[Lumos]

I just don't get it. How can they preach equal opportunity and consideration of applicants if a student has better chances just because their parents/grandparents went there? if has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on their personal achievements or qualities, so why do they give you bonus points for it? In the UK it's quite the opposite, if your parents went to university (even the same one), it's even counted against you as you have an unfair chance. Oxbridge/London unis don't take 'legacy' into consideration (and if they did I'd be a shoe in - but quite rightly I'm not), so why the ivies?

To be honest the only reason I can think of is to benefit the families of the professors, deans and alumni. In the cases of alumni, many I'm sure are donating generously to the university, and in exchange they ensure that their children have better chances of being accepted, especially as they wouldn't want to lose their financial support. Surely this is totally corrupt! I understand now why we don't have private universities in the UK.

Can anyone justify it?
And yes, I am bitter about this.

[crocker710]

I can't justify it; but it's there to keep the upper sections of society exactly where they are.

(That sounded very socialist; which I'm not )

[Sharri5]

(Original post by Lumos)
I just don't get it. How can they preach equal opportunity and consideration of applicants if a student has better chances just because their parents/grandparents went there? if has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on their personal achievements or qualities, so why do they give you bonus points for it? In the UK it's quite the opposite, if your parents went to university (even the same one), it's even counted against you as you have an unfair chance. Oxbridge/London unis don't take 'legacy' into consideration (and if they did I'd be a shoe in - but quite rightly I'm not), so why the ivies?

To be honest the only reason I can think of is to benefit the families of the professors, deans and alumni. In the cases of alumni, many I'm sure are donating generously to the university, and in exchange they ensure that their children have better chances of being accepted, especially as they wouldn't want to lose their financial support. Surely this is totally corrupt! I understand now why we don't have private universities in the UK.

Can anyone justify it?
And yes, I am bitter about this.

It's one of many factors. You're not a shoe in with it and you're not at a loss without it. It's a great way to foster a community, make alumni feel as though they are invested-- but it isn't as much as an advantage as you're seem to believe.

[zero_Gravity91]

(Original post by Lumos)
I just don't get it. How can they preach equal opportunity and consideration of applicants if a student has better chances just because their parents/grandparents went there? if has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on their personal achievements or qualities, so why do they give you bonus points for it? In the UK it's quite the opposite, if your parents went to university (even the same one), it's even counted against you as you have an unfair chance. Oxbridge/London unis don't take 'legacy' into consideration (and if they did I'd be a shoe in - but quite rightly I'm not), so why the ivies?

To be honest the only reason I can think of is to benefit the families of the professors, deans and alumni. In the cases of alumni, many I'm sure are donating generously to the university, and in exchange they ensure that their children have better chances of being accepted, especially as they wouldn't want to lose their financial support. Surely this is totally corrupt! I understand now why we don't have private universities in the UK.

Can anyone justify it?
And yes, I am bitter about this.

Well, simply speaking, the Ivy League system is hierarchical. The descendants of "philanthropists" who constantly donate to these universities generally gain an advantage within the social hierarchy that exists within the Ivy League. Since they contribute a lot to the wealth, fame, and reputation of the university, it's pretty obvious that they would put them before the others.

By "equal opportunity", they are talking about children that are extremely gifted, yet are incapable of paying the enormous amount of money that Ivy League universities require from their students. Sure enough, this system will continue to prevail, as universities gain more contributions from alumni students by preserving this "traditional approach".

Unfortunately, I believe this is one of the downsides of private institutions. It prevents students that are equally talented and gifted from being able to reach into this exclusive network where only the privileged are eligible for admission.

[Azland]

(Original post by zero_Gravity91)
Well, simply speaking, the Ivy League system is hierarchical. The descendants of "philanthropists" who constantly donate to these universities generally gain an advantage within the social hierarchy that exists within the Ivy League. Since they contribute a lot to the wealth, fame, and reputation of the university, it's pretty obvious that they would put them before the others.

By "equal opportunity", they are talking about children that are extremely gifted, yet are incapable of paying the enormous amount of money that Ivy League universities require from their students. Sure enough, this system will continue to prevail, as universities gain more contributions from alumni students by preserving this "traditional approach".

Unfortunately, I believe this is one of the downsides of private institutions. It prevents students that are equally talented and gifted from being able to reach into this exclusive network where only the privileged are eligible for admission.

Does this apply strictly for the undergraduate level or does it follow through for graduate admissions aswell?

[IlliteratePedant]

There are private universities in the UK...

[ukmed108]

(Original post by Lumos)
I just don't get it. How can they preach equal opportunity and consideration of applicants if a student has better chances just because their parents/grandparents went there? if has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on their personal achievements or qualities, so why do they give you bonus points for it? In the UK it's quite the opposite, if your parents went to university (even the same one), it's even counted against you as you have an unfair chance. Oxbridge/London unis don't take 'legacy' into consideration (and if they did I'd be a shoe in - but quite rightly I'm not), so why the ivies?

To be honest the only reason I can think of is to benefit the families of the professors, deans and alumni. In the cases of alumni, many I'm sure are donating generously to the university, and in exchange they ensure that their children have better chances of being accepted, especially as they wouldn't want to lose their financial support. Surely this is totally corrupt! I understand now why we don't have private universities in the UK.

Can anyone justify it?
And yes, I am bitter about this.

Factoring legacy is probably the least unfair part of the Ivy League admissions. American schools all factor in "race" into admissions. Black and Hispanic applicants get a considerable boost on their SATs when applying to colleges whereas Asians get the negative end. Ivy League schools try to balance the % of each race in their schools according to the U.S Census. As a result, black students with 2000 SATs get accepted over Asians with 2300 SATs. All it takes is a quick look at admissions decisions at College Confidential to prove my point. UC Berkeley which is considered a public "Ivy", does not factor in race into its admissions by california law and as a result 40% of the school is Asian. You could argue whether or not that makes for a good school, but you cannot deny the fact that Asians with much better test scores, grades and extracurriculars are being rejected for minorities with much lower test scores for the sake of making the university look multiracial. It is sad that race is such a problem in the U.S. No other country like Canada or the U.K has such a policy of "affirmative action" and yet we have a much smaller problem with race than the U.S does.

The idea of legacy comes with the "vague" idea that children of alumni will understand the university better. It again is completely unfair and I wish the ivy leagues would eliminate race and legacy in their decisions.

[zero_Gravity91]

(Original post by Azland)
Does this apply strictly for the undergraduate level or does it follow through for graduate admissions aswell?

I believe it applies to both levels.

[devil09]

(Original post by Lumos)
I just don't get it. How can they preach equal opportunity and consideration of applicants if a student has better chances just because their parents/grandparents went there? if has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on their personal achievements or qualities, so why do they give you bonus points for it?

First, keep in mind that legacies do not always have an advantage. Many colleges require legacies to apply early decision if they want a boost; applying regular decision results in little or no advantage. Second, keep in mind that legacies make up a small part of the acceptance pool; they typically make up no more than 10% of the matriculating class and likely make up no more than 5% of all admitted students.

Legacies are more likely to matriculate. Accepting legacies results in a higher yield, which results in a lower acceptance rate and more prestige. Alumni donation is also a factor, as you noted yourself.


These rants assume that legacies are academically unqualified, something for which I see very little evidence. In fact, some colleges claim precisely the opposite.

(Original post by Yale Daily News)
Whatever their connections to Yale prior to applying, legacy applicants are not considered separately from the rest of the application pool, Brenzel said; legacy students receive their primary evaluation from the same admissions officers who read the applications of the rest of the students applying from the relevant school and area, he said.

And while legacy students are admitted at a higher rate than other applicants, Brenzel has said in the past that legacies generally have higher qualifications as applicants, and after they matriculate, they usually outdo non-legacy peers who had comparable grades and standardized test scores as applicants.

Elite colleges in the US have far too many qualified applicants. When you receive 25,000+ applications from students, all of whom have 3.8+ GPAs and 2100+ SAT scores, but only have 2500-3000 acceptances to give out, how do you choose?

There's a lot about admissions that isn't fair. The gender balance must be kept to avoid complaints, and a racial/ethnic balance provides diversity. Maybe you get lucky as an oboist and the orchestra needs you; maybe you play trumpet and are out of luck. The debate team needs new recruits, as does the football team. You must remember that each application is not read in a vacuum; admissions officers are sculpting a freshman class, and every application is read within that context.

What amuses me is that applicants fall over themselves applying to colleges and then bitterly denounce their admissions practices when they (to their surprise, despite a 90-95% rejection rate) are rejected. What makes Brown different from Dartmouth or Columbia from Penn? It's the student body at each of these that makes them so unique - the quirky hipsters at Brown, the pre-professional preps at Dartmouth, the play hard/party hard types at Penn. If you don't like the admissions practices at these schools -- and by extension the student bodies themselves -- then don't apply. It's really as simple as that. These colleges produce enormous numbers of prominent politicians and business people, have the best track records for awards/fellowship production, send students to top graduate and professional schools in droves, etc. Clearly they are doing something right.

[Lumos]

(Original post by IlliteratePedant)
There are private universities in the UK...

A few, but they don't consistently dominate the league tables like the ivies do. All our top institutions are public/state universities.