Top Law Schools

I know almost nothing about this, but it was brought up in another thread.

Discuss.

At a public school? Absolutely not.

At a private school? Certainly.

If an a school has benefited considerably from a particular alumnae's reputation/success/donations, that alumnae's children should be given special consideration when they apply.

No, because I'm not a legacy.

Yes, legacies earned the right to receive special consideration. People whose parents can pay for their tuition should be given special consideration too.

I like the idea that a school can be an extension of one's family.

I had a friend in college whose parents were married by a faculty member (and official Reverend). She was like the fifteenth person from her dad's family and the fourth or fifth from her mom's family to go that school. And this is on the West Coast. Kinda cool imo.

But I agree that it is inappropriate in a public school setting.

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

ITT:"Fuck the proletariat."

newyorker88 wrote:No, it's an unearned advantage that contributes to racial disparities in higher education.

good point. Hadn't thought about it that way. I don't have any legacies anywhere but I still think if you graduated from a school, became a big shot, and donated a building, your kids should all get special consideration.

Yes it may give a few rich kids an opening they don't deserve but that injustice is small fries compared to the good that comes from donor money.

I think you could just as easily argue they deserve less consideration. If we give URMs more consideration because it is considered less likely they will get to law school couldn't a legacy be considered the inverse of this principle?

I don't necessarily feel that way, I'm just saying, legacies pretty much have no ground for "special" consideration.

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?

fathergoose wrote: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.

fathergoose wrote: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?

newyorker88 wrote: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.

betasteve wrote: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

Kobe_Teeth wrote:I think you could just as easily argue they deserve less consideration. If we give URMs more consideration because it is considered less likely they will get to law school couldn't a legacy be considered the inverse of this principle?

I don't necessarily feel that way, I'm just saying, legacies pretty much have no ground for "special" consideration.

Then non-URM, non-legacies get hurt. Some people act like every white person's parents went to Harvard.

Legacy preferences are wrong, but they'll stick around because of the $$$.

Kobe_Teeth wrote:

fathergoose wrote: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

SimplyC26 wrote:

newyorker88 wrote: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.

newyorker88 wrote:

fathergoose wrote: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

What you're discussing is capitalism gone awry. When too many people buy their way out of the meritocracy you get an aristocracy and then life starts to suck for everyone else. Merely practicing in BigLaw for 20+ years and making loads of cash I don't consider rare enough or lucrative enough to purchase your way out of the US' meritocracy. For this your last name may need to be Gates or Buffet, then and only then, do i consider giving you special consideration to my law school. And If I'm a top 20 LS, I have more respect for myself and admit based on normal criteria.

betasteve wrote:

newyorker88 wrote:

betasteve wrote: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?

+1

Dick Whitman wrote:

Kobe_Teeth wrote:I think you could just as easily argue they deserve less consideration. If we give URMs more consideration because it is considered less likely they will get to law school couldn't a legacy be considered the inverse of this principle?

I don't necessarily feel that way, I'm just saying, legacies pretty much have no ground for "special" consideration.

Then non-URM, non-legacies get hurt. Some people act like every white person's parents went to Harvard.

Legacy preferences are wrong, but they'll stick around because of the $$$.

How do you figure if legacies get less consideration then non-urm / non-legacies get hurt?

betasteve wrote:

newyorker88 wrote:

betasteve wrote: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?

I'm with Beta.

SimplyC26 wrote:

newyorker88 wrote: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.

Good thread. Interesting question.

hiromoto45 wrote:
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.

[/quote]

I think a professional school is different than an undergraduate school though on many different levels.

fathergoose wrote:Good thread. Interesting question.

Well, I kind of see all sides. Prior to starting the thread, my views were more in line with those of Kobe Teeth and Dick Whitman. I still agree with these guys. Legacy admissions just seem to be unfair, without considering anything else.

However, Beta Steve raises an interesting point. Should the effects of the money contributed be enough enough to warrant a boost? I don't know.