[LeftHandPath]

This is a flawed idea. It presumes, in the abstract and conclusion, that changing admissions preferences to artificially increase diversity would result in a more diverse group of leaders in the country, because elite colleges tend to produce leaders and high-income earners.

Fundamentally altering the admissions process will also fundamentally alter the institution and what graduates of it look like. If we alter selection for Navy SEALs -- because SEAL school graduates are known to be athletic, motivated, and team-oriented, and we want more people like that -- I have a feeling that we'd simply destroy the image of the SEALs rather than increasing the number of people with those personality traits.

Back to my point: It always starts with the notion of focusing on merit, but devolves into checkboxes and quotas and arbitrary preferences, because those are easier to measure than actual merit. The end result is an institution that still fails to reward merit, and no longer creates the generous benefits it did at the start of the exercise. It also creates a group of bitter, resentful people who feel wronged by the changes that will significantly reduce any prior public goodwill towards the institution.

To be even more explicit, a lot of the reason that these colleges are so strongly correlated with high incomes and high achievement is that they allow attendees to network with people whose parents and family members have already reached the upper echelon. Refactoring admissions to replace that will shred that benefit altogether. Colleges are not a totally isolated system; the value of a degree does not derive solely from the lectures the individual receives there, nor perhaps from the name-prestige of the university, but largely from the networking people are able to do there and the companies that visit and recruit from the school because of that network.

[derbOac]

The problem for me, speaking from personal experience with a spouse, significant others, friends, colleagues, my own degrees, reading job posts here on HN, is that it is the case that there are those who filter on elite schools before even considering any actual qualifications otherwise. It happens too often. After seeing this repeatedly, I personally do not believe that the selection effects associated with these institutions, controlling for other factors, is mostly due to markers of attributes like "motivation and team orientation" or even intelligence or skill, at least relative to other institutions. My sense of reading about other things like Navy Seals is similar — that some of the selection criteria are performative and of very little real-world utility, or might even be detrimental to the functioning of the institution or its aims.

This isn't to say that there aren't exceedingly competent people going into these elite institutions, only that my personal experience is such that the "magic sauce" beyond all the life history, accomplishments, test scores, grades, and so forth, is often bias or distributed gatekeeping.

Looked at differently, let's say you have an institution that aims to be elite, but the information provided by your selection criteria hits a wall, and the number of actually qualified individuals by prediction exceeds your capacity. In that case you have to either (a) basically do a lottery, which is honest but weakens the rationale for your institution over others, or (b) create criteria that are essentially useless but have a false veneer of rigor.

I'm not sure I think diversity quotas and so forth are the way to go either, but I also believe we need to stop pretending that these selection criteria are perfect or even near perfect, and that there's no bias either. I feel as if these discussions always proceed the same, that questionable or even objectively harmful (to the institution) criteria are pointed out, and then there's some outcry that lowering them will decrease standards, even as alternatives are never tested.

[downut]

Now fit legacies into this theory.

The wikipedia page on Legacy Preferences is illuminating. Note the Larry Summers quote:

Former Harvard University president Lawrence Summers has stated, "Legacy admissions are integral to the kind of community that any private educational institution is."

[credit_guy]

Just about a month ago I realized for the first time that legacy admissions result, in many cases, in better candidates rather than worse. Not always. But here's an example (from real life, without names obviously): highly qualified student, with lots of national level achievements, Cornell legacy. Applied in the early admission period to Cornell, got in. But the student had a reasonably high chance for Princeton or Yale, let's say. However, the legacy system incentivized him to apply to Cornell, even if his level was slightly higher. Why? Because if he didn't apply in the early period to Cornell, hoping for Princeton or Yale, and didn't get in, then Cornell would not have given him any preference in regular admissions. So he had to choose between nearly 100% admission at Cornell in the early round, vs 10% chance at Princeton, and then a non-negligible chance to not get into Cornell in regular.

My point: legacies are not always dumber than non-legacies. Sometimes they are stronger, and the legacy system incentivizes them to stick to the school where they are legacy.

[only-one1701]

Which kind of student do you think would be more likely to realize that a single data point is of no consequence: legacy or non-legacy?

[credit_guy]

Nice roast there, but was it really necessary?

[only-one1701]

I think it’s a pithy counter to the point you were trying to make.

[credit_guy]

Sure. It also sounds like you liked the pithy answer opportunity more than you than you care about the substance of what I was saying. Which is a shame, the dialogue on Hacker News is generally better than that.

[onetimeusename]

Let's say two people are applying to Harvard and it's the year 2019 (I think they stopped legacy admissions recently). They both have a 1550 and 4.3 GPA. Both went to good high schools. Both helped underprivileged youths learn to code. However one of them has two alumni parents who are both well known, Pulitzer Prize winning journalists in DC that helped expose the corruption of the much hated X politician during the Y scandal, they are White House Correspondents and they are regularly featured on the news. The other student has parents who are not alumni. Harvard has to pick between these two students. Which one do you think Harvard picks?

Note that you cannot argue the legacy student actually has a lower SAT score because Harvard admitted legacy students had higher than avg. SAT scores and because the study controlled for SAT score.

Believe it or not, this is the kind of profile a lot of legacy admits would have.

[downut]

"Which one do you think Harvard picks?"

Do you not understand what the point of legacy preference admissions is? I will supply it here: Legacies take the place of the higher performing non-legacy candidate, not the equivalent one. Is this difficult to understand? Why?

[onetimeusename]

I don't think that's the point of legacy admissions. I think it's purpose is exactly what the grandparent said which is to cultivate a network of people.

The problem with saying legacy preference is to take the place of higher performing non-legacy candidates is that legacy admits generally perform above average at least at Harvard although it's probably true elsewhere. See here[1]: The average SAT score among legacy students was 1543, while it was 1515 for non-legacy students.

So it could still be for replacing higher performing non-legacies meaning Harvard targeted and rejected a bunch of people with even higher SAT scores than the legacies but I don't find that very convincing.

[1] (https://features.thecrimson.com/2023/freshman-survey/academi...)

[toasterlovin]

Legacy admissions actually make a lot of sense if you think that genetics affect the outcomes you care about but also that the relationship between genetics and outcomes is stochastic and messy (which it is, as breeders in the 1800s knew even before the mechanism was understood).

[dragonwriter]

Well, no, if you think that legacy admissions are unnecessary (because, to the extent genetics have an effect on the outcomes you care about, they'll show up in more direct measurements), and counterproductive (because they presume a simple relationship rather than a stochastic and messy one.)

OTOH, legacy admissions make a lot of sense if the outcome you care about is serving an elite class defined rather simply by familial lineages.

[toasterlovin]

If you think genetics matter for success (or whatever you want to call it), test scores are a proxy, but a successful parent is a direct measurement of the trait.

[dragonwriter]

No, if "the relationship between genetics and outcomes is stochastic and messy" then having a successful parent is a proxy measure, too.

[only-one1701]

This assumes, among other dubious stuff, that the initial admission of the ur-student was merit based.

[toasterlovin]

I’m assuming legacy admissions apply mostly to children of notable alumni.

[SilverElfin]

I see the value of companies visiting and recruiting from certain schools. But is the other networking you’re talking about valuable or even real? I feel like most students aren’t networking. Making friends, yes. But I haven’t seen a focus on networking in that professional sense. Is it prevalent in Ivy League schools or something?

[LeftHandPath]

"Networking" makes it sound more active than it really is. It's just who they are meeting over those four years. The friends they make, the professors they meet and perhaps work with, the guest lecturers they're able to talk to, the parents of friends that they meet on the holidays who make calls to help land internships. The companies that show up to the career fair.

Over four years, there's a big difference in your future prospects if you were meeting people with ties to Google, Berkshire, Goldman Sachs, Amazon, Meta, et al., vs meeting people from Garmin (<$100k/year for fresh CS grads, when I graduated) and small local midwestern companies. Even if you don't get direct referrals to those big-name places, you're talking to people who know what a resume that can get in there looks like, rather than having to blindly follow whatever advice you can find online.

Harvard has a page about it: https://careerservices.fas.harvard.edu/blog/2025/04/04/how-t...

[godelski]

There's a saying I like. "The harder I work, the luckier I get." I interpret it as working hard allows you to take advantage of more opportunities. The opportunities are luck based, but your ability to capitalize on them are not.

So I'm saying I agree with your point. A lot of networking is opportunities. The elite universities' edge isn't in making people better, it is in presenting more opportunities. They say meritocracy but the service they provide is connecting rich kids with smart kids. If the opportunities are coming through the rich kids then they can't get rid of legacy admissions. At least not as long as we live in a society where you need things like investments to fund ideas or where money is an opportunity vehicle. Personally, I just don't like that we play this game of calling one thing another.

[LeftHandPath]

Agreed.

[busyant]

I got my BS from a "so-so" state university.

And my MS & PhD from a HYPS institution.

The different between alumni mailing lists of my two universities was eye opening.

A typical state school message is something like, "Hey everyone. I'm regional sales manager for WB Mason. Hit me up if you need a deal on bulk stationery."

In contrast, the HYPS alumni mailing list has message like:

* My hedge fund in Greenwich has openings for two quants ...

* I'm trying to get an interview with the CEO of Ford. Anyone have any connections?

* The Argentine government is soliciting bids to add a highway from <a> to <b> ... Winning bid is expected to be in the $$$$$$ range. Please contact me at <abc> if you need additional details on the bidding process.

* My team at Google is looking to hire <blah blah blah>

[SilverElfin]

Wow people do things like seek bids on alumni lists?

[RugnirViking]

first off; it seems to have worked in Britain. Have you seen the pool of leaders and politicians there compared to the US? Still dominated by the same elite schools, but much more diverse (ofc the diversity is literally skin deep but for the pure purposes of achieving this it does work)

secondly, have you ever heard of the Pygmalion effect? people aren't static. If you introduce somebody to a high performing environment and tell them they're meant to be there, many of them will rise to the challenge. Of course, there is room for natural aptitude -- but nobody is proposing the schools take entirely random people. They'd still be selecting the best of the cohort. People who were able to succeed dramatically enough to be noticed, just in different environments. Similarly, in your navy SEAL example, a lot is made out of the fact that soldiers like that aren't naturally born, they're made (through training, through the culture they have developed, the standards and professionalism they hold themselves to) Again, you'll want people with certain traits in the first place (low propensity for stress, high intelligence, high fitness, leadership), but to presume the current selection is perfectly meritocratic would be foolish, and its not like people are even suggesting that we don't try to select for such things, only to try and add another consideration to the mix.

[TheOtherHobbes]

The UK isn't a great example, because most MPs - especially in this parliament - are basically filler, with little or no real agency. They were parachuted into constituencies by the Party HQ, with no local connections, often against the wishes of the local members.

It's a nice job, but you have to toe the party line to get it.

There are still exceptions, but the days when the core of the Parliamentary Labour Party was made of people from all backgrounds are long gone.

The UK is actually run by a handful of industries - especially finance, defence, and fossil fuels - and there's much less diversity there, token or otherwise.

School/university diversity only goes so far to solving the problem. Outsiders will still be left out of the existing privilege networks for economic reasons - most people can't afford the annual round of skiing and yachting holidays in prime locations - and for social reasons, which include a lack of confidence, lack of familiarity with expectations and traditions, and outright bullying and abuse.

This isn't an argument against diversity, it's to make the point that breaking down the gatekeeping has to be the start of a broader process. It's not a definitive solution in its own right.

[ahmeneeroe-v2]

> Have you seen the pool of leaders and politicians there compared to the US

This has to be a joke.

>have you ever heard of the Pygmalion effect?

This social theory has been largely discredited.

[godelski]

  > If we alter selection for Navy SEALs

This feels like a weird parallel. We're talking about high school students entering college, right? If you apply to be a SEAL directly as a civilian you'd still go through basic training with normal Navy recruits. You could start out scrawny but if you can fill that gap in those 10 weeks (plus the time before going to boot camp and some other gaps) then you can get admitted.

But also, I think you're ignoring some things. First, it is much easier to measure physical strength than it is to measure intelligence or someone's ability to succeed in college (two different things. Related, but not the same). There is also much more mental flexibility than there is physical, especially at the ages we're talking about.

Second, is that every one of those aspects is trained. They teach you to be athletic. They teach you tools to help motivate yourself (and provide external motivation). They teach you how to be team oriented. Hell, they teach you how to take power naps. Your genetics aren't the only thing at play here and the genetics defines your limit to things like physical strength, not you're ability to have physical strength. The whole point of military training is to tear you down and build you up to be somebody else. Sure, some people come in with a leg up and have genetic advantages but these aren't necessarily the most important factors.

My point is we're talking about... well... 18 year olds. Just like Navy recruits. The gap between a good high school student and an average high school student isn't that large. Even if it seems so at that time. But with university what matters is where somebody ends up, not where they start. Are those gaps able to be crossed? Usually, yes. That is why measuring high school performance is messy as well as why final college grades are weak measurements too. Everyone knows the whole problem of certain professors being better but giving lower grades, but there's also the fact that you aggregate over 4 years. Messing up Freshman and Sophomore year can fuck up your GPA and this metric won't tell anyone if you became the star student by graduation. I don't think we should throw out GPA but it helps to recognize it is noisy.

  > To be even more explicit, a lot of the reason that these colleges are so strongly correlated with high incomes and high achievement is that they allow attendees to network with people whose parents and family members have already reached the upper echelon.

This I fully agree with. The elite universities' edge isn't education, it is connections. The education quality diffuses through the system pretty quickly. Not just because courses are online but that there's more graduates than professor positions. IIRC Berkeley alone graduates enough Physics Ph.Ds to fill all Physics Professor positions per year[0]. But also you look at your typical Freshman at an elite university and a normal university and what happens during summer? Many more of those elite uni kids get internships. That gap widens more and more because there's a compounding effect here. Yet, we still all joke about how junior engineers are useless for some time, right?

I think the bigger problem is that conversations around university tend to be about meritocracy. I don't think admissions measure that. Nor do I think GPA does. They can correlate, but there's just a lot of noise. I just wish we would stop pretending. It would make conversations change a lot. Frankly, I think at the end of the day, even after a full undergrad education, the biggest difference from a kid from Standford and a kid from some Cal State is that one of these kids will talk about how they went to Standford. At best, it is a weak signal of skill. But it is a strong signal of one's network. But if we're concerned with merit, let's not confuse the two[1]. As long as we do I don't think we can even know what problem we're trying to solve, let alone solve it.

[0] Could be wrong. But high confidence not more than 2 top universities can meet that. Number of open positions is just very small. Even if I were 10x off, the effect could still occur without much time difference.

[1] Especially true considering how common it is for people to say that what you learned in college doesn't apply to the job. If that's true, then it only makes that merit correlation weaker, though it doesn't change the network one...