Poll: Should Legacies Be Given Special Consideration? Forum

[Oblomov]

Sure you can, but the general rule of thumb is that most of the leaders of the US have done some form of graduate school.

Not to derail this thread too much, but, assuming this is true, what if you were to adjust for UG institution? If you went to HYPS, you have far less need to get generic graduate degree than if you went to OSU and can get into UoC Law.

[Fark-o-vision]

Fixed. I hope we can be good friends. Have a wonderful day!

A partisan troll and a grammar nazi. I'm sure you are going to be a great asset to the board.

P.S. Grammar burns are the second lamest type of burns.

Are the first lamest (jeez, typing that was hard) burns those burns based on self-perceived elitism?

[j.wellington]

Perhaps I'm generalizing a little too much, but if you're even in a position to be considered a legacy admit at a law school, there's a good chance that your parent is a successful lawyer; you grew up wealthy; you lived in a nice neighborhood with a well-funded school district, or went to private school; you didn't have to worry about cost when choosing an undergrad; you could take a noble low-wage public service/volunteer job without going into poverty yourself; you could afford to take the best test prep courses; and you have a knowledgeable parent who could guide you through the admissions process. After all those advantages, if you can't put together a package to get into the school of your choice, you certainly don't deserve a boost from mere familial association.

[kswiss]

Perhaps I'm generalizing a little too much, but if you're even in a position to be considered a legacy admit at a law school, there's a good chance that your parent is a successful lawyer; you grew up wealthy; you lived in a nice neighborhood with a well-funded school district, or went to private school; you didn't have to worry about cost when choosing an undergrad; you could take a noble low-wage public service/volunteer job without going into poverty yourself; you could afford to take the best test prep courses; and you have a knowledgeable parent who could guide you through the admissions process. After all those advantages, if you can't put together a package to get into the school of your choice, you certainly don't deserve a boost from mere familial association.

Exactly. There is still probably a net gain by having them though. Its maybe 3 or 4 people in a class, but they might subsidize 10-20. I don't like the idea of it though, all it does is reify the power structure.

[tikiman6]

Hell and no, consideration should be merit alone. Churning out more successful lawyers who will later become successful is better than letting in retards that have rich Daddy's, and go on to be puppets. Letting in the smart people would end in a benefit for the school because 1) admissions stats would go up, making the school more prestigious (at least on USNews), and 2) these are going to be the more successful people later on, with more money to donate to their alma maters, unlike the legatees who will still be on an allowance from Daddy. Or they go on to be president, because apparently legacy works there too, but unfortunately ends in eight of the worst run years of the presidency and an approval rate in the ballpark of presidents who have been impeached.

[tikiman6]

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?

US is a democracy, based on popularity, the opposite of a meritocracy, based on individual merits.
Nazi Germany was run as if a meritocracy though,
you want that? how could you

You have brought in Nazism to make a point about legacy students, and have suggested that a meritocracy is sufficient for Nazism. You are done.

[HyeMart]

don't be so sensitive, there was no racism behind it

[qualster]

don't be so sensitive, there was no racism behind it

That was a specious argument at best, bro. Tikiman was right to call that out. I thought you were kidding. You were kidding, right?

[HyeMart]

don't be so quick to dismiss it brothers.

you want 'objective' standards for admissions. Remember the nazi racism was their science. can you think of any other government that ran it's self on supposed merits? busting you ass in hs, ug, don't necessary mean that you deserve to gain admittance over someone with a lower gpa. merit is subjective and at best a pseudo-science. you can't go around measuring people.

should legacies be given special consideration? yea why not, a university is like dog and they'll want to take care of whats familiar to them over the stranger.
even so, why not let your namesake enjoy some benefits , you most likely overpaid for it, least you can get some more return on it this way.

btw, urm are given special consideration to, so its not like it's keeping the less fortunate down and perpetuating a ruling class mentality.

[qualster]

don't be so quick to dismiss it brothers.

you want 'objective' standards for admissions. Remember the nazi racism was their science. can you think of any other government that ran it's self on supposed merits? busting you ass in hs, ug, don't necessary mean that you deserve to gain admittance over someone with a lower gpa. merit is subjective and at best a pseudo-science. you can't go around measuring people.

should legacies be given special consideration? yea why not, a university is like dog and they'll want to take care of whats familiar to them over the stranger.
even so, why not let your namesake enjoy some benefits , you most likely overpaid for it, least you can get some more return on it this way.

btw, urm are given special consideration to, so its not like it's keeping the less fortunate down and perpetuating a ruling class mentality.

Please explain further.

[keg411]

I'm a double legacy at a T2 law school and applicants with both LSAT/GPA numbers lower (And my GPA is so TTT it isn't funny) than mine have been admitted (and lower than my first LSAT). I've been admitted to higher ranked schools. And yet, I still have no decision. So, at least in my case, legacy = not much.

[tikiman6]

don't be so quick to dismiss it brothers.

you want 'objective' standards for admissions. Remember the nazi racism was their science. can you think of any other government that ran it's self on supposed merits? busting you ass in hs, ug, don't necessary mean that you deserve to gain admittance over someone with a lower gpa. merit is subjective and at best a pseudo-science. you can't go around measuring people.

should legacies be given special consideration? yea why not, a university is like dog and they'll want to take care of whats familiar to them over the stranger.
even so, why not let your namesake enjoy some benefits , you most likely overpaid for it, least you can get some more return on it this way.

btw, urm are given special consideration to, so its not like it's keeping the less fortunate down and perpetuating a ruling class mentality.

I hope you're kidding. But if you are not, the Chinese government, during (I believe) the Qin and Han dynasties had an imperial exam to get appointed to government positions, and this was considered by all purposes a meritocracy. That said, we are talking about schools, not governments. The point about namesakes is that you literally can't have overpaid for them. You didn't pay for them at all. You are assessed as having more merit for something totally out of your control...

[qualster]

I'm surprised by the results. I wouldn't have guessed that so many would be in favor of legacy admissions.

[englawyer]

i think our society is strongly "legacy based" in structure, and carrying that over to u-grad admissions is just a way of enforcing that. if you go to princeton undergrad, you are considered up-to-snuff class-wise and probably very suited for an elite job. if you go to CUNY, probably not. this is one of the key gatekeeping roles of elite undergrad schools, as we all know it is not the purely smartest that get in. it is also true in life that the purely smartest do not get the most opportunities at the best companies and whatnot.

the law field has for some reason been in opposition to this structure over time. in fact, that was one of the driving forces of the LSAT; the admissions committees wanted to separate out and admit the most promising academic candidates, whether they were from CUNY or Princeton. a roughly strict academic hierarchy can also be seen in law firm hiring as they hire primarily on class rank and connections/etc second. a poor kid that is top 25% at HLS will do better than a socialite attending Hofstra. the law field also has minimal "entry requirements" into law school that would serve to limit the potential applicant pool to those in the know (for example, the need to do a good hospital internship for med school, in addition to several years of intense science courses).

law is a quirky field in this way; most business fields are all about who you know not what you know. the class boundaries are quite evident if you look for them in a huge variety of fields from government to fashion.

bottom line: legacy admissions are to be expected based on the power structure evident in our nation. law seems to purposefully fight that structure due to a quirky set of ideals, while undergrads and some of the other graduate programs kind of go along with the program.

[tomhobbes]

I think legacy admission is okay to a degree, but I also think that sneering at legacy admits is okay.

[qualster]

bumping an old thread

[theLastZion]

What about yield rate? legacies more likely to attend argument make sense to anyone else? Strong ties to the area/school seem to matter to some places.

(full disclosure: I am a legacy at a T6 and was admitted with GPA<median and LSAT=median)

[thegrayman]

I think they should at a private school. I think of it as building goodwill, the alumni are more likely to donate money if they have some reason to believe that their children will have an easier time getting into the same school than they did. You always want your children to do better than you, so if you can get into an awesome private school and you know that if you scratch your schools back that they will scratch yours, I think that is a good incentive.