The Legacy

[dcham]

It sounds cliche but life is not fair. Seriously. There really isn't anything about life or making something out of yourself that is totally fair. People gain ground one way or another, and within reason, this tends to be independent of one's qualifications on paper. Likewise, people with legacy usually gain admittance after they have shown that they are within a reasonable range with respect to grades/mcat/ECs. AA is the same way. It allows people to gain admission with lower scores simply by race...without even considering socioeconomic status. A level playing field is the ideal situation, but people who deem that a possibility are living in a dream world. For better or worse, almost everything in life is subjective.

Your argument basically says that life is unfair and their is nothing you can do about it. In this situation this means that we cannot change the current system even if we wanted to. This is horribly untrue! As I have already said we will have the power to make changes to this system. Say we are on an adcom one day at a university, we will certainly be in a position then to argue our points to the entire commitee and make changes, or at least start the process. In order for change to occur we need to change attitudes and in particular people's apathy toward the subject. If enough people were to call attention to this subject and the media got ahold of it, the system would change. I don't think in this case it is too far out of our reach. Sure a level playing field might seem like an ideal today, but that does not mean that it isn't an ideal worth striving for.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[dcham]

It sounds cliche but life is not fair. Seriously. There really isn't anything about life or making something out of yourself that is totally fair. People gain ground one way or another, and within reason, this tends to be independent of one's qualifications on paper. Likewise, people with legacy usually gain admittance after they have shown that they are within a reasonable range with respect to grades/mcat/ECs. AA is the same way. It allows people to gain admission with lower scores simply by race...without even considering socioeconomic status. A level playing field is the ideal situation, but people who deem that a possibility are living in a dream world. For better or worse, almost everything in life is subjective.

One other point would you tell African Americans fifty years ago that life is unfair and therefore equality is an ideal and "people who deem that a possibility are living in a dream world." Sure the ideal has not been reached today but important achievements have been made towards that goal.

P.S. I don't wish to compare medical school admissions to the plight of African Americans but since you brought up the issue of Affirmative Action and race I thought it appropriate.

 

[VPDcurt]

Your argument basically says that life is unfair and their is nothing you can do about it. In this situation this means that we cannot change the current system even if we wanted to. This is horribly untrue! As I have already said we will have the power to make changes to this system. Say we are on an adcom one day at a university, we will certainly be in a position then to argue our points to the entire commitee and make changes, or at least start the process. In order for change to occur we need to change attitudes and in particular people's apathy toward the subject. If enough people were to call attention to this subject and the media got ahold of it, the system would change. I don't think in this case it is too far out of our reach. Sure a level playing field might seem like an ideal today, but that does not mean that it isn't an ideal worth striving for.

OF COURSE you can change things or at least try to change things. I never said that - you simply put words in my mouth. The way to bring about change is not to portray yourself as a sympathy case and become a victim. You must be proactive about it. It sounds like you are willing to do the latter in the future; however, I would recommend that you abandon the former in the meantime.

 

[VPDcurt]

One other point would you tell African Americans fifty years ago that life is unfair and therefore equality is an ideal and "people who deem that a possibility are living in a dream world." Sure the ideal has not been reached today but important achievements have been made towards that goal.

P.S. I don't wish to compare medical school admissions to the plight of African Americans but since you brought up the issue of Affirmative Action and race I thought it appropriate.

Equality based on race is vastly different from equality based on merit.

 

[dcham]

OF COURSE you can change things or at least try to change things. I never said that - you simply put words in my mouth. The way to bring about change is not to portray yourself as a sympathy case and become a victim. You must be proactive about it. It sounds like you are willing to do the latter in the future; however, I would recommend that you abandon the former in the meantime.

That's the plan

 

[dcham]

OF COURSE you can change things or at least try to change things. I never said that - you simply put words in my mouth. The way to bring about change is not to portray yourself as a sympathy case and become a victim. You must be proactive about it. It sounds like you are willing to do the latter in the future; however, I would recommend that you abandon the former in the meantime.

That's the plan As far as my case goes, I wanted to provide a an anecdote or specific illustration to show how this problem actually affects some of us. Of course I don't think this diminishes my main argument, but I could be wrong.

 

[WestCoastMD16]

Bump

 

[phltz]

As far as undergrad and professional education goes, the Ivies are primarily in the business of smoothing the way for the ruling elite to power. Considering how much membership in the ruling elite is hereditary in modern America, this typically means smoothing the way for the children of the elite to follow in their parents' footsteps. Secondarily, they are in the business of teaching something to their students in their classes. As a tertiary mission, they may serve as a sort of talent scout, identifying promising young people from less advantaged backgrounds, and helping to lift them into the ruling elite.

Look at other top schools that teach their students to actually do something, like, say, MIT, and you'll see far fewer legacy admits.

 

[IlDestriero]

What's wrong with giving an extra "point" to a legacy applicant? Their family member has graduated, carried on the noble tradition of medicine, brought honor to the university through their success, etc. Maybe donations as well. I donate every year. I know that my university gives huge consideration to undergraduate admission for faculty, which is doubly helpful as it means a much larger faculty tuition benefit. Nearly all the faculty that I know with college aged kids have sent at least one child to the university, some sent multiple. The effect of faculty status on medical school admissions is not as clear, though I'm sure it will earn you an interview as long as you're reasonably competitive.
I can tell you that if my child wanted to train with me in anesthesia and didn't match, with reasonable scores etc., I would walk. That's an unrecoverable slap in the face of a long time faculty member. Training your kids is another longstanding tradition in medicine.

Cheers!

 

[Praefectus]

At the end of the day, a school wouldn't want to turn down a generously donating alumni's posterity. That gravy train might come to a stop if that's the case.

If you really think it comes down to only academics for legacies, check out the movie "Back to School" with Rodney Dangerfield.

 

[MedBound1]

Honestly, it makes complete sense to me why many medical schools show some bias to legacies and I have no problem with it.

All it does is make me that much more proud to be the first physician ever in my family.

 

[7175pank]

You're right - this is America. Welcome to capitalism. If you don't like it, there is a little island about 70 miles south of Florida that you might want to visit.

Bribery and unearned privilege = capitalism. At least someone finally admits that meritocracy is just a civic myth.

 

[xXIDaShizIXx]

You may be biased now, but just keep in mind when you cut your alumni checks to Penn that someday one of your kids could be one of those lucky few.

Personally my kids will earn what they work for.

 

[Pattycake25]

Honestly, it makes complete sense to me why many medical schools show some bias to legacies and I have no problem with it.

All it does is make me that much more proud to be the first physician ever in my family.

This. And my sister is the first ever nurse, so we're opening the doors to the medical profession for our family's future generations. =)

As for legacies themselves, I don't let it bother me (and never did in the past). I doubt legacies with bad stats get accepted. Yeah, it makes it a little harder for the rest of us, but we just work a little harder to make up for it (if even that - I seriously doubt a legacy has an easy ride at home with at least one gunner M.D. in the house =P).

 

[Knocked Up]

What's wrong with giving an extra "point" to a legacy applicant? Their family member has graduated, carried on the noble tradition of medicine, brought honor to the university through their success, etc. Maybe donations as well. I donate every year. I know that my university gives huge consideration to undergraduate admission for faculty, which is doubly helpful as it means a much larger faculty tuition benefit. Nearly all the faculty that I know with college aged kids have sent at least one child to the university, some sent multiple. The effect of faculty status on medical school admissions is not as clear, though I'm sure it will earn you an interview as long as you're reasonably competitive.
I can tell you that if my child wanted to train with me in anesthesia and didn't match, with reasonable scores etc., I would walk. That's an unrecoverable slap in the face of a long time faculty member. Training your kids is another longstanding tradition in medicine.

Cheers!

QTF 1000000 x

http://www.dana-farber.org/Adult-Ca...r-these-oncologists-work-feels-like-home.aspx

 

[Barcu]

Legacy admissions is a way more complicated issue than it is presented in this thread. Legacy admissions tend to be wealthy (so there is the donation aspect) but also they tend to have resources to send their kids to the best schools and give them opportunities most other parents cannot. In many cases, these legacy students are the cream of the crop applicants. Sure, there are always the exceptions, but I'm sure the vast majority of legacy admissions can hold their own in the classroom. In most cases, it's a win-win for the school (donations and good students). Admissions processes all have a certain amount of subjectivity to them that you may think you "deserve" to get in over someone else (because everyone thinks they are the best) but it's hard to say that with certainty. And all of you who said they wouldn't want that for their kids...well, we'll see.

I go to a school that has legacy students. They are great students. I'm not a legacy student, and I still got in. But you know what, I come from a middle-class family who paid for college. I did not have to work or come out with any debt. Did I deserve to get in? The fact is that their are tons of unfair advantages to certain people in this country. Legacy admissions is one of them. I'm not saying that we should just roll over and accept the status quo, but there are disparities in this country (and everywhere in human society) that you pretty much have to accept.

tl;dr: Legacy students are pretty good students themselves, so it is hard to say that they don't deserve to be there. Plus, legacy admissions are just one of many, many factors that give certain people an advantage.

 

[phltz]

tl;dr: Legacy students are pretty good students themselves, so it is hard to say that they don't deserve to be there. Plus, legacy admissions are just one of many, many factors that give certain people an advantage.

Suppose there are two comparably good schools, U of X, and U of Y. Your argument explains why the admissions committee at each school should prefer the children of alumni from _both_ schools. That's not a legacy preference. A legacy preference is when the adcom at U of X prefers the children of U of X grads, and U of Y prefers the children of U of Y grads. Your argument doesn't speak to that at all.

 

[Barcu]

Suppose there are two comparably good schools, U of X, and U of Y. Your argument explains why the admissions committee at each school should prefer the children of alumni from _both_ schools. That's not a legacy preference. A legacy preference is when the adcom at U of X prefers the children of U of X grads, and U of Y prefers the children of U of Y grads. Your argument doesn't speak to that at all.

Oh I know. I was just responding to the fact that they only get into school x because they are legacies. Maybe not. They might get into several top schools. Many times legacy students are great students, so the argument that they don't deserve to be there is not completely valid (an anecdote but I knew a Harvard legacy who got into and chose Yale over Havard and the other ivies he got accepted to).

Do legacy students sometimes get in with a similar application to someone who gets rejected? I am sure of it. So in that respect, I think legacy admissions are unfair. But at the same time, what percentage of Harvard rejects would do well at Harvard if they got in? Probably a decent percentage. The fact is (in all admissions) there are more qualified applicants than spots. Taking on legacy students is a win-win: they get a quality student plus some extra donation money. Can't really fault a school for that.

Yes, it is unfair, but it is more complicated than simple right and wrong. As I said, I've received many advantages in my life that probably explain why I am in med school even though I am not a legacy. I'm sure many people complaining on this thread probably have advantages that many other students don't have. Really the only reason this is an issue is because people look for reasons to justify why they did not get something that they think they deserve. Who says that you deserve to get into Harvard? Because you worked really hard and think you are smart? So did lots of rejected Harvard applicants. And many of them would do well too. There are many, many factors at play here. Not just legacy admissions.

I'm not saying that it's not unfair. I'm just saying that it's not such a simple issue.

 

[phltz]

Oh I know. I was just responding to the fact that they only get into school x because they are legacies. Maybe not. They might get into several top schools. Many times legacy students are great students, so the argument that they don't deserve to be there is not completely valid (an anecdote but I knew a Harvard legacy who got into and chose Yale over Havard and the other ivies he got accepted to).

Do legacy students sometimes get in with a similar application to someone who gets rejected? I am sure of it. So in that respect, I think legacy admissions are unfair. But at the same time, what percentage of Harvard rejects would do well at Harvard if they got in? Probably a decent percentage. The fact is (in all admissions) there are more qualified applicants than spots. Taking on legacy students is a win-win: they get a quality student plus some extra donation money. Can't really fault a school for that.

Instead of just throwing out some anecdotes, let's look at actual hard data. Being a legacy has been estimated to provide a similar boost to your application as an extra 160 points (out of 1600) on the SAT, and that, controlling for other applicant characteristics, it improves odds of admission by a factor of 3.13. To a substantial extent, schools that practice legacy preference (which is most of the highly prestigious ones) are accepting objectively worse students because of it. Are these students still good enough? Sure, I guess. But let's not pretend that there are no compromises being made.

It's also worth pointing out, again, that the practice of favoring legacy applicants was cooked up shortly after World War I specifically to find a way to exclude the large number of objectively talented Jewish students applying to elite schools. It was rapidly becoming legally infeasible to explicitly exclude or place limits on how many could be admitted, but schools weren't about to let a whole bunch of jews in, so they started doing stuff like favoring the children of previous (largely non-jewish) graduates.

My father went to my undergrad school, which I suppose makes me a legacy. Now, I have more than my fair share of gripes with the place, but I have to say that I'm proud that they don't show any legacy preference. I got in under my own steam and on my own merits. Did my father's education help provide me with more opportunities growing up? Sure. But those were all opportunities I had to make use of myself.

 

[Barcu]

Instead of just throwing out some anecdotes, let's look at actual hard data. Being a legacy has been estimated to provide a similar boost to your application as an extra 160 points (out of 1600) on the SAT, and that, controlling for other applicant characteristics, it improves odds of admission by a factor of 3.13. To a substantial extent, schools that practice legacy preference (which is most of the highly prestigious ones) are accepting objectively worse students because of it. Are these students still good enough? Sure, I guess. But let's not pretend that there are no compromises being made.

It's also worth pointing out, again, that the practice of favoring legacy applicants was cooked up shortly after World War I specifically to find a way to exclude the large number of objectively talented Jewish students applying to elite schools. It was rapidly becoming legally infeasible to explicitly exclude or place limits on how many could be admitted, but schools weren't about to let a whole bunch of jews in, so they started doing stuff like favoring the children of previous (largely non-jewish) graduates.

My father went to my undergrad school, which I suppose makes me a legacy. Now, I have more than my fair share of gripes with the place, but I have to say that I'm proud that they don't show any legacy preference. I got in under my own steam and on my own merits. Did my father's education help provide me with more opportunities growing up? Sure. But those were all opportunities I had to make use of myself.

The data is interesting. Doesn't really surprise me too much I guess but it doesn't really change my view. I admit that they may be accepting "objectively worse students" but that doesn't mean they're slouches. And that doesn't mean that any subjective measures don't work in their favor. You admit that you may have had more opportunities, and that you had to make use of them yourself. Same with me. I did well in school and on the MCAT. I had time to do 3 years of research, volunteer in a hospital, shadow, etc. Not having to work all through college was crucial to that I'm sure. Most times, legacy students have to make use of the opportunities too. It may be an easier ride, but it's not free.

And let's not forget, the reason that these top tier legacy schools can provide such great financial aid to students who can't afford it is because of their endowments. Much of this can come from these donations. Not just legacy students benefit. This doesn't make it right, but it's a complicating issue.

Bringing up the origin of legacy admissions is a bit misleading. Sure, it does lead to a lack of diversity at many institutions, but it's not meant to keep undesireables out. Plus, many of these previously-discriminated against populations may know benefit with active attempts to diversify and the financial aid money to do so.

Look, I'm not a real supporter of legacy admissions. The thread was a bit one-sided, and one of my pet peeves is the simplification of complex issues. It also annoys me when people criticize others for using their advantages while these same people ignore the advantages that they have. To me, it's more about jealousy and envy than fairness; it's a way to get angry about something that they didn't get but think they deserved.

Yes, on its face, legacy admissions are unjust. But it's not that simple. That's all.

 

[zherussianbear]

Hi everyone,

OP: I agree completely. You may enjoy this article from the New Yorker by Malcolm Gladwell about admissions and how the current process came about:

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/10/10/051010crat_atlarge

Everyone bashing capitalism: STFU!
My parents came from a socialist country, and if you think that there was any meritocracy, fairness, or lack of corruption there, you're sorely mistaken. Furthermore, if you think that that system is by any means better than our own, kill yourselves. Slowly.

 

[phltz]

And let's not forget, the reason that these top tier legacy schools can provide such great financial aid to students who can't afford it is because of their endowments. Much of this can come from these donations. Not just legacy students benefit. This doesn't make it right, but it's a complicating issue.

Neither MIT nor Caltech offer preference to legacies. Caltech (which is very small) has an endowment of over a billion dollars. MIT has more than nine billion. Both are excellent schools, although somewhat specialized. Both will offer pretty much however much money is necessary to be affordable to poorer students. I can't find stats on Caltech, but MIT certainly has many more students from poor/middle classes than the elite schools that practice legacy preference. About 20% of MIT students come from a family making less than $50k per year, and about as many again come from families making between $50k and $100k. Considering that the mean income for families headed by a 45-54 year old (which is likely the age range for most parents of college students) is is the mid $80ks, this means a substantial number of MIT students come from poorer than average families.

If it was really about getting a good enough endowment for the schools to be able to afford financial aid, then you would expect a school like Harvard, with over 31 billion dollars, would finally be able to afford to shut down their legacy preferences. If it was about being accessible to students from poor backgrounds, why does a non-legacy-preferences school like MIT have more children from poor and middle class backgrounds than does Harvard?

The rationales you offer sound good on their faces, but they are simply not supported by the data.

 

[Pattycake25]

Instead of just throwing out some anecdotes, let's look at actual hard data. Being a legacy has been estimated to provide a similar boost to your application as an extra 160 points (out of 1600) on the SAT, and that, controlling for other applicant characteristics, it improves odds of admission by a factor of 3.13. To a substantial extent, schools that practice legacy preference (which is most of the highly prestigious ones) are accepting objectively worse students because of it. Are these students still good enough? Sure, I guess. But let's not pretend that there are no compromises being made.

The numbers you provide are based on undergraduate admissions (as well as J.D programs to a limited extent), but I would argue two factors impair their usefulness for analyzing med admissions:

1. A far smaller share of students overall are accepted to M.D. programs than Associates or Bachelors.
2. The difference in quality between the best and the non-outlier worst American M.D. programs is much smaller than that between the best and worst undergraduate campuses, due to higher standardization.

Granted, I think #1 may actually count in your favor, as it is greater selectivity that invites more impact for an admissions "edge" (then again, there's less room for error on things like the MCAT, so I'm not sure), and I have no idea how #2 would factor in. These, in addition to other factors, however, really damage the application of undergrad admissions research to any grad process, including M.D.s and D.O.s. I'm not saying your results should be thrown out completely, but I am saying you should take them with a grain of salt.

 

[Barcu]

If it was really about getting a good enough endowment for the schools to be able to afford financial aid, then you would expect a school like Harvard, with over 31 billion dollars, would finally be able to afford to shut down their legacy preferences. If it was about being accessible to students from poor backgrounds, why does a non-legacy-preferences school like MIT have more children from poor and middle class backgrounds than does Harvard?

Maybe schools with legacies use legacies to pull in extra money (in addition to the massive amounts of grants they get) while schools like MIT and Caltech need the cream of the crop to pull in research grants, thus taking the best students.

I have no evidence to back that up. Just speculating.

Look, my point is that legacies happen and will continue to do so. They may be unfair, but they are not the only reason that the people who "deserve" to be in top schools get rejected. It's not like any school takes an objective list and then just goes down the line and accepts students in order. There are other factors at play. Plus, most people with great stats have many advantages themselves. It may not be a legacy, but it was supportive parents, or a good private school, or being able to have college paid, etc. Why are you more deserving because your SAT was a little bit better? Is it all about numbers? Should it all be about numbers? Do good test scores make you the most deserving or the smartest? We are getting into some deeper issues here. How do we know who the "objectively better" candidate is? Maybe the legacy student has some intangibles that his father who attended the school had (personality, drive, people are drawn to him, whatever) that the school thinks will make him more successful than a student with better scores. Maybe the school just wants money. Who knows, but why complain about it? Why does it bother people so much? Is it because they think they are more deserving?

And it's not like these schools are struggling because of legacies. They are a private school, they can accept who they want. It's not like Harvard is pumping out a ton of bad doctors. It's not like Harvard is losing clout in the world because they are turning away all these "more deserving" applicants.

So, I'll reiterate. Is it unfair? Sure. Does it matter? Not really.

 

[phltz]

Look, my point is that legacies happen and will continue to do so. They may be unfair, but they are not the only reason that the people who "deserve" to be in top schools get rejected. It's not like any school takes an objective list and then just goes down the line and accepts students in order. There are other factors at play. Plus, most people with great stats have many advantages themselves. It may not be a legacy, but it was supportive parents, or a good private school, or being able to have college paid, etc. Why are you more deserving because your SAT was a little bit better? Is it all about numbers? Should it all be about numbers? Do good test scores make you the most deserving or the smartest? We are getting into some deeper issues here. How do we know who the "objectively better" candidate is? Maybe the legacy student has some intangibles that his father who attended the school had (personality, drive, people are drawn to him, whatever) that the school thinks will make him more successful than a student with better scores. Maybe the school just wants money. Who knows, but why complain about it? Why does it bother people so much? Is it because they think they are more deserving?

And it's not like these schools are struggling because of legacies. They are a private school, they can accept who they want. It's not like Harvard is pumping out a ton of bad doctors. It's not like Harvard is losing clout in the world because they are turning away all these "more deserving" applicants.

So, I'll reiterate. Is it unfair? Sure. Does it matter? Not really.

I think the reason it bothers people so much is that attending a good school is, by and large, a ticket to admission into the American elite. And because we like to think of ourselves as something of a meritocracy, as a country where talented, hard working children from the humblest of backgrounds have an opportunity to rise to the very top, and where how far you go in life is determined by your own efforts, not your last name.

This isn't really true, of course. But it still pisses people off to have it thrown in their face that many of the things we claim to value about our society are actually untrue, that we live in a fairly hereditary caste-based society.

 

[sibitrum]

Going to a good school is as much about associating with a high-status institution and high-status individuals than it is about obtaining some extra special education. Legacy admissions (in addition to the whole donation thing) is status affirmative action. These students come from higher-status families and offer other students at the college high-status connections. Is this a good thing for society? Probably not. Is it, like racial affirmative action or sports affirmative action, going to go away anytime soon? Given the strong status quo bias in institutional culture, I would bet not.

 

[Barcu]

I think the reason it bothers people so much is that attending a good school is, by and large, a ticket to admission into the American elite. And because we like to think of ourselves as something of a meritocracy, as a country where talented, hard working children from the humblest of backgrounds have an opportunity to rise to the very top, and where how far you go in life is determined by your own efforts, not your last name.

This isn't really true, of course. But it still pisses people off to have it thrown in their face that many of the things we claim to value about our society are actually untrue, that we live in a fairly hereditary caste-based society.

I agree.

But isn't it kind of a chicken and the egg type argument? Could it be a ticket to the American elite because elite people send their children there? How would reducing legacy admissions affect the perceptions of these schools? Would they be more like the other schools you mentioned, MIT and Caltech? Certainly, going to and succeeding at MIT is quite impressive. I am more impressed with people who go there than go to Harvard. But does MIT put you in the American elite? Not really.

We like to think of ourselves as a meritocracy, and we believe in an American Dream. But that is out of reach for most people. And that's been true for much of our history. It's not just a cynical outlook on today's America.

 

[IlDestriero]