• silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      That’s usually “I hire my relatives” not “I admit the kids of rich people” — the admissions officers are not generally relatives of the rich.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        3 months ago

        https://www.ninertimes.com/opinion/opinion-legacy-students-threaten-to-limit-other-students-academic-success/article_47421d3a-b6dd-11ed-b2ba-0f3a33fd7ae5.html

        "Academic admissions preference policies have been in the public eye for the last few years. It is known that being a legacy student, meaning that the applicant’s family has strong family ties to the university, gives a significant advantage when it comes to applying to highly selective institutions. It has been in practice by top institutions since the 1920s.

        Looking at the numbers, calling it a “big advantage” hardly seems to do it quantifiable justice. For example, Harvard has an acceptance rate of under 6%. However, if it were a legacy student applying, their odds of admissions jump to 33%."

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          And that’s why the top-level post was looking exclusively at admission rates for non-legacies, who also get a huge advantage from having rich parents

          • DecaturNature@yall.theatl.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Rich folk are also good at gaming all the other criteria (varsity sports, extracurricular achievements). “opportunity hoarding” I think is the term that’s been used, or resume padding. It’s also about being able to pay full tuition.

  • DecaturNature@yall.theatl.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I suspect the ‘affirmative action’ trend also reflects the difference in ambition/drive between the low-income high achievers and the >70% high achievers. The low income group is smaller than the >70% group (look at the size of the ‘above average odds’ regios and the ‘below average odds’ regions). This is because most of the people in the low income group will never even apply for a private college – only the strongest applicants apply. But from the >70% group, basically every kid applies to college, and they are much more comfortable applying for ‘reach’ colleges (even if it costs their parents a few hundred extra dollars). They’ve also gamed their test scores.

  • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 months ago

    The pink part is called legacy admissions. It’s how elite universities grow their endowments. That is their ultimate goal: grow and grow and grow some more.

    It isn’t just admissions though, it’s also tuition. Schools like Harvard could easily afford to give free tuition to all their students. The fact that they don’t is rather mysterious. I suspect part of the reason is that the students whose families can afford the tuition see it as a sort of conspicuous consumption.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Legacy admisisons = admitting the kids of people whose parents attended. That’s also a huge thing.

      But it’s only part of what’s going on; wealth has a large direct impact too.