Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ending Legacy Admissions at Johns Hopkins

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 103 posts

Re: Ending Legacy Admissions at Johns Hopkins

#81

Post by L_Rahman »

virtuous_signal wrote: post #6
bradj wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be interesting to study the effect of this on donations and the endowment. There should be some measurable effect. Additionally, if there is an effect on donations and the endowment, it would be interesting to study the effect that that change has on endowment payouts. Does lower donations, due to lower legacy admissions result in less funds for University operations?

I haven't heard of studies on this but I would say the effect is potentially huge. For instance, just going by numbers of legacy admits at Harvard: www.cnbc.com/2019/04/07/harvards-freshman-class-is-more-than-one-third-legacy.html And any natural experiment that could have been done due to JHU's change was probably messed up by the largest donation to a university, ever: www.nytimes.com/2018/11/18/us/michael-bloomber…

And given the size of Bloomberg's donations during his lifetime, I suspect the university also has assurances for more gifts in his legacy allowing to close the gap from former alumni no longer donating.

Re: Ending Legacy Admissions at Johns Hopkins

#82

Post by asdff »

rm999 wrote: post #32

Really happy to hear this. As someone who went to Hopkins I would fully encourage my children to apply (I had a great time and got an amazing education). But the idea that I spent a few years of my life there 40 years ago feels irrelevant to the admissions process. Any advantage given would be counterproductive in several ways: 1. It would coddle the child at a time in their life when it's essential to learn independ…

You'd be surprised, a lot of kids opt not to go the legacy route simply because that's where mom/dad went and they want to branch out. I'd say getting admitted has little correlation to success in school, anyway. Plenty of people fail out. To your last point, it would be nice if legacy/donor admits didn't cut into the number of offers extended to everyone else.

Re: Ending Legacy Admissions at Johns Hopkins

#83

Post by jl2718 »

peterwwillis wrote: post #38

There's huge waiting lists for international students to get into Hopkins. What this will probably result in is that it makes headroom for more international students to get in (because if you're sourcing "qualified and promising students from all backgrounds" there's probably gonna be more of those across the whole globe rather than locally). Also, the Pell Grant averages just over $4K, going up to about $6K. The tu…

Good point. Somebody did the math and found out that internationals are worth more than legacies.

Re: Ending Legacy Admissions at Johns Hopkins

#84

Post by AmericanChopper »

sackofmugs wrote: post #62
dan-robertson wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This relies on a correlation between “legacy” and “good connections”. But if it’s about good connections, why not just have a policy like: “if you’re sufficiently good you get in and if you don’t have a ton of money we can provide scholarships to make things more affordable or free; and if you’re ok but rich, you can pay 2x the usual rate for admission up to some quota of these admissions” You could even replace “ric…

That's the current system. The rich people pay the MRSP (about 70K/year), and the poor pays half as much on average due to various scholarships / grants / aid. Your way is just that in terms of outcome, except it's more antagonizing to the rich.

They pay more than that. Legacy enrolment is one of the key ways that colleges grow their endowments, which are (amongst other things) used for scholarships.

Re: Ending Legacy Admissions at Johns Hopkins

#85

Post by wy35 »

rb808 wrote: post #30

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 w…

> you just get people who want to go there for the reputation and endowment.

As opposed to people who only want to go there because Dad or Mom went there? Or, how about this -- people who want a world-class education without having to compete against other applicants with an unfair advantage.

I would not have found a well-paying job without my univerity's resources and name recognition, and I would not have been able to pay for tuition (for any college out-of-state) without my university's very generous need-based financial aid. So you can call it reputation and endowment, but I prefer to call it social mobility.

> generate loyal customer base

Given these are non-profit institutions, I certainly hope not.

Re: Ending Legacy Admissions at Johns Hopkins

#87

Post by goatinaboat »

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…

the university's endowments if alumni decrease their donations.

Most universities where legacy admissions are a thing have self-perpetuating endowments by now. Harvard could easily fund itself forever without any donations or even tuition fees at this point, just off the interest and trading profits.

Re: Ending Legacy Admissions at Johns Hopkins

#88

Post by lotsofpulp »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #27
bradleyjg wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (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".

Explicit quid pro quos are banned, your concert ticket example showing as such. And the fact that we can’t define or prove every situation where there is quid pro quo is a weakness that is exploited by many rich people, also shown by your example (is that ticket worth $50?). Doesn’t make it the right thing to do, and is not optimal for society in the long term.

Re: Ending Legacy Admissions at Johns Hopkins

#89

Post by lotsofpulp »

morpheuskafka wrote: post #49
bradleyjg wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (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.

You are supposed to reduce the value of the deduction claimed by the fair market value of anything in return. So if they send you a $10 sticker or invite you to a banquet with $500 in food, you can't deduct that part. The question is, how exactly can one determine the FMV of a boost in admission consideration (not even just the admission itself, but an un-quantifiable additional favorable factor in review)?

Question would be moot if we simple got rid of deductions. Only reason to have them is to enable this type of gaming of the system.

Re: Ending Legacy Admissions at Johns Hopkins

#90

Post by thaumasiotes »

dan-robertson wrote: post #46
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.

This relies on a correlation between “legacy” and “good connections”. But if it’s about good connections, why not just have a policy like: “if you’re sufficiently good you get in and if you don’t have a ton of money we can provide scholarships to make things more affordable or free; and if you’re ok but rich, you can pay 2x the usual rate for admission up to some quota of these admissions” You could even replace “ric…

> You could even replace “rich” with “rich and well-connected” though it may be hard to determine the second part.

Connections are traditionally determined through the very old method of asking for letters of recommendation. US military academies still work this way; you can't be admitted without a recommendation from one of the three (3) legislators representing you in the federal government, or the vice president. The method is cheap and accurate; you test someone's connections by having them exercise those connections.

For some reason universities still ask for letters of recommendation, but they've shifted to asking for letters from random teachers. This completely defeats the purpose; a recommendation from someone who is unknown to you [where "you" are the admissions officer] and who holds no power of any kind is obviously worthless.

Post reply on HN