[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.