Harvard admit rate, non-legacy applicants: 6% Harvard admit rate, legacy applicants: 33% ‘A form of property transfer from one generation to the another,’
1/10 In light of the trenchant piece from the editorial board. , I've written about legacy preferences in college admissions. My piece is here. . Summary thread follows:
NYT Editorial: If We're Serious About Reducing Inequality, It's Time to End Legacy College Admissions The admission rate for legacy applicants at Harvard was 33%. For non-legacies, just 6% Legacy policies are affirmative action for the rich & for whites
I don't know what prompted this anti-legacy preference editorial from the #NYTimes, but glad to see it. Welcome to the cause.
Legacy admissions are indefensible exactly because they “perpetuate a de facto class system.” But because of rampant inequities, it is a stretch to claim that eliminating legacy preference would bolster meritocracy. We need to question that justification.
In Opinion The editorial board writes, "Preferential treatment for legacy admissions is anti-meritocratic, inhibits social mobility and helps perpetuate a de facto class system. In short, it is an engine of inequity."
the privileged tell themselves a story of meritocracy that collapses under the slightest bit of scrutiny
End Legacy College Admissions
“continuing to give applicants an advantage simply because of where their parents went to school is, as one critic called it, ‘a form of property transfer from one generation to another’“
Legacy admissions, especially at institutions which were white-only just a generation or two ago, are so overtly white supremacist that it’s an immense moral failing that schools haven’t voluntarily abandoned them already.
End athletic 'scholar'ships first. They have nothing to do with a university's core mission, and nothing to do with scholarship.
The editorial board calls for an end to legacy college admissions, an "engine of inequity."
End Legacy College Admissions
“Preferential treatment for legacy admissions is anti-meritocratic, inhibits social mobility and helps perpetuate a de facto class system. In short, it is an engine of inequity. Little wonder that it is unpopular with most Americans.”
important statement from the editorial board
This pompous progressive pronouncement against family advantage is brought to you by a left-wing activist group, , that has been controlled by the same family for five consecutive generations. Hypocrisy is a core value for progressives.
Yes! Completely agree: legacy admission at elite institutions "is an engine of inequity." There is no good justification for it, and it should stop.
Opinion | End Legacy College Admissions - The New York Times
The people I’ve encountered in my journey through this life who most sorely need to read this are, I am confident, not Times readers.
"Preferential treatment for legacy admissions is anti-meritocratic, inhibits social mobility and helps perpetuate a de facto class system."
Um, yes. End Legacy College Admissions
“[A] form of property transfer from one generation to another.” The property here being white monopoly on resources.
Editorial: A country struggling with deeply rooted #inequality need not continue an affirmative action program for successful families. via
Kudos for the NYTImes and scholars like Richard Reeves and Aaron Klein for making a compelling argument to end this elitist and insidious practice. ⁦
Hallo there is your unroll: Thread by : "1/10 In light of the trenchant piece from the editorial board. , I've written about legacy pr […]" Have a good day. 🤖
Yes, colleges should stop giving legacies an advantage in admissions. If your parents went to an elite school, you already have plenty of advantages. #MondayThoughts
Excellent editorial arguing: "End Legacy College Admissions" Why should kids who already have enjoyed every advantage enjoy an additional thumb on the scale to access institutions that may act as economic escalators?
Every New York Times publisher since 1896 has been a member of the Ochs-Sulzberger family.
Dear Presidents of , , do make sure to read your copy of the New York Times especially carefully tomorrow, please.
I'll risk making a prediction. A combination this year of 1) a good editorial 2) a lost court case in Harvard and 3) more great research will be the triple shock needed to end legacy preferences in college admissions
Clear argument on why college “legacy” admission preferences should go.
The entrenched inequity of the US higher education system deeply frustrating. Today, I'm particularly gobsmacked at: 1) the near entirety of legal citation uses bluebook, which is proprietary & closed-access 2) Legacy admissions: seriously wtf.
#LegacyAdmissions. A blatant form of #WhitePrivilege at prestigious universities. 42% of private institutions & 6% of public ones consider legacy status. A legacy applicant is 7 times more likely to be accepted to et al.