Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by leetcrew 1087 days ago
I think the argument is the opposite... they start with one or more orders of magnitude of qualified applicants in excess of capacity. and to meet DEI goals, only X% of those accepted can be white anyway. how they actually pick from the qualified applicant pool is fairly arbitrary to begin with. so as long as whatever on-campus KPIs they track for the legacy-admit population are the same, why does it really matter?

I was not personally a legacy admit to my college (so no skin in the game really), but fwiw I don't think it's an entirely illegitimate thing to select for. most schools have their own distinct culture and consider that an important thing to preserve. I imagine families that try to send their children to a specific school over multiple generations probably feel a stronger connection to that school than the typical graduate, so putting a thumb on the scale to help them seems like an approach that could work.

if anything, I'm more upset about how recruiting for college sports works.

1 comments

So these schools have goals to increase diversity but they want to preserve their culture? Those are competing goals. Eliminating legacy admissions would be a lasting increase in diversity.
I don't see those two as mutually exclusive, prima facie, unless you see "culture" as a euphemism for "perpetuating white supremacy". it certainly can be, but it can also be things like haverford's honor code, which only works when a critical mass of students find it meaningful. or it can be totally innocuous traditions like u chicago's annual scavenger hunt. elite schools can accept being each other's close competitors, but they can't accept being indistinguishable substitutes for their +/- 1 peers on the us news leaderboard.
Legacy admissions have a close to zero chance of increasing diversity. The entire point is that people who are just like former students get preference. By definition it's the opposite of a program to seek out those who have a different life experience than the status quo.
No, it won't. Plenty of legacy admits are "diverse" now. And with increase of standards from banning affirmative action, legacy status will be the best chance of many from "diverse" backgrounds.
Why are you putting diverse in quotes?

Do you have data supporting your claim that "plenty of legacy admits are diverse"? By definition the legacy admissions are very similar to previous attendees. You need to explain how that would increase diversity.

You brought up diversity, so what kind do you mean? Going forward, post affirmative action, just by test scores and gpa almost all students admitted at top schools will be asian or white. But there have been five decades where significant numbers from other races have attended these top schools and their kids and siblings can benefit from legacy admissions. (For example, this year ~15% of Harvard freshman were Black) Legacy admissions will absolutely increase this kind of diversity. If you get rid of it, it may further slightly benefit asians over whites, but I am not sure this increases "diversity".
Please answer my questions first.

Just test scores and GPA have never been the only factor and never will be. For example universities aren't looking for robots who are just good test takers. I'm surprised you're speaking on this subject but seemingly haven't done the homework and aren't aware of what existing practice is and what the ruling still allows.

Going forward almost nothing will change in outcomes. The ruling said universities are allowed to use a student's life experience of racism as a factor. Harvard already highlighted this in their public response to the ruling. That's not race but it is a very strong proxy for race isn't it?

Legacy admissions can only maintain the status quo so there will be no increase in diversity if legacy admissions continue. To increase current diversity levels you would have to put some effort into it. The status quo rarely changes organically when it comes to gaining or losing power.