Legacy Admissions at Harvard

[MrPuff]

Department of Education investigating Harvard over legacy admissions practices.​

Lawyers for Civil Rights (LCR) Boston asserted in their complaint that "legacy" and donor admissions unfairly benefit White students.

"Nearly 70% of Harvard’s donor-related and legacy applicants are white, and they receive a substantial boost based on their status," the group wrote of the complaint. "Donor-related applicants are nearly 7 times more likely to be admitted than non-donor-related applicants, and legacies are nearly 6 times more likely to be admitted."

Ruh Roh.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Rachapkis]

I understand that schools like Harvard have a financial interest in giving a leg up to legacy candidates. Moreover, these schools can argue that admitting legacy kids improves fundraising and thus helps all boats to rise, as these funds can be used for scholarships, improved facilities, and so forth. However, it seems like stunningly poor public policy to me. It further advantages a group people who are already some of the most advantaged people in America.

 

[Goro]

It doesn't just favor whites, it favors very wealthy whites.

 

[alwaysrunning]

"Donor-related applicants are nearly 7 times more likely to be admitted than non-donor-related applicants, and legacies are nearly 6 times more likely to be admitted."

Is this for UG or Med School?

 

[pablo213]

Is this for UG or Med School?

Likely both

 

[MrPuff]

The article didn't specify but I imagine it applies to UG and Med School. I doubt Harvard wouldn't let a legacy with deep pockets into their med school. I could be wrong though...

 

[MrPuff]

It doesn't just favor whites, it favors very wealthy whites.

I agree, 70% wealthy white donors and legacy applicants is way too much. I'm thinking 50/50 would be more equitable.

 

[gonnif]

The article didn't specify but I imagine it applies to UG and Med School. I doubt Harvard wouldn't let a legacy with deep pockets into their med school. I could be wrong though...

All medical schools. especially the ivy league and other long established “prestigious” ones that have a culture of alumni networking and donations that feed their endowments, most certainly keep a sharp eye on current applicants for connections to past graduates. It isnt simply that they might deny an interview to a single applicant who is the offspring of well known plastic surgeon from class 30 years ago who happens to be past president of a society or academy. The school worries that word gets around and alumni donations from that class year drop off along with money from plastic surgeons. And yes, the office of donations and endowments, especially at the prestigious schools, will track to that granular level. The alumni connection can get you that interview, which is first step to acceptance.

 

[LunaOri]

Before we get too bent out of shape about this, what percentage of the class is legacy admits?

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

Legacy admits and other donors make it so that more people can afford to attend Harvard. I went to an ivy on basically a full tuition scholarship for this reason so I’m all for keeping these admissions policies in place

 

[MrPuff]

Before we get too bent out of shape about this, what percentage of the class is legacy admits?

Eh, maybe 28%.

The organisation said it filed the complaint with the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights on behalf of racial justice groups the Chica Project, the African Community Economic Development of New England and the Greater Boston Latino Network.

“For the Class of 2019, about 28 percent of the class were legacies with a parent or other relative who went to Harvard,” LCR said in a statement.
“Qualified and highly deserving applicants of color are harmed as a result, as admissions slots are given instead to the overwhelmingly white applicants who benefit from Harvard’s legacy and donor preferences.”

 

[Mr.Smile12]

Most likely the investigation will cover undergraduate admissions since the initial and known evidence was part of discovery for the SFFA case. That's why there's not likely a broader investigation of the other Ivies too. I also think that's where the complaint lies.

 

[MrPuff]

“Qualified and highly deserving applicants of color are harmed as a result, as admissions slots are given instead to the overwhelmingly white applicants who benefit from Harvard’s legacy and donor preferences.”

I'd say anyone who is not a legacy is harmed by this policy. And while I'm sure they want donors to keep donating, it's not like they don't have a $53B endowment that could be used to help those in need of tuition assistance.

 

[MateoGM416]

All medical schools. especially the ivy league and other long established “prestigious” ones that have a culture of alumni networking and donations that feed their endowments, most certainly keep a sharp eye on current applicants for connections to past graduates. It isnt simply that they might deny an interview to a single applicant who is the offspring of well known plastic surgeon from class 30 years ago who happens to be past president of a society or academy. The school worries that word gets around and alumni donations from that class year drop off along with money from plastic surgeons. And yes, the office of donations and endowments, especially at the prestigious schools, will track to that granular level. The alumni connection can get you that interview, which is first step to acceptance.

There's a guy in my class who got in because his dad was a local radiologist and called his connections in the school's admissions committee to give him an interview, which they did.

But it's First Nations, black people, and latinos who are taking the spots of more deserving applicants.

 

[pierty]

There's a guy in my class who got in because his dad was a local radiologist and called his connections in the school's admissions committee to give him an interview, which they did.

But it's First Nations, black people, and latinos who are taking the spots of more deserving applicants.

Both are true.

Legacy admissions and race admissions both operate against meritocracy, by design. Those who favor race admissions cite that it benefits members of minority communities who are, as a group, disproportionately low SES, while legacy admissions favor high SES individuals who are disproportionately white.

The truth is that race admissions predominantly benefits wealthy students who happen to be of a minority demographic - not those of low SES. This is subtler than legacy admissions, which operates on the surface as nepotism, but the overall societal impact of both processes is the same. While the POC among undergraduate classes has increased, the wealth diversity has not - and, in fact, has shown signs of growing much more narrow over time. While some students of low SES who are POC do gain admission, they are in much smaller proportions.

Neither system adequately addresses the deeply rooted flaws in higher education within our country, and in fact both operate to solidify and expand the fractures in our society. A much broader scope reform has to be done to address the core problems we face - and it begins by removing the focus on "elite" institution admissions, and crafting reforms instead that are focused on how every young adult, regardless of income level, can gain access to the adequate educational tracks that would allow them to advance a proper career over a few years of training.

 

[LunaOri]

Eh, maybe 28%.

The organisation said it filed the complaint with the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights on behalf of racial justice groups the Chica Project, the African Community Economic Development of New England and the Greater Boston Latino Network.

“For the Class of 2019, about 28 percent of the class were legacies with a parent or other relative who went to Harvard,” LCR said in a statement.
“Qualified and highly deserving applicants of color are harmed as a result, as admissions slots are given instead to the overwhelmingly white applicants who benefit from Harvard’s legacy and donor preferences.”

Interesting—28% is much higher than I expected. My kid’s med school class had about 2% legacies, so I never thought of legacy admissions as a significant issue.

 

[MateoGM416]

The truth is that race admissions predominantly benefits wealthy students who happen to be of a minority demographic - not those of low SES. This is subtler than legacy admissions, which operates on the surface as nepotism, but the overall societal impact of both processes is the same.

It doesn't 'operate on the surface as nepotism', it is straight up nepotism. I don't know how you can equate nepotism with affirmative action as both being equal injustices even if you're first point was true (which it's not). Nepotism implies that the person benefitting from the existing power dynamics was already in power. It's not nepotism if I give a homeless person on the street five dollars, lmao

 

[pierty]

It doesn't 'operate on the surface as nepotism', it is straight up nepotism. I don't know how you can equate nepotism with affirmative action as both being equal injustices even if you're first point was true (which it's not). Nepotism implies that the person benefitting from the existing power dynamics was already in power. It's not nepotism if I give a homeless person on the street five dollars, lmao

It seems you are equating giving a homeless man 5 dollars to allowing a POC admission into a school. I can't believe I have to say this, if it's what you imply - not all POCs are homeless, and that idea is racist.

Part of my point is that race-based admissions do not specifically select for individuals who are disadvantaged - and, as a result, many more wealthy individuals who are POC get admitted than low SES students due to intrinsic differences in opportunities throughout secondary school. Even among those low SES students who are admitted, they face an uphill struggle against compounding debt loads and other significant financial stressors that further contribute to income inequality among classes. New indicators report shows escalating disparities for poor students, students of color | Penn GSE

Again, to refocus - the emphasis should not be on elitist institutions which serves to collectively educate less than 1% of American young adults, but equal opportunity education to every adult individual regardless of demographic or background income.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

Again, to refocus - the emphasis should not be on elitist institutions which serves to collectively educate less than 1% of American young adults, but equal opportunity education to every adult individual regardless of demographic or background income.

I'll agree that it should not just be on elite institutions. Higher education is much more open than selective, but it's selective schools that have the "brands" and the endowments for perceived resources and promises for faster social mobility that come with the brand. That's why there's so much more attention on Elite U than State U or even CC.

 

[MateoGM416]

It seems you are equating giving a homeless man 5 dollars to allowing a POC admission into a school. I can't believe I have to say this, if it's what you imply - not all POCs are homeless, and that idea is racist.

I can't tell if you purposely or genuinely missed my point. If I give or bestow something onto a person from a group which is lower than me economically/professionally/whatever, it's not nepotism because that group had no economic or social gravitas to begin with.

Part of my point is that race-based admissions do not specifically select for individuals who are disadvantaged - and, as a result, many more wealthy individuals who are POC get admitted than low SES students due to intrinsic differences in opportunities throughout secondary school. Even among those low SES students who are admitted, they face an uphill struggle against compounding debt loads and other significant financial stressors that further contribute to income inequality among classes. New indicators report shows escalating disparities for poor students, students of color | Penn GSE

This study isn't about how affirmative action contributes to wealth inequality, it just says that the wealth inequality gap is increasing amongst all races. Please point out where in the report it makes the specific correlation that affirmative action is the reason wealth inequality amongst blacks and latinos exists.

Again, to refocus - the emphasis should not be on elitist institutions which serves to collectively educate less than 1% of American young adults, but equal opportunity education to every adult individual regardless of demographic or background income.

I hope that you can at least see that your argument in the previous paragraph that economic inequality exists among classes completely negates this ideal of yours you think should exist. How could you bestow 'equal' opportunity education if the economic or social circumstances of no two people are ever the same? Either academics is a meritocracy or people are born with advantages over other people; both of those things can't be true at the same time.

 

[pierty]

I can't tell if you purposely or genuinely missed my point. If I give or bestow something onto a person from a group which is lower than me economically/professionally/whatever, it's not nepotism because that group had no economic or social gravitas to begin with.

Yoy highlighted what I thought you intended. Your point represents an assumption and an intrinsic bias - that people who are POC are "economically/professionally/whatever lower than" - and that being a member of the demographic automatically assumes a full socioeconomic profile. It's similar to Joe Biden when he said "poor kids are just as smart as white kids."

This study isn't about how affirmative action contributes to wealth inequality, it just says that the wealth inequality gap is increasing amongst all races. Please point out where in the report it makes the specific correlation that affirmative action is the reason wealth inequality amongst blacks and latinos exists.

Read my citation in context. I provided it for the sake of showing that students who do end up at elite colleges face significant financial stressors that limit their social mobility.

Research over several decades has shown that the majority of POC students at elite colleges are wealthy. Much of the original work was done in 2005 by Jerome Karabel in The Chosen. Though anyone who actually attends or teaches at these institutions knows this inherently by the day to day experiences of those they interact with on campus.

I don't agree with the phrasing, but one professor put it as this: "When students and faculty activists struggle for cultural diversity, they are in large part battling over what skin color the rich kids have" Most Black Students at Harvard Are From High-Income Families</A>

I hope that you can at least see that your argument in the previous paragraph that economic inequality exists among classes completely negates this ideal of yours you think should exist. How could you bestow 'equal' opportunity education if the economic or social circumstances of no two people are ever the same? Either academics is a meritocracy or people are born with advantages over other people; both of those things can't be true at the same time.

I'm not sure what cognitive pretzel you've twisted this into. Delivering resources and opportunities metered according to need and not desire is wholly achievable - and it's in fact the difference between equality and equity. I didn't argue for the preservation of meritocracy, but it's an achievable goal even while bolstering individuals of disadvantaged backgrounds. The goal would be to provide everyone with the resources and education necessary to form a career - a focus on modifying the input, not artificially manufacturing the output, of training. Focusing efforts and resources toward the education of all students - not just those at elite schools encompassing <1% of the population, which reinforces and widens gaps between social classes - is the strategy to achieve this.

 

[MateoGM416]

Yoy highlighted what I thought you intended. Your point represents an assumption and an intrinsic bias - that people who are POC are "economically/professionally/whatever lower than" - and that being a member of the demographic automatically assumes a full socioeconomic profile. It's similar to Joe Biden when he said "poor kids are just as smart as white kids."

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt because you probably couldn’t tell that I am of color, but I’ll let you in on a secret: in almost every metric, we are *as a whole* lower than the majority.

Read my citation in context. I provided it for the sake of showing that students who do end up at elite colleges face significant financial stressors that limit their social mobility.

No one is arguing this point lol.

Focusing efforts and resources toward the education of all students - not just those at elite schools encompassing <1% of the population, which reinforces and widens gaps between social classes - is the strategy to achieve this.

Again you're arguing into the wind about this. Society being better if everyone had equal opportunity is not a novel idea, lmao. I had a problem with you equating nepotism with affirmative action as if they’re both equal injustices.