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

43% of white Harvard students are legacy, athlete, or donor/staff related (2019)

nbcnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 144 posts

Re: 43% of white Harvard students are legacy, athlete, or donor/staff related (2019)

#41

Post by User23 »

mdorazio wrote: post #12
pbj1968 wrote: post #4

Is Harvard not allowed to admit the students they want? It’s the same situation in my local prestige college… very disproportionately slanted towards local kids that have been attending summer programs and the children of staff and faculty. So what?

Universities like Harvard typically like to market themselves as being the height of meritocracy, going so far as to proudly declare their miniscule acceptance rates. It's hard to square that with a very obvious preference for students from a specific background regardless of merit.

One reason that Harvard and the other ivies like legacy students is that they’re who grow up to be big donors.

Edit: I’m willing to assume that Harvard’s admissions and development offices know what they’re doing, considering that they’ve been wildly successful for centuries.

Re: 43% of white Harvard students are legacy, athlete, or donor/staff related (2019)

#42

Post by User23 »

renewiltord wrote: post #39
pbj1968 wrote: post #4

Is Harvard not allowed to admit the students they want? It’s the same situation in my local prestige college… very disproportionately slanted towards local kids that have been attending summer programs and the children of staff and faculty. So what?

I think they should be allowed to use whatever method they desire but that they should pay taxes like any other organization.

Yeah, what have universities ever done for society?

Re: 43% of white Harvard students are legacy, athlete, or donor/staff related (2019)

#43

Post by 111111IIIIIII »

asdf6677 wrote: post #28
mdorazio wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Universities like Harvard typically like to market themselves as being the height of meritocracy, going so far as to proudly declare their miniscule acceptance rates. It's hard to square that with a very obvious preference for students from a specific background regardless of merit.

> market themselves as being the height of meritocracy This is how they market themselves to the general public, but everyone knows that Harvard and its admission policies were designed by and for the ruling class to educate their children and build connections. A Harvard degree would have no value if it selected based on merit alone. A meritocracy would turn a school like Harvard into a factory for upper middle clas…

Would you please explain the logic for the dishonesty as you explained the logic for diverging from meritocracy? Surely there is a good reason for such an allegedly respectable institution misleading the public that pays its bills, yes?

Re: 43% of white Harvard students are legacy, athlete, or donor/staff related (2019)

#44

Post by TeeMassive »

ethanbond wrote: post #37
TeeMassive wrote: post #31

This was the main criticism of AA. The minorities admitted because of AA were usually neither poor or from the working class. Example of that: the Obamas. AA was the only reason why the legacy entry system was still allowed to continue.

> AA was the only reason why the legacy entry system was still allowed to continue. How so? Legacy admissions will continue.

How long will this continue to be politically viable tho?

Re: 43% of white Harvard students are legacy, athlete, or donor/staff related (2019)

#46

Post by lametrol »

losteric wrote: post #29
lametrol wrote: post #6

[flagged]

> staff self-declares 98% liberal Citation? That'll be interesting, asking 10 Americans to define "liberal" will probably result in 12 definitions... If you want to have a meaningful discussion, what do academic staff say about this selection criteria specifically, and/or affirmative action?

[flagged]

Re: 43% of white Harvard students are legacy, athlete, or donor/staff related (2019)

#47

Post by jrflowers »

pbj1968 wrote: post #4

Is Harvard not allowed to admit the students they want? It’s the same situation in my local prestige college… very disproportionately slanted towards local kids that have been attending summer programs and the children of staff and faculty. So what?

> Is Harvard not allowed to admit the students they want?

They are. The numbers are of the students that they chose to admit.

Re: 43% of white Harvard students are legacy, athlete, or donor/staff related (2019)

#48

Post by kinghajj »

renewiltord wrote: post #39
pbj1968 wrote: post #4

Is Harvard not allowed to admit the students they want? It’s the same situation in my local prestige college… very disproportionately slanted towards local kids that have been attending summer programs and the children of staff and faculty. So what?

I think they should be allowed to use whatever method they desire but that they should pay taxes like any other organization.

They're a nonprofit organization, though.

Re: 43% of white Harvard students are legacy, athlete, or donor/staff related (2019)

#49

Post by d_sem »

TeeMassive wrote: post #31

This was the main criticism of AA. The minorities admitted because of AA were usually neither poor or from the working class. Example of that: the Obamas. AA was the only reason why the legacy entry system was still allowed to continue.

As discussed in oral arguments in the "STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE" supreme court case, the 14th amendment does not protect against legacy as an admission criteria unless it can be proven to be a proxy for race.

Re: 43% of white Harvard students are legacy, athlete, or donor/staff related (2019)

#50

Post by catiopatio »

rileymat2 wrote: post #33
catiopatio wrote: post #7

So I guess non-legacy white applicants were at an even greater disadvantage for their skin color then we might have assumed. Want to git rid of legacy preference? Great. Let’s be honest, though — this is just whataboutism.

I don't think the intent is "whataboutism" it is about outlining the structural inequality in the system that affirmative action and race based systems are supposed to attempt to mitigate. We can argue about discriminatory criteria on effectiveness, fairness or legality, but it certainly is an important date point in that discussion.

The only reason it’s being brought up now is the Supreme Court ruling, and it demonstrates the opposite of what people seem to think it does.

Non-legacy applicants were extremely disadvantaged if they were white.

Post reply on HN