[nemo44x]

I think you first have to ask yourself why does an institution like Harvard, or Yale, or any other elite institution exist? The formal answer of course is that they exist to give the best and brightest an opportunity to learn from the best and brightest. But this isn't why these types of institutions exist.

They exist to recycle/refresh and to create elites. Any society (and organization for that matter) will have a minority group of elites. A healthy society has a function that can recycle and select for elites. An unhealthy society does not do a good job of this and the elites are inbred and only legacy. This is the purpose of an institution like Harvard and why legacy admissions exist.

Now the "best and brightest" are connected with the "rich and connected" and new elites are born. Existing elites with kids that can't make it in with legacy are recycled into the general pool in time and new elites are made from the best of the general pool.

This is the social function Harvard serves. It's a good thing if the elites are being recycled frequently enough by moving weak elites into the general pool and with deserving candidates from the general pool replacing those weak elites.

[mcdonje]

Ok, and? Remove legacy admissions from that equation and you accelerate the part of the churn where weak elites go back into the general pool. The best and brightest get to rub shoulders with each other and the strong elites. Seems like by your argument, legacy admissions are not helping society.

[nemo44x]

I mean, they sort of do already. Not everyone gets in that is legacy. They also contribute to the endowment, etc. And it's sort of their (the elite establishment) place in the first place.

But I'm not making an opinion here (on if they should do this or just how much they should do), just explaining why Harvard exists. And it isn't just for the best and brightest to get together. It never has been and it never will be.

[TheCoelacanth]

I think you have that backwards. They exist to preserve privilege for legacy kids. They let in some of the best and brightest so that some of the prestige from their accomplishments rubs off on the legacies.

[nemo44x]

If only that then it’s a dysfunctional system. Ideally it’s a mechanism to recycle elites. Preserve elites that are of a certain quality, dispose of the low quality, and acquire new elites from the pool ensuring a high quality of elites that is not only tied to ancestry.

The cynical view is existing elites only steal from the best from the pool. I’m not sure empirical evidence supports this. The system probably over-selects existing elites. But it’s their system. I’d argue that AA was a tool to allow even more over-selection and preservation by consuming seats with unqualified and therefore uncompetitive quotas. Cultural cachet I guess and a moral justification for low quality elite preservation.