Ending Legacy Admissions at Johns Hopkins • Hacker News Board

Re: Ending Legacy Admissions at Johns Hopkins

#21

Post by virtuous_signal » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 8:51 PM UTC

hooloovoo_zoo wrote: post #18

virtuous_signal wrote: post #4

>The year I arrived, Hopkins had more legacy students in its freshman class (12.5 percent) than students who were eligible for Pell Grants (9 percent). Now those numbers are reversed—3.5 percent of students in this year’s freshman class have a legacy connection to the university, and 19.1 percent are Pell-eligible This change happened in five years . Such a policy change would be extremely popular. For proponents of…

Another group that stands to lose are those students who were admitted on merit and no longer have access to “mediocre” students with good connections.

That's true, and in addition to the claim that legacy admits make the entire college experience more affordable for everyone else, is probably the strongest objection.

I would venture the following: if we agree on the norm that "power should stop being transferred dynastically or through nepotism in a modern civilized society", and abolishing legacy preferences bring us closer to this norm, then the negative effects will be transient, and worth it.

Re: Ending Legacy Admissions at Johns Hopkins

#22

Post by RobAtticus » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 8:52 PM UTC

tomohawk wrote: post #19

eesmith wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

notlukesky was talking about admissions to selective universities, not employment as a professor. Following your tangent, yes, I have reviewed it, and not, she did not. There is no evidence, despite considerable review, that that happened, and you are repeating false propaganda. Eg, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/elizabeth-warren-wealthy-n... : > But specific evidence that she gained her position at Harvard (at le…

Snopes is not what it once was. You can clearly see her false claim in her own hand writing here: https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article237751529.h...

Nobody, not even her, denies that she claimed to be Native American. Snopes is fact checking whether it helped her achieve her position at Harvard. And their conclusion, despite being investigated, no evidence has emerged that it did aid her.

Re: Ending Legacy Admissions at Johns Hopkins

#23

Post by bradleyjg » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 8:59 PM UTC

virtuous_signal wrote: post #4

>The year I arrived, Hopkins had more legacy students in its freshman class (12.5 percent) than students who were eligible for Pell Grants (9 percent). Now those numbers are reversed—3.5 percent of students in this year’s freshman class have a legacy connection to the university, and 19.1 percent are Pell-eligible This change happened in five years . Such a policy change would be extremely popular. For proponents of…

> (ii) the university's endowments if alumni decrease their donations.

The tax law says you aren't supposed to be able to deduct contributions to charitable organizations if you get something in return.

Edit: Point being that this system is illegitimate in the first place, not that it doesn't happen.

Re: Ending Legacy Admissions at Johns Hopkins

#24

Post by tomohawk » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 9:04 PM UTC

RobAtticus wrote: post #22

tomohawk wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snopes is not what it once was. You can clearly see her false claim in her own hand writing here: https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article237751529.h...

Nobody, not even her, denies that she claimed to be Native American. Snopes is fact checking whether it helped her achieve her position at Harvard. And their conclusion, despite being investigated, no evidence has emerged that it did aid her.

Given that she refuses to release the personnel files that would show what she claimed, I guess we'll never know.

Re: Ending Legacy Admissions at Johns Hopkins

#25

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 9:06 PM UTC

virtuous_signal wrote: post #16

mobilefriendly wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"mediocre children of alumni" This is an unfair description of the advantage of legacy at an elite school. It's typically an edge, like playing a sport or belonging to an under-represented demographic.

I'm aware that it's typically an edge; what I mean by "mediocre" is not a personal description, but rather the state of being quantitatively less meritorious than those students who gained admission without the legacy edge.

[deleted]

Re: Ending Legacy Admissions at Johns Hopkins

#26

Post by JumpCrisscross » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 9:29 PM UTC

Legacy admissions for nonprofit institutions are a scam on the public.

If a university wants to keep legacy admissions, fine, that’s their right. But no more tax exemption for their revenues, property or endowments. (And no more, I’d argue, publicly-subsidised loans for its coffers.)

Same for “institutional advancement,” i.e. granting the progeny of the rich seats in exchange for patronage.

Re: Ending Legacy Admissions at Johns Hopkins

#27

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 9:30 PM UTC

bradleyjg wrote: post #23

virtuous_signal wrote: post #4

>The year I arrived, Hopkins had more legacy students in its freshman class (12.5 percent) than students who were eligible for Pell Grants (9 percent). Now those numbers are reversed—3.5 percent of students in this year’s freshman class have a legacy connection to the university, and 19.1 percent are Pell-eligible This change happened in five years . Such a policy change would be extremely popular. For proponents of…

> (ii) the university's endowments if alumni decrease their donations. The tax law says you aren't supposed to be able to deduct contributions to charitable organizations if you get something in return. Edit: Point being that this system is illegitimate in the first place, not that it doesn't happen.

I'm not sure that's true. There are rules about explicit quid-pro-quos, and although they're not entirely banned (if you donate $250 for a concert ticket worth $50 you can deduct the $200) there are rules that clearly aren't being followed in this case. But tax law doesn't (and probably couldn't) attempt to restrict vague returns like "the recipient sees you and your family in a more favorable light".

Re: Ending Legacy Admissions at Johns Hopkins

#28

Post by protomyth » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 9:31 PM UTC

notlukesky wrote: post #3

So long as admissions are not solely test based (like in many countries) then it will be gamed. The 2019 college admissions bribery scandal is the tip of the iceberg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_college_admissions_briber... There are also other ways of getting easier admission to selective schools in the US by saying you are for example Native American.

Hopefully, the admissions office requires you to furnish your tribal ID or paper showing you are an enrolled member. There are plenty of articles showing blood tests are inaccurate and basically showing ignorance of the whole issue.

Re: Ending Legacy Admissions at Johns Hopkins

#29

Post by protomyth » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 9:37 PM UTC

virtuous_signal wrote: post #21

hooloovoo_zoo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another group that stands to lose are those students who were admitted on merit and no longer have access to “mediocre” students with good connections.

That's true, and in addition to the claim that legacy admits make the entire college experience more affordable for everyone else, is probably the strongest objection. I would venture the following: if we agree on the norm that "power should stop being transferred dynastically or through nepotism in a modern civilized society", and abolishing legacy preferences bring us closer to this norm, then the negative effects…

That's never going to happen unless you truly change human nature. We are tribal and protect our families. Nepotism is a family member making life better for other members of the family. I'm not sure we will still be a society if we eliminate family bonds.

Re: Ending Legacy Admissions at Johns Hopkins

#30

Post by rb808 » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 9:38 PM UTC

I think legacy admissions are a good thing for the organization and the other students who go there. People in the US have a close attachment to their university, they would like their children to go there and they donate a lot of money.

Take away legacy admissions and you just get people who want to go there for the reputation and endowment. The endowment quickly fades because people are less likely to donate, and when your reputation slips suddenly your students dry up and there is no loyal customer base of families who are committed.

Legacy admissions are a great way to generate loyal customer base. Top schools would be crazy to give this up.