Poll: Should Legacies Be Given Special Consideration? Forum

[fathergoose]

Logicman I think you are right on but schools can't run without money. Private schools for the most part get money from two places: tution and donations. Tuition is hard to change without pissing off a ton of people so the only other way to significantly increase the amount of money coming in is through donations.

Rich people donate money but they want something for it (building named after them, award at half time of the football game, preferential admissions treatment for their children)

If 2 or 3 underservings slip in so my tuition isnt 60k per year, I'm just going to get over it.

[Kobe_Teeth]

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.

Let's just go ahead and count URM's out of this discussion. We all know and accept why they get special consideration.

(Also, re-read that post in response to the other post...it sounds kinda bad)

[r6_philly]

If mom and dad donated money, therefore contributing to the educational opportunities enjoyed by other deserving candidates, wouldn't it make sense to reward the mom and dad? If legacy is not important at all would the school stand to lose financial support from moms and dads?

The trickle down effect is that less financially disadvantaged, but academically deserving candidates will be able to attend due to less scholarship funds. Schools will be populated more by kids whose parents can afford to pay sticker, in the end the most qualified candidates who are poor are ones who lose out.

[Kobe_Teeth]

If mom and dad donated money, therefore contributing to the educational opportunities enjoyed by other deserving candidates, wouldn't it make sense to reward the mom and dad? If legacy is not important at all would the school stand to lose financial support from moms and dads?

The trickle down effect is that less financially disadvantaged, but academically deserving candidates will be able to attend due to less scholarship funds. Schools will be populated more by kids whose parents can afford to pay sticker, in the end the most qualified candidates who are poor are ones who lose out.

+100

[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.

Working hard is just part of getting ahead in life.

Working hard has nothing to do with meritocracy. I am referring to the lack of a fair metric to gauge merit.

[Kobe_Teeth]

Meritocracy doesn't put minorities at disadvantage. Decades of inequality puts minorities at a disadvantage.

Subtle but significant.

[qualster]

Wasn't GW Bush a legacy admit at Yale?

His degree from Yale was the beginning of a great resume. Thank goodness for the legacy boost. Sorry, I shouldn't have turned this thread even slightly political.

[ArmyVet07]

Someone has to be in the bottom 10%.

[Kobe_Teeth]

Wasn't GW Bush a legacy admit at Yale?

His degree from Yale was the foundation of a good resume. Thank goodness for the legacy boost. Sorry, I shouldn't have turned this thread even slightly political.

Yea but he got legacy rejected from the LS. Like I said earlier, legacy admit to UG and professional school are "distinguishable" in my book.

Actually he got rejected from UTexas....my bad.

[fathergoose]

Someone has to be in the bottom 10%.

Haha as long as it is someone other than me.

[r6_philly]

also legacies != auto admits. They have to be somewhat apt. They also may not always want to go to their parents' insitutions. A lot of ifs yes, but what is not an if is the 15+ years of giving back in hope to enjoy legacy status.

And as I am going to graduate from an ivy, I am expecting my kids to be going to an ivy maybe when you all have kids you will have a different perspective.

[r6_philly]

Meritocracy doesn't put minorities at disadvantage. Decades of inequality puts minorities at a disadvantage.

Subtle but significant.

but meritofcracy doesn't care about the instituionalized inequality, it cares about equal/fair measurement of merit which is an abstract concept.

add: so minorities will be at a disadvantage when measured due to the unequal starting point.

[Kobe_Teeth]

Adjusted meritocracy?

US is a meritocracy. It is adjusted for URMs.

Either way I gotta go to bed. Peace.

[logicman86]

Logicman I think you are right on but schools can't run without money. Private schools for the most part get money from two places: tution and donations. Tuition is hard to change without pissing off a ton of people so the only other way to significantly increase the amount of money coming in is through donations.

Rich people donate money but they want something for it (building named after them, award at half time of the football game, preferential admissions treatment for their children)

If 2 or 3 underservings slip in so my tuition isnt 60k per year, I'm just going to get over it.

Or the schools can be better run financially. My undergrad's non-scholarship tuition was 40k. why? where'd the money go? our professors weren't paid that well (i know, because i became close with a few of them and they talked numbers... not saying this is true for all of them, but they are not exactly buying homes in westchester), and the facility's weren't fantastic. Why is every law school around 40k or more? This the schools need money talk irks me, because unless 70% of their students have a full ride and the dean is not a cocaine addict, it makes no sense why money should govern intellectual policy.

Maybe after law school, we can start a law school together that will be based admission solely on academic performance. It'd also be cool to have a division 1 basketball team. After all, a 24 year old's body is going to be a lot stronger and tougher than an 18 year old's... just basic genetics. We can pitch it well to basketball players... you'll miss 3 years of the NBA, but you can be a lawyer after you retire from the league.

I am wondering what the odds are of our establishment placing higher than University of Puerto Rico Law.

[fathergoose]

Odds are slim but count me in

[fathergoose]

I would also like to be starting power forward at our ficticious law school as my father was the starting power forward when he attended

[ppa840]

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?

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?

+1

[Fark-o-vision]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Or something like that. Whoever argues America is a meritocracy is, well, misinformed. That might be nicest way of saying it. In fact, capitalism, as a principal, directly opposes such a standard. The idea at the core of capitalism is accumulation of capital. Not ability, merit, need, or any other system of identification. Simply the accumulation of capital. It's where so many hard science kids get the game wrong. They assume that because they have the most valuable skills, they'll be the ones rewarded. Absolutely prohibited, prols.

[KibblesAndVick]

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?

I'm having trouble answering this one. A couple things that I am wondering/pondering:
1) Would "selling" off seats impact prestige and ranking, and if so to what extent?
I think it would have a large negative effect. It would probably be front page news (especially if a school like Harvard did it). It would also provide a lot of fodder for rival schools. Just think of the field day the Yale kids would have if Harvard started doing this haha.

2) If the 10-15 spots absolutely subsidized the remaining class, I am certain the class as a whole would have no problem with this.
Agreed. Unless you ended up in the bottom of your class. The students with the lowest grades would most likely be associated with the auctions. This could be a serious stigma, even if you got accepted based on your own accomplishments.

3) Is there something ethically or morally distinguishable between a donor giving money to the school, getting a collateral benefit and opening up seats to the highest bidder (note that I would consider a donor that had previously never donated but donated along side his child's application to be consistent with the latter, and not former, scenario).
This is what I was trying to get at with the example. IMO, they are comparable morally. In both situations the applicants get an unfair advantage in admissions. The similarity being that the ends justify the means. The real advantage to auctioning off the spots is that the return would be much greater.

4) Are legacies let in completely regardless of their numbers, or are they fringe candidates or just outside the normal admit range? Is the same scenario true for those buying the seats at auction?

I hadn't considered this. The value of the auctioned seats would be greatly greatly reduced if it only provided a modest boost (they would already be set up for acceptance to other great schools and it would limit the number of people interested in bidding). I think this point has a lot of potential to undermine my hypothetical.

[Thomas Jefferson]

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.

True, but they would also diminish the value of your degree somewhat, no? (Presumably, since they weren't qualified, finished at the bottom of the class, etc. they also wouldn't do much beyond law school and would thereby hurt the reputation of the school because they would be associated with it.) So, it just comes down to a cost/benefit of if the legacies/buyers cause more harm than good, as suggested or implied by many related comments ITT.

Edit: to give credit to betasteve for making more or less this point as part of another before I could.

[newyorker88]

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

You're assuming the kid or his relative has money.

[newyorker88]

Meritocracy doesn't put minorities at disadvantage. Decades of inequality puts minorities at a disadvantage.

Subtle but significant.

+1

[Grizz]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Or something like that. Whoever argues America is a meritocracy is, well, misinformed. That might be nicest way of saying it. In fact, capitalism, as a principal, directly opposes such a standard. The idea at the core of capitalism is accumulation of capital. Not ability, merit, need, or any other system of identification. Simply the accumulation of capital. It's where so many hard science kids get the game wrong. They assume that because they have the most valuable skills, they'll be the ones rewarded. Absolutely prohibited, prols.

I found a picture of Fark-o-vision. He's throwing a rock on the far right.

[Fark-o-vision]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Or something like that. Whoever argues America is a meritocracy is, well, misinformed. That might be nicest way of saying it. In fact, capitalism, as a principal, directly opposes such a standard. The idea at the core of capitalism is accumulation of capital. Not ability, merit, need, or any other system of identification. Simply the accumulation of capital. It's where so many hard science kids get the game wrong. They assume that because they have the most valuable skills, they'll be the ones rewarded. Absolutely prohibited, prols.

I found a picture of Fark-o-vision. He's throwing a rock on the far right.

Awesome, honestly. Though I'm arguing the opposite somewhat. My great-grandfather was a Huguenot and we've spent generations building our American cache. I'm simply suggesting that those who view capitalism as meritocracy are ignorant of the historical fact. Consider this: We are endeared to those who overcome massive disadvantage not because they define the narrative we live in, but because they defy it. Steve Jobs or Bill Gates aren't interesting because that's the kind of social mobility we expect, but because it's so rare. Capitalism is the acumulation of capital. I don't have a fundamental problem with that. My grandfather worked from the time he was ten. His children didn't work until they were in college. My father could send me to a relatively inexpensive state school. I'll send my son to Stanford.

[qualster]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Or something like that. Whoever argues America is a meritocracy is, well, misinformed. That might be nicest way of saying it. In fact, capitalism, as a principal, directly opposes such a standard. The idea at the core of capitalism is accumulation of capital. Not ability, merit, need, or any other system of identification. Simply the accumulation of capital. It's where so many hard science kids get the game wrong. They assume that because they have the most valuable skills, they'll be the ones rewarded. Absolutely prohibited, prols.

I found a picture of Fark-o-vision. He's throwing a rock on the far right.

Awesome, honestly. Though I'm arguing the opposite somewhat. My great-grandfather was a Huguenot and we've spent generations building our American cache. I'm simply suggesting that those who view capitalism as meritocracy are ignorant of the historical fact. Consider this: We are endeared to those who overcome massive disadvantage not because they define the narrative we live in, but because they defy it. Steve Jobs or Bill Gates aren't interesting because that's the kind of social mobility we expect, but because it's so rare. Capitalism is the acumulation of capital. I don't have a fundamental problem with that. My grandfather worked from the time he was ten. His children didn't work until they were in college. My father could send me to a relatively inexpensive state school. I'll send my son to Stanford.

Where will your son send his son?