Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

there's something i really don't understand about legacies. Why would a school show preference to sons/daughters of their graduates? IT IS SO WRONG!
i am against AA, and i can see that its a BIG issue, but i think legacies are even more unfair and totally unreasonable - how come not many people make an issue out of this?
also, in addition to being wrong, it is illogical. for example, i can understand why colleges would accept or show preference towards people who donate large sums of money or children of famous people, even though it may not be fair. the money helps their school, and it looks nice if u have some famous person's kids attending. but LEGACIES? i have heard SO MANY stories about people who barely have 1400 SATs, no ECs, TOTAL slackers getting in to Stanford and other ivies just because their dads went there. why would the ivies want these people? they don't get any money or recognition for accepting them.

Also, in a way, legacies are hindering the spread of education. maybe not directly, but think about it. most people who went to colleges in the 1800s were probably caucasian males...so except for in cases of interracial marriage, etc, their sons and daughters are probably caucasian. and these sons and daughters get an advantage, so its easier for them to get in. and the same for THEIR sons and daughters. and the children after that and after that and after that. see my point? so its easier for a certain family line to stay in college, and thus harder for children who are the first to attend college out of their family or children of immigrants to get into colleges, because they have no legacies.

how come no one else sees this? well not NO ONE, but how come they still say its legal, and there are no large movements against it? am i missing something here?

By Pipepr (Pipepr) on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 08:57 pm: Edit

It's easier to attack sardines than sharks.

By Zerostylus (Zerostylus) on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 11:58 pm: Edit

legacies are hardly determining factor. i think you've got it all out of proportion. stanford and ivies just because of legacy? doubt it.

at upenn, you have to do ED for legacy to even matter. and only then, they will take you over an exactly similar candidate.

its like a club mmkay? if i taught a kid twenty years ago, id take that student's kid if he did well too. why not stick with a good thing.

By Pisces (Pisces) on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 12:16 am: Edit

The reason for legacies is mainly the money. I guess that if a random person were donating thousands or millions to Stanford, for example, then they would take that kid, but people usually donate their money (if they're lucky enough to have plenty of it) to their alma mater. If there werent legacies (and their money), then tuition would be sky high (even more than it already is) and everyone who needs financial aid (myself included, and more than likley, AA people) would be out of luck. The major difference, imo, between legacy and AA is that AA is completely unconstitional. you cannot discriminate based on skin color, but no one ever said you cant do it based on where your dad went to school. btw, i am not a legacy anywhere.

By Erin (Erin) on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 11:01 am: Edit

Almostdone- I agree, but I don't think there's a whole lot that can be done about it.

Also it seems like a college should want someone more self-educated who pulled themselves up, rather than some rich kid who always gets what they want and can afford to go to some prep school.

By L_Wonder (L_Wonder) on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 11:25 am: Edit

Ok so, rich legacies are ok because they give money that the schools need to keep tuition and fees down? If 40 percent of a class is admitted during ED, doesn't that just benefit more legacies rich people who don't need to worry about the money or aid? You have the majority of the applicants, who are most likely the poor ones, fighting over very few spots during RD. It just isn't fair that people who apply early decision have such a greater chance at admission than everyone else.
Minorities are maybe 5 percent of the class (regardless of what you assume about their qualifications), but ED (probably the richest applicants) is 40 percent!!! The admissions people even admit that ED people and legacies typically contain the 'bottom' of the admitted class! Are you ok with that?

By Pisces (Pisces) on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 12:13 pm: Edit

Actually, you dont have to be rich to apply ED if its an excellent school that guarantees to meet 100% of your financial aid (well, theoretically) But seriously ask yourself if you would be able to go to college without the donations that legacies give that make up your financial aid. The answer is probably no.
Yes, legacy is unethical and well, unfair. But it's necessary if you want to have the well-endowed schools and the excellent educational quality that so many of these schools are known for.

By Uncchlocalmayor (Uncchlocalmayor) on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 02:51 pm: Edit

legacies are good and so is affirmative action. have a nice day!

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Sunday, June 01, 2003 - 04:05 pm: Edit

Legacies, in some schools, are obnoxious - for example, Harvard. Many students only need decent grades and SATs to be admitted, and legacies make up a large proportion of the class. Otherwise, it is only a few very exceptional cases which really make a difference, as in when a professor, dean, or trustee has a kid who is applying. Ivy League schools have only about 20k out of a few million college students: their admissions practices (while unfair), do not greatly reflect nor influence the large population of students. Furthermore, the non-Ivies with the few exceptional cases make up about a hundreth of one percent of applicants.

L Wonder: As a legacy admission, I can tell you that I graudated in the top 1/2 of my major (chemical engineering), and my scores, class rank, and extracurriculars were in the top of the admitted class. I certainly did not displace a more qualified candidate. Where did you hear that ED and legacies (still not getting the connection there) contain the "bottom" of the admitted class? ED acceptances may not have as high scores, but admissions committees realize that those students a)will have to attend the school, thereby increasing yield and b) the students love the school, which may increase the amount of loyal alum.

Almostdone: Many schools take into account that someone is a first-generation American, college applicant, etc. As more minorities go to college, in a generation, their children will be legacies.

The full cost of tuition at a school is approximately half of the actual cost of your education. Without endowments and alumni donations, tuition would be about $50k/year, and financial aid would be minimal. That is certainly out of the reach of almost any applicant.

The purpose of legacy admission is often to create loyalty to the school. Futhermore, in the few exceptional cases of dean/trustee (etc) legacy admissions, connections between students and the administration are increased. As much as colleges may try to foster these relations, they are sparse and limited. My grandfather was thrilled to meet my friends during family gatherings, and he certainly wants to know what we like, don't like, and want to see changed. It is wonderful to know that the higher levels of administration have a direct link to the students. Also, it has been good to fully understand the administration's point on certain issues, such as a lack of housing. Most of the "information" in campus publications is limited and not entirely correct in regards to these issues; the student body certainly benefits from understanding why the administration has certain policies or problems. Finally, this legacy admission has been happy to donate to her school, as well as apply to become an alumni interviewer. The price of this for my alma mater: admitting a kid with 1550 SATs. Calm down about the legacy issues!

By Covalentbond007 (Covalentbond007) on Sunday, June 01, 2003 - 09:03 pm: Edit

Do you know how much lower tuition would be if schools sold alcohol in every dorm?

No matter how much you try justify the bribery known as legacies, it is still ill-begotten gains.
Unfortunately, we have assumed academia was above base corrupt instincts. They are not. They need a good swift kick in the ass…and governmental oversight similar to the SEC.

By Gianscolere (Gianscolere) on Monday, June 02, 2003 - 02:33 pm: Edit

Maybe if a child is a legacy, they are more likely to choose to attend their parents' alma mater if accepted, resulting into a higher yield rate for the school? Just a thought.

I have a question. One of my grandpas on my father's side (not the direct grandpa) graduated from Harvard. Am I considered a legacy?

By Drusba (Drusba) on Monday, June 02, 2003 - 03:50 pm: Edit

You would not be considered a legacy unless (a) he contributes a lot of money and (b) writes a letter asking that you be admitted.

Legacy is simply a matter of perspective. If you got it, you love it; if you don't, it is unfair. Those who speak out against legacy do so based on the assumption that college admission is supposed to be a democratic process where all applicants are considered based on the same criteria and those chosen should be the best students based on the criteria used. Particularly for upper crust private schools, that has never been true. They excercise their right to take whom they please, and the ones who are the offspring of those who contribute many dollars please them very much.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Monday, June 02, 2003 - 05:54 pm: Edit

Let me reiterate: all schools depend on their endowments and donations to survive. The cost of tuition would double without those donations. I don't see how this is ill-begotten gains... because often, the money would be donated regardless. Government oversight would only favour the wealthier schools, such as Harvard; smaller schools in a worse finanical situation wouldn't be able to pay fees for oversight. As much as you may want the ideal ivory tower, it cannot exist outside of economic reality. Take an econ course in college, for all of you complaining bitterly. Remaining financially solvent is not a 'base, corrupt instinct.' It is easy to look at endowments and believe that it is a lot of money; however, if Harvard stopped charging tuition and accepting research grants, it would be through its $20 billion in about ten years. Considering that most schools have endowments below a billion, it is easy to see why a) they must charge so much tuition and b) they need to cultivate the support of alumni. University officials do not make money off alumni donations; an admissions committee member who accepts a legacy does not go home with fewer bills or a larger paycheck.

Universities, like churches, are among the many instituions which are exempt from taxes and government oversight, which is often what makes them powerful and able to resist temporal political pressure. The SJC is another institution which *could* benefit from oversight, but that oversight would probably destroy it.

By Almostdone (Almostdone) on Monday, June 02, 2003 - 09:55 pm: Edit

thanx to those who are replying...i know about the MONEY part...i don't really have a problem with THAT, since, although at a glance it seems unfair, it DOES lower the tuition and makes the school better, etc.
but not all legacies give their alma mater a lot of money...and that's just the part i have a problem with...letting a kid in just cuz his dad/mom went to that school (i know thats an oversimplified way of putting it..don't bother to tell me thats not how it works etc...I KNOW)
but i guess Ariesathena's explanation of creating loyalty explains it a little. sort of. not really tho. i still can't believe they allow it.

By Serene (Serene) on Monday, June 02, 2003 - 10:39 pm: Edit

Almostdone, well... admission officers are human and you can't expect them to be perfect without any biased opinions. We're all like that. Imagine you're interviewing two equal candidates for some job and one of them went to the same school as you (or.. maybe is the fan for the same basketball team, like the same author, whatever), wouldn't you favor that candidate? Same idea.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 - 11:00 am: Edit

Some of it really is ridiculous, but think of it this way: college admissions is a lot of luck. Schools are often choosing between thousands of equal candidates - and a legacy might make one stand out. However, with a few schools, that doesn't happen - i.e. less qualified students get in, which can be a bit absurd.