintain the same amount of scholly money?

Do you think it would make equal sense for top schools to auction off a small percentage of their spots? For example, Harvard could take maybe 10-15 spots and give them to the highest bidder. This would allow a large pool of rich people (anyone with lots of money rather than just alumni with lots of money) to subsidize the rest of the class. It would, obviously, also provide the select few with something they are unqualified for. But, do you think the ends would still justify the means?

Good question. I'm interested to see how the 'ends justify the means" people respond.

[hiromoto45]

What you're saying speaks to what I was saying earlier...a ton of years at BigLaw will net you TONS of cash and even the type of cash to donate in big numbers to your alma mater, however, unless you're making microsoft money, or warren buffett money, whats the incentive for Yale or Harvard (who already have enormous amounts of money and beautiful facilities) to risk their reputation on your dumbass undeserving kid (quite a few assumptions in the "dumbass undeserving part as well...but you get my point)?

Have you seen what has happened to endowments lately? They might need the "underserving" kid's money.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/ ... rvard.html

[SimplyC26]

So, can we agree that simply having family graduate from the same program should not be enough to get a substantial boost? It should require some significant contribtuion to reputation (supreme court justice) or endowment (the 3 FatherGoose full ride scholarships given annually)?

In a way doesn't everyone receive a boost that could be perceived as being "unfair"? If this wasn't the case why wouldn't T14 schools just take the top 1,000 (300 in Yale and Stanford's case) gpa/lsat combos they receive and call it a day?

[Kobe_Teeth]

The financial crisis stems far more from quants from math and physics phd programs who created financial instruments that relied on the falacies of the efficient market hypothesis and of normally distributed returns than a trust fund baby.

Not to say that rich idiots weren't also complicit

Agreed. But we are definitely seeing each and everyday how people at the top are practically buying their way out of this recession as the rest of the country suffers. The math and physics guys are getting rich but the people who were smart enough to hire them are getting richer and, according to you, possibly sending their kid(s) to a LS they arent qualified for.

[KibblesAndVick]

The ends justify the means for you.... interesting

I mean, think about it this way. Let's say in a class of 180, there are 5 legacies of big time donors to scholarship funds that have no business being there. People are pissed because those 5 people had an unfair advantage, and thus we are having this discussion. If you don't let the 5 in, the scholarship money pool shrinks. Less students get less aid.

Would we be having this discussion if, instead of having to take 5 legacies, the school could shrink its class size to 175 to be able to maintain the same amount of scholly money?[/quote]

Do you think it would make equal sense for top schools to auction off a small percentage of their spots? For example, Harvard could take maybe 10-15 spots and give them to the highest bidder. This would allow a large pool of rich people (anyone with lots of money rather than just alumni with lots of money) to subsidize the rest of the class. It would, obviously, also provide the select few with something they are unqualified for. But, do you think the ends would still justify the means?[/quote]

Good question. I'm interested to see how the 'ends justify the means" people respond.[/quote]

When I first thought about the legacy question, my gut instinct was along the lines of "hell no". But the more I think about it, I think the net gain argument carries a lot of weight. But, legacies are probably a very inefficient way of getting the most bang for your corrupt buck . I'm in favor of a lot of stuff like this, like putting ads in textbooks so they don't cost so damn much. I think the auction would also be totally anonymous. This would mean that the students themselves aren't "outed". Also, the rich parents could brag about their kids without their rich friends calling them out. And, best of all, maybe we could reduce the soul crushing debt of law school.

[fathergoose]

The auction idea is interesting. Certainly too overt but I like the extension of the premise. Would you go to a top school if you knew that 10 lazy rich jerk offs covered half of your tuition?

[Kobe_Teeth]

What you're saying speaks to what I was saying earlier...a ton of years at BigLaw will net you TONS of cash and even the type of cash to donate in big numbers to your alma mater, however, unless you're making microsoft money, or warren buffett money, whats the incentive for Yale or Harvard (who already have enormous amounts of money and beautiful facilities) to risk their reputation on your dumbass undeserving kid (quite a few assumptions in the "dumbass undeserving part as well...but you get my point)?

Have you seen what has happened to endowments lately? They might need the "underserving" kid's money.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/ ... rvard.html

That popped in my head as I was hitting "send." I've read a similar article in the nytimes (which I might note...one of the highlights was that Harvard had to quit serving warm choc chip cookies to UG's at night...not kidding...my sympathy somewhat waned after that...but not entirely)

[KibblesAndVick]

The auction idea is interesting. Certainly too overt but I like the extension of the premise. Would you go to a top school if you knew that 10 lazy rich jerk offs covered half of your tuition?

They would, most likely, also subside your GPA by sucking at law school.

[Kobe_Teeth]

The auction idea is interesting. Certainly too overt but I like the extension of the premise. Would you go to a top school if you knew that 10 lazy rich jerk offs covered half of your tuition?

You got me there, yes, yes i would!

[SimplyC26]

The auction idea is interesting. Certainly too overt but I like the extension of the premise. Would you go to a top school if you knew that 10 lazy rich jerk offs covered half of your tuition?

In a word...absolutely. Secondly, how do you know they are lazy? Maybe they are competitive applicants who have the ability to "hedge their bet" if you will.

[logicman86]

No, it's an unearned advantage that contributes to racial disparities in higher education.

You are assuming that all legacies are white. This is not the case. Like several posters have said, if a private school benefits from a certain alum's name, accomplishments or financial generosity, that person's children should get a boost.

+1 I know a good number of minorities at my school (Ivy) that are legacies. I hope that my children benefit if they decide to attend my alma mater.

I think the number of legacy students is inconsequential to contribute significantly to racial disparities in higher education. That position is analogous to saying URM admissions or AA takes away seats from the majority.

No, but I understand why the schools do it.

When I graduate from law school and hopefully (with a lot of luck and a bit of sweet talking) become a successful attorney, I can afford to give X amount of money to charity. Why would I give it to the school over a charity that addresses issues more personal to me such as Cancer, Orphans, Haiti and all that good stuff unless the school has something to offer me in return.

My issue with this, and I don't want to offend anybody, but because schools have to have a certain number of slots for URM, the pool for majority applicants is limited to begin with. This itself creates no major issue. However, when you take a school like Harvard who gives X numbers of slots to legacy applicants it becomes very difficult for non-legacy non-URM students to get accepted, because as a consequence of decades of racism on admission counsels, the overwhelming majority of Harvard alumni a generation back were non-URM. Hopefully, this issue will cease to exist in a generation now that the applicant pool is more ethnically dispersed.

[hiromoto45]

What you're saying speaks to what I was saying earlier...a ton of years at BigLaw will net you TONS of cash and even the type of cash to donate in big numbers to your alma mater, however, unless you're making microsoft money, or warren buffett money, whats the incentive for Yale or Harvard (who already have enormous amounts of money and beautiful facilities) to risk their reputation on your dumbass undeserving kid (quite a few assumptions in the "dumbass undeserving part as well...but you get my point)?

Have you seen what has happened to endowments lately? They might need the "underserving" kid's money.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/ ... rvard.html

That popped in my head as I was hitting "send." I've read a similar article in the nytimes (which I might note...one of the highlights was that Harvard had to quit serving warm choc chip cookies to UG's at night...not kidding...my sympathy somewhat waned after that...but not entirely)

It's not just Harvard...many universities lost hundreds of millions of dollars last year. The article is really interesting and it explains how the endowment suffered from the antics that got the country into this recession.

[Kobe_Teeth]

No, it's an unearned advantage that contributes to racial disparities in higher education.

You are assuming that all legacies are white. This is not the case. Like several posters have said, if a private school benefits from a certain alum's name, accomplishments or financial generosity, that person's children should get a boost.

+1 I know a good number of minorities at my school (Ivy) that are legacies. I hope that my children benefit if they decide to attend my alma mater.

I think the number of legacy students is inconsequential to contribute significantly to racial disparities in higher education. That position is analogous to saying URM admissions or AA takes away seats from the majority.

No, but I understand why the schools do it.

When I graduate from law school and hopefully (with a lot of luck and a bit of sweet talking) become a successful attorney, I can afford to give X amount of money to charity. Why would I give it to the school over a charity that addresses issues more personal to me such as Cancer, Orphans, Haiti and all that good stuff unless the school has something to offer me in return.

My issue with this, and I don't want to offend anybody, but because schools have to have a certain number of slots for URM, the pool for majority applicants is limited to begin with. This itself creates no major issue. However, when you take a school like Harvard who gives X numbers of slots to legacy applicants it becomes very difficult for non-legacy non-URM students to get accepted, because as a consequence of decades of racism on admission counsels, the overwhelming majority of Harvard alumni a generation back were non-URM. Hopefully, this issue will cease to exist in a generation now that the applicant pool is more ethnically dispersed.

+1

[r6_philly]

Why can't your kid just work hard? Why should it be handed to him? I thought the US was supposed to be a meritocracy?

But meritocracy put minorities at a disadvantage.

[Kobe_Teeth]

The auction idea is interesting. Certainly too overt but I like the extension of the premise. Would you go to a top school if you knew that 10 lazy rich jerk offs covered half of your tuition?

In a word...absolutely. Secondly, how do you know they are lazy? Maybe they are competitive applicants who have the ability to "hedge their bet" if you will.

Maybe lazy was a poor choice of words, "undeserving" is what I think is being discussed. Someone who gets into UIUC w/no money but is accepted at UChicago because Mom/Dad donated $$$$.

[hiromoto45]

Why can't your kid just work hard? Why should it be handed to him? I thought the US was supposed to be a meritocracy?

But meritocracy put minorities at a disadvantage.

Working hard is just part of getting ahead in life.