I'm amazed it was ever legal in the first place. It's open nepotism.
Nepotism is how groups function everywhere. The race-based admissions was a weird new thing, from a hyper-focused conspiracy that appears to be losing its grip.
Children of alumni no longer have admissions edge at Carnegie Mellon, Pitt
21–30 of 815 posts
Re: Children of alumni no longer have admissions edge at Carnegie Mellon, Pitt
#22Don't legacy admissions often mean that their parents have donated significantly to the University? In a sense wouldn't that just mean that those students are essentially paying a very high premium to attend there and subsidizing the education of all the other students? I'm not against abolishing them but I do wonder if this will have any impact on alumni donations.
Honestly, relying on donations doesn't seem tenable without discrimination. The only way out is to treat it as a public good and fund it as one.
Re: Children of alumni no longer have admissions edge at Carnegie Mellon, Pitt
#23Re: Children of alumni no longer have admissions edge at Carnegie Mellon, Pitt
#24Don't legacy admissions often mean that their parents have donated significantly to the University? In a sense wouldn't that just mean that those students are essentially paying a very high premium to attend there and subsidizing the education of all the other students? I'm not against abolishing them but I do wonder if this will have any impact on alumni donations.
They’re more contributing towards enormous endowments than subsidizing others education.
Re: Children of alumni no longer have admissions edge at Carnegie Mellon, Pitt
#25Re: Children of alumni no longer have admissions edge at Carnegie Mellon, Pitt
#26> “I do think there was a time when perhaps legacies needed a boost” -Dean Emeritus of Admission Mike Steidel Is there any way of charitably interpreting Mike Steidel's words? I have a tough time reading anything here but classist bigotry preserving the status quo :-/
Yes, there are charitable ways.
You make an institution stronger (in fundraising, in love for the institution, in traditions, etc) by creating multigenerational relationships. When you're asked for money, it may be "eh, whatever it was my college" or it could be "Yes-- it's where my grandpa, pop, and I all went."
But there's a lot of negative consequences, too.
Re: Children of alumni no longer have admissions edge at Carnegie Mellon, Pitt
#27The end of both legacy admissions and race-based admissions makes me feel hopeful that we're finally pivoting to a productive, merit-based approach.
You're assuming that everyone is on an equal starting point. Wealthy people will be able to favor their kids.
Re: Children of alumni no longer have admissions edge at Carnegie Mellon, Pitt
#28Wesleyan as well: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/19/us/wesleyan-university-en...
I'm guessing ivy leagues won't let go that easily.
Re: Children of alumni no longer have admissions edge at Carnegie Mellon, Pitt
#29I'm amazed it was ever legal in the first place. It's open nepotism.
I don't think this is nepotism, strictly speaking. The applicants aren't related or necessarily personally known to the people making the decision, they're merely related to prior graduates.
It may be reflective of corruption and produce inequitable and undesirable outcomes, but nepotism is something else.
Re: Children of alumni no longer have admissions edge at Carnegie Mellon, Pitt
#30The end of both legacy admissions and race-based admissions makes me feel hopeful that we're finally pivoting to a productive, merit-based approach.
pivoting to a productive, merit-based approach
For the right definitions of "merit", yes. I'm not confident we've figured that part out yet.