 |  | top stories | | 1 new story
no new comments | | etcetera | 2 new stories
31 new comments | | filmtv | 3 new stories
47 new comments | | media | 1 new story
44 new comments | | politics | 3 new stories
118 new comments | | scitech | 1 new story
3 new comments | | work | 2 new stories
28 new comments | |
| | | | | Affirmative Action For Blue-Bloods Comes Under Fire | | | | | found on The American Prospect
written by hrothgar, edited by Ken (Plastic) [ read unedited ]
posted Tue 7 Jan 5:59am | | | | |
 | "Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has proposed eliminating legacy admissions in American universities. University legacy admissions policies give preference to the children and grandchildren of alumni. The advantage can be enormous. In one year, for example, children of Cornell alumni had an admission rate of more than 50 percent to that Ivy League university, compared with the normal admission rate of 30 percent."
In this pre-pre-pre-election season, hrothgar notes that, "Attacking legacy admissions may be a smart political move for Edwards, since it allows him to draw a sharp distinction between himself (the first member of his family to go to college) and President Bush (a legacy admission at Andover and Yale), not to mention other privileged candidates for the Democratic nomination. It also allows him a neat side-step to the impending affirmative action debate."
The Republican Party's platform proudly states that, "ours is a system in which achievement can count for more than money or social status," and calls for "increased access for all" to higher education. If Edwards' proposal resonates with voters, might we see the Bush Administration adopt it as their own?
The US federal government's authority to challenge these admissions policies would seem to be weak under existing civil rights law, but there may be other ways to coax institutions into "voluntarily" giving up the practice. Universities maintain that legacy admissions help them in fundraising, and generally do not require them to relax admissions standards. Are legacy admissions anathema in a meritocracy, or are there compelling reasons to maintain the practice at private institutions of higher learning?
| |
[ more plastic... ] |
| | | | | | | | 64. Re: 3rd paragraph | | | | by semonyenko |  | | | at Tue 7 Jan 2:18pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 1 | | | | | |
No sarcasm intended, I think. Re-read the quote:
"ours is a system in which achievement can count for more than money or social status,"
Note that the operative word in this phrase is 'can,' meaning that it is theoretically possible for achievement to count for more than money or social status. The fact that it doesn't in 99.9% of cases does not make the statement false. Only carefully worded.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't do or teach become school adminstrators.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 2. Is this really true? | | | | by Arkestra | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 7:21am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Are legacy admissions anathema in a meritocracy, or are there compelling reasons to maintain the practice at private institutions of higher learning? wooooooah....
Let me get this right.
Is this really true? Are legacy admissions an openly acknowledged, common feature of American universities?
Bloody hell.
I never knew that this practice existed! It seems totally and utterly weird to me, but then my country (the UK) the govt contributes money for each undergraduate student, so maybe that accounts for the difference? Because the US universities have to fund themselves entirely?
But how can Cornell (or anywhere else) claim to be a centre of excellence if it gives preference to the children of alumni?
It's obvious that admissions standards will fall, because the potential student's intrinsic merit is no longer the sole criterion.
Down pokey quaint streets in Cambridge / Cycles our distant spastic heritage
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 11. Re: Yep, it's true, and acknowledged in places | | | | by Arkestra | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 7:46am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 6 | | | | | |
Thanks for the link!If a legacy applicant has already decided that Penn is his/her first choice, he/she should apply under the Early Decision Plan. Alumni children and grandchildren maximize their alumni affiliation by applying in this way. "And grandchildren?"
Dear Lord, this certainly puts the odd UK spat over University places for money into perspective. Absolutely fascinating. Thanks again.
Down pokey quaint streets in Cambridge / Cycles our distant spastic heritage
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 10. Re: Is this really true? | | | | by David Flores | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 7:42am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 2 | | | | | |
My Alma Matter practiced affirmative action by applying the same entrance criteria to minorities as to "legacy" applicants. This approach makes a certain sense: since a black kid's parents would have been barred from attending, there was no way he could have applied as a legacy, thus, the university gave him the chance that he had been denied by previous racist entrance criteria.
GAFB and GAFB2
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 23. Re: Is this really true? | | | | by chatsubo | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 9:23am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 2 | | | | | |
but then my country (the UK) the govt contributes money for each undergraduate student
Can I move to your alternative Earth UK as it sounds really nice. In my version of the UK, you barely get your fees payed, only get a grant if both your parents were killed and you were forced to spend your childhood living in a tube of Polo mints, and then get saddled with massive debts for student loans.
Plus our elite universities have admission policies that make the Ivy League look like Animal House. They are still finishing schools for public schoolkids.
Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 24. Re: Is this really true? | | | | by Arkestra | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 9:45am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 23 | | | | | |
I'm not saying it's fair in the UK, but jeez!
Part of the reason places like Cambridge and Oxford are so crap, smug and complacent is that people think they're just "finishing schools for public schoolkids", so don't even bother to apply. The whole thing gets perpetuated, and the dons get fatter. People's own prejudices work to entrench the class system.
My state school was the crappest in its area of London, at a time when ILEA actively discouraged applications to Oxbridge from the state sector. I had no maths teacher and had to learn all the stuff myself from books. I know it's hard and that people are disadvantaged at every step. I also know that Labour are kicking away the ladder, which is why I will never ever ever vote for the b*ggers again.
For the record, the people I know from my time at the "elite university" were more from state than private schools.
Come on now. Wherever you are, the rich always have a great time. The poor always get sh*t on. But when I was studying, I never saw an alternative entrance marked "for the children and grandchildren of alumni only". It is not like that in the UK.
Down pokey quaint streets in Cambridge / Cycles our distant spastic heritage
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 77. Re: Is this really true? | | | | by eiger | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 5:51pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 24 | | | | | |
Off topic, but the American system is great to poor people who do the research and are in the know. If you are poor (like I was) and get into a top-tier private school (like I did), you basically become the beneficiary of a sort of welfare system whereby the rich kids pay full price and the poor kids get huge grants that basically make the whole thing MUCH cheaper than public school. For me, during my first two years, when my sister was attending an ivy, everything was paid for except books and a $1000 loan. That means housing, food, tuition, and fees. After she graduated, my loan went up, but when I moved off campus, the school basically handed me a check for $2000 each term to cover housing and food. The only reason I have as many loans as I do is because they became less giving in my fifth year (which was fair since I was in a four year program). And, I had friends who were even worse off and made out like bandits.
Then again I thought Kerry was going to win. So, what the hell do I know?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 36. Re: Is this really true? | | | | by TheMCP | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 10:57am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 2 | | | | | |
Is this really true? Are legacy admissions an openly acknowledged, common feature of American universities? Well, I don't know about openly acknowledged because sure as hell nobody told me about it when I was looking for a school except my father, who offered to get me into his alma-mater if I wanted. However, at the time at least I believe it was in fact common at least among school with any kind of prestige.But how can Cornell (or anywhere else) claim to be a centre of excellence if it gives preference to the children of alumni? Well, there are two ways: - To some extent, while giving preference to children of alumni they still have to make some effort not to admit total deadbeats who happen to be children of alumni, because they're more likely to drop out or fail out, and many kids looking at an expensive education do look at the dropout rates before making their decision on the school.
- They can just lie about it.
End of line.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 44. Re: Is this really true? | | | | by SimpsonsQuoteBot | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 11:55am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 2 | | | | | |
But how can Cornell (or anywhere else) claim to be a centre of excellence if it gives preference to the children of alumni? I think the greatness of any American university come from things like the quality and profile of graduate research, the fame and reputation of professors and the dominance of its sports programs. Undergraduates, the students these legacies are, have very little to do with it.
WWD4D?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 54. Re: Is this really true? | | | | by superdude | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 1:18pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 2 | | | | | |
Is this really true? Are legacy admissions an openly acknowledged, common feature of American universities?
Well... no. They are only really a factor at the 8 campuses of the Ivy League and at a few other private colleges and universities where fewer than 40 percent of applicants are admitted. These schools, being private, depend on alumni donations and thus need to keep their alumni in a generous mood.
Legacy admissions aren't a factor at any state universities, even the prestigious ones.
There may be legacy admissions at private universities outside the top 25 most competetive, but they're not so much a factor, as most of these schools are happy to admit anyone who can pay the bill. Dirty little secret about applying to college: Once you're out of the top 25, it's a buyer's market. Promotional materials from the colleges and from test prep companies don't tend to emphasize this.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 74. Re: Is this really true? | | | | by Mutation | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 5:10pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 54 | | | | | |
But I believe legacy admission are a factor in prestigious state universities! As explained before, 3 of the colleges at Cornell University are New York state colleges, including the second largest college at Cornell, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. I should know, as an out-of-state student, I am paying 30k in this college while my housemates from Staten Island and Watertown are paying 12k. The question concerning legacies on the Cornell application is on the main portion, not on the portions specific to what college the applicant is applying. With such a large school, alumni donations contribute to a large percent of the budget at Cornell; hence, legacies even for students in state-assisted colleges are important from a financial perspective.
Prestigious state colleges, such as U of Michigan and Ohio State, rely on alumni donations to build the huge stadiums and other buildings on their campus. These universities have a large database of alumni in which they tap into for donations; as there exist legacies at both of these places (I have siblings at each of these universities), one can infer that the universities are actively admitting those applicants with a family history of giving large donations.
Why should we are about this? Sure, it probably only affects a small percentage of the student population (although at U of Michigan, even 2% of the student population is 400 students). However, I at least would expect universities to have higher ideals than a corporation. Unlike a business, they do not exist to make money, and therefore they should not cater to people willing to give large amounts of money. I personally feel universities should be places where individuals are admitted and treated only on merit and not on economic class.
But hey, I'm just idealistic.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 75. Re: Is this really true? | | | | by strumbucket | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 5:34pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 54 | | | | | |
They are only really a factor at the 8 campuses of the Ivy League and at a few other private colleges and universities wherefewer than 40 percent of applicants are admitted. These schools, being private, depend on alumni donations and thus need to keep their alumni in a generous mood.
Legacy admissions aren't a factor at any state universities, even the prestigious ones.
Not so, as my alma mater (the University of North Carolina) follows this practice. Though I managed to gain admission anyways.
got bodybags?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 88. Is it true? Afraid so... | | | | by ashsky | | | | at Wed 8 Jan 6:33pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 75 | | | | | |
Legacy admissions is also a well known practice at Texas A&M University. While visiting the campus once, I heard people proudly proclaiming "I'm a 3rd generation Aggie!" "Well, I'm a 6th generation Aggie!"
Not that that is something I would brag about....
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | | 38. Re: Achievements | | | | by eduardo | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 11:05am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 3 | | | | | |
Hmm...
Governor... owned the Rangers... President.
Looks to me as if he'd an alumnus any school could hope for.
You better work hard to make sure your Alma Mater is proud of more than your Plastic postings.
J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 46. Re: Achievements | | | | by phenry | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 12:15pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 38 | | | | | |
Governor...
Yeah, that woulda happened if his name was George W. Smith.
owned the Rangers...
Yeah, George W. Smith woulda been able to swing a 12 percent share of a major league baseball team by putting up 2 percent of the capital.
President.
Give or take half a million votes, a disputed election in a state run by his brother, and a handful of Supreme Court justices appointed by his daddy, or by Daddy's boss.
Looks to me as if he'd an alumnus any school could hope for.
Yeah--powerful, rich, and on the alumni association's speed dial.
You better work hard to make sure your Alma Mater is proud of more than your Plastic postings.
I can't speak for klaatuvn, but my alma mater doesn't have a legacy program--they take pride in students and alumni who succeed on their own merits.
phh | Away for 3 years and still in the karma top 50! Woo hoo!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 4. Stunning... | | | | by David Flores | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 7:23am | score of 1.5 astute | | | | | | |
It's stunning that up to now the pro-affirmative action crowd has not made much hay of this issue. In fact, I'd never even thought of it 'till now. But clearly, if university admissions are to be a purely meritocratic system (in the very narrow sense of the term outlined by the anti-affirmative action crowd... i.e. SAT scores) then the "legacy pool" must go. America is not supposed to be an aristocratic society, but clearly this is a vestige of the days when "who you are" mattered more than "what you've achieved." The same should be done with fraternities and other social clubs.
I suspect that conservatives will retort that affirmative action of this sort is fine as long as it has a primarily financial raison d'etre. Affirmative action is wrong, on the other hand, if you're merely trying to reward someone who has managed admirably to overcome the shitty inner city schools and rampant racism of American society but scores a few points lower on the SAT than the kid from Exeter who he'd replace.
All hail the "gentleman's C"
GAFB and GAFB2
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 22. diversity, people | | | | by thegooch777 | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 9:23am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 4 | | | | | |
well, it's kind of like diversity. good schools are already overrun with kids that just worked really hard to get there. seriously, the blue-blood kids from exeter add a necessary ambience; w/o them, one can't tell the difference between an ivy and the oklahoma state honors program. so, i guess my retort has a primarily aesthetic raison d'etre.
All I want is a burrow owl, just like my old man
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 5. Hypothetical time | | | | by Brian Jones | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 7:26am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Assuming Edwards nabs the nomination, this bedrock anti-nepotism stance of his means he'll be rejecting that Al Gore endorsement, right?
Telling the Kennedys to stuff it, along with Reps. Harold Ford, Jr. and Jesse Jackson, Jr., yes?
If legacy admissions are sent on their way, what about athletic scholarships? They're far more pervasive and corrupting than the practice of legacy admissions, so shouldn't they go as well?
Is Edwards prepared to note that his own alma mater, NC State, has been a pathetic joke when it comes to the concept of student-athletes?
I suppose this isn't necessarily bad strategy by Edwards, but it won't matter much for the majority of American voters who don't consider Ivy League schools for their high-achieving kids because there's thousands of non-Ivy League schools that are a perfectly fine option, and far more affordable.
Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 7. Re: Hypothetical time | | | | by David Flores | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 7:35am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 5 | | | | | |
Assuming Edwards nabs the nomination, this bedrock anti-nepotism stance of his means he'll be rejecting that Al Gore endorsement, right?
Edwards is Al Gore's long lost son? Holy cow, when did that happen!
If legacy admissions are sent on their way, what about athletic scholarships? They're far more pervasive and corrupting than the practice of legacy admissions, so shouldn't they go as well?
I would challenge the claim that they're either more pervasive or more corrupting. As for pervasiveness, I think that would depend on the quality of the institution. The Ivy League school I attended did not offer athletic scholarships, but did have a "legacy admissions" program. As for the "corruption" factor, consider that an athlete is given a scholarship based on real talents he has honed and nurtured, not simply because he was born to a particular person. As controversial as college sports programs are, I find this far less corrupting than some sort of ill advised neo-aristocratism.
it won't matter much for the majority of American voters who don't consider Ivy League schools for their high-achieving kids because there's thousands of non-Ivy League schools that are a perfectly fine option, and far more affordable.
Republicams have worked their own brand of class warfare for years by attacking the goings on at American's "elite universities." I don't see why Democrats can't gain political traction by playing the same game.
GAFB and GAFB2
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 9. Re: Hypothetical time | | | | by Goldmund | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 7:41am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 7 | | | | | |
Republicams have worked their own brand of class warfare for years by attacking the goings on at American's "elite universities." I don't see why Democrats can't gain political traction by playing the same game.
I think that's the key, David, the Dems saw how the Republicans co-opted their party line 3 years ago and wiped the floor with them come election time. I also think it's a perfect way to portray the republicans as the elitist proponents of nepotism that we've long known they are.
The Dems are waking up, finding their voice and getting restarted.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 16. Don't muddle the issue | | | | by Brian Jones | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 8:21am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 7 | | | | | |
I hope you knew that by referencing Gore III and Reps. Ford II and Jackson II, I was pointing out other Democratic legislators who've benefitted greatly from their own inherited connections to the family business.
And so if, in the matter of elected officials who've benefitted from nepotism, Edwards wants to distance himself from the Bushes, he has to distance himself from the Gores and Kennedys as well for such a stance to ring true.
I would challenge the claim that they're either more pervasive or more corrupting
Here's the numbers on NCAA member colleges and the sports they offer. Practically every school in Division I offers athletic scholarships, as do many in Division II (Division III isn't allowed to offer scholarships, and the numbers for NAIA and NJCAA schools aren't clear.)
And as for the money, it's billions of dollars that are at stake in the college sports business. The slime follows the money.
(This'd be a good place for Edwards to do a photo-op with Bill Bradley, graduate of Princeton, one of the few that doesn't offer athletic scholarships.)
As for the "corruption" factor, consider that an athlete is given a scholarship based on real talents he has honed and nurtured...
Talents which he or she are more appropriately applied in an wholly athletic setting, if the academic skills aren't there.
While I enjoy college sports greatly, I tend to throw my rooting interest behind schools where academics takes clear precedence over athletics. Edwards would enhance his standing with me greatly if he ripped not just Yale for admitting doofus Dubya, but also his own NC State for repeatedly admitting the likes of Chris Washburn.
It's quite vile indeed for a college to exploit the talents of an unpaid student-athlete for four years, not caring a damn about preparing them for the rest of their lives, then dumping them on the curb when they're no longer useful.
At least the legacies have Mumsy and Daddy to fall back on.
Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 52. Re: Don't muddle the issue | | | | by Mister Superlove | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 12:51pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 16 | | | | | |
I hope you knew that by referencing Gore III and Reps. Ford II and Jackson II, I was pointing out other Democratic legislators who've benefitted greatly from their own inherited connections to the family business.
And so if, in the matter of elected officials who've benefitted from nepotism, Edwards wants to distance himself from the Bushes, he has to distance himself from the Gores and Kennedys as well for such a stance to ring true.
You're confusing name recognition (from which Gore, Jackson and various Fords and Kennedys, along with Shrub, benefitted rightly or wrongly).
However, the concrete definition of nepotism falls more along the lines of relatives or family acquaintances making some conscious effort to circumvent standing rules for admittance or hiring to get a favored candidate in place (think Scalia Five).
Some men are an island! I'm bloody Ibiza!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 67. Re: Don't muddle the issue | | | | by Brian Jones | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 3:33pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 52 | | | | | |
I don't think I'm confusing name recognition with an automatic leg up into national politics. It's part of the same package.
I just think that immersion from birth in the family business, with the bumpy spots made smooth by the right connections, the self-inflicted problems lawyered away as needed, the family safety net always in place, is usually harmful to the capacity to lead - both individually and for the party.
I know it's one primary factor that stopped me from voting for Al Gore, and even more so Bush.
(A tip of the hat to Gore is warranted here, for dropping out of the 2004 race and not letting Washington suck him back in, and additional kudos in the future if he also resists the lucrative lure of lobbyist-land.)
Many voters would feel much more comfortable going with a Democratic ticket if the Clinton-Gore-Kennedy influence were not there. I know I would.
Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 18. Re: Hypothetical time | | | | by bigeyes | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 8:34am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 5 | | | | | |
If legacy admissions are sent on their way, what about athletic scholarships? They're far more pervasive and corrupting than the practice of legacy admissions, so shouldn't they go as well?
Um, YES! My god, you've described Utopia! ;)
Both the rich (Republican, Democrat, I don't care, rich is rich) and the athletes not getting preferential treatment? I'm going back to sleep to dream some more!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 29. Re: Hypothetical time | | | | by hermenewt | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 10:12am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 5 | | | | | |
Assuming Edwards nabs the nomination, this bedrock anti-nepotism stance of his means he'll be rejecting that Al Gore endorsement, right?
Telling the Kennedys to stuff it, along with Reps. Harold Ford, Jr. and Jesse Jackson, Jr., yes?
Rhetorical questions, I assume, but I'll answer them anyway: no, he won't, nor should he. Your implied argument makes some dubious assumptions, among them being the idea one can't propose to make changes in a system if you or anyone you associate with have benefitted from the system as such. By that reasoning, for example, no one who has made use of a legal tax loophole could advocate closing the loophole; more starkly, no Southerner could have advocated abolishing slavery, since everyone in the South benefitted from it in some way.
This is a convenient way to argue against any change whatsoever, as the current world (ever so much so the political world) is always populated by beneficiaries of the status quo. Who in Washington hasn't benefitted from family connections, wealth, and other non-meritocratic perks? It sounds nice to insist that he who has succeeded purely on merit cast the first stone, but that's only a recipe for ensuring that no stones ever get cast at all.
Secondly, I think you're adding an unnecessary moral/personal dimension to this. There is no need to begrudge those who have benefitted from legacy admissions. I certainly don't blame anyone, including the Bushes, Al Gore, the Kennedys, Jacksons, Cheneys, etc., for taking advantage of whatever legal means were available to them to get a leg up. If I were a middling student and had a chance to prove myself at Yale that others didn't have, you bet I'd take it. The point is not to dwell on the choices of individuals, but to attempt to look at the structural rules (e.g., admission policies) from the broader standpoint of fairness.
If legacy admissions are sent on their way, what about athletic scholarships? They're far more pervasive and corrupting than the practice of legacy admissions, so shouldn't they go as well?
Good point, but a separate issue. Where is the principle that you can't solve one problem without solving every problem? You might as well say, "well, how come you don't solve world hunger while you're at it? That's a problem too!"
different(42), human(37), language(37), always(33), every(32), article(32)
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 40. Then I guess he'll have to watch his scheduling | | | | by Brian Jones | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 11:15am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 29 | | | | | |
You make some good points that I hadn't considered, but it'll play better if he doesn't have any "legacy" Democrats anywhere near the dais when he stumps on this issue. Better to have Russ Feingold around.
It'll be awkward for Edwards if Hillary is sitting there when he's asked how he plans to reconcile his anti-legacy stance with support from a senator who got the Democratic nomination thanks to the party making an extra-special effort to ensure she wouldn't be challenged in a primary - and New York Democratic primaries are traditionally the ugliest battles this side of Helm's Deep.
Talk about your legacy admissions.
Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 65. Blacks just love slavery? | | | | by Lulu Lotus-Eater | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 2:43pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 29 | | | | | |
Sayeth hermenewt:
>everyone in the South benefitted from [slavery] in some way.
Here's a procedure I recommend (and -usually- follow): Think, then write, then think again before posting.
(not that I disagree with the overall point of the message, but this bit was a bit shockingly offensive... inadvertently, I think).
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 68. Re: Blacks just love slavery? | | | | by hermenewt | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 3:33pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 65 | | | | | |
Holy crap on a crapsicle!!! OK, mea culpa, that was a pretty dumb gaffe.
Still, obviously it was inadvertent. There's a little thing called the "principle of charity," i.e., when you find someone saying something obviously false, you start with the assumption that they mean something else that isn't false, and work from there. That's why God made the word [sic].
For the record, that should have read something like "no white southerner could advocate abolition, since all white southerners benefitted from slavery." (Note also that I wasn't making this bogus argument, nor even asserting the truth of its premise, but using it as a reductio ad absurdum for another argument I was criticising.)
That said, what would Plastic be like if everyone proofread what they wrote before posting???
different(42), human(37), language(37), always(33), every(32), article(32)
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 8. Well | | | | by alaffin | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 7:41am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Yeah, legacy admissions are annoying. It absolutely goes against the ideal of the American Meritocracy (ideal, myth, whatever you want to call it) but it also serves a purpose.
Legacy admissions are a way for universities to make more money and therefore admit other students who can't afford to pay their incredibly high tuitions. What this does is basically take money out of the hands of the rich and distribute it amongst less fortunate students.
And that's not even counting endowments.
Yes, expanding access to higher education to the point where anyone who wants to go to college can regardless of their financial situation would be a really great thing. If there were some way to make it so kids didn't graduate with a small house worth of college loan debt that would probably be great for the economy too. I completely agree with that part of Edwards' point.
But attacking legacy admissions without talking about how you would fill the resulting hole in college based financial aid is not going to get that done.
satire
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 13. Re: Well | | | | by coprolalia | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 8:06am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 8 | | | | | |
I had thought of this particular point as soon as i read the writeup, and really the only thing i can come up with here (and the irony is absolutely delicious) is a quota system for legacy admissions. say, 5-10% of the student body processed as legacy admissions "separate but equal" to the main body of students. if you apply as a legacy admission, you cant apply as a regular freshman. of course it would never work, as that would only institutionalize the aristocratic nature of the admitted students themselves.
i cant believe i just proposed a "separate but equal" system with a straight face though.
My whole life is an empty exercise in mean spirited sarcasm. --gordon shumway
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 14. Re: Well | | | | by hrothgar | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 8:12am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 8 | | | | | |
Legacy admissions aren't the only way to admit rich kids! It's quite possible to either (a) ask kids when they apply whether they will seek financial aid, or (b) make an intelligent guess from zip codes how much money applicants have. Armed with that information, admit as many rich kids as you need, and then fill the rest with smart kids. (Hopefully the two categories will not be mutually exclusive). Then, charge the rich kids full tuition, and give the poor kids aid.
This has the disadvantage of not earning "loyalty" among alumni, but tough shit. When universities stopped discriminating on race and gender, they probably pissed off some alumni too, but it was the right thing to do.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 17. Re: Well | | | | by alaffin | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 8:28am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 14 | | | | | |
If the admission standards are biased toward a certain zip code or financial standing how is that any different? You're still lowering the bar for the rich kids but now you're giving up legacy endowments which pay for things like buildings and labs and books for your library.
The only perfectly fair way to do it is start at the top of the stack of applications and go through every single one without looking at anything other than the specifically relevant information and only looking at names and addresses when it's time to send out the acceptance letters but obviously it doesn't work like that.
The bottom line is that universities are trying to make money. They're not going to make as much as a lot of other industries and they're certainly in a position to add more to the communities around them than, say, a pizza joint or something but they're still in business to stay in business. Legacy admissions happen to be a good way to bring in lots of money.
satire
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 15. A high rate doesn't preclude a meritocracy | | | | by tdahnsn | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 8:19am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Isn't it just a tad possible that the children of alumni might have the advantages in life that make the admission to the college of their choice much more likely?
Let's say that intelligence and other differentiators were genetic. The children of those with demonstrated gifts would also have those gifts then, and so they would be more qualified than a normal pool of applicants might be.
Let's say that those things are the product of nurture rather than nature. Again, since those who went to colleges and universities tend to make more money and can provide a better environment, doesn't it make sense that their children might be more qualified?
It's only discrimination if those admitted are admitted on the basis of their alumni relatives and not on their own merits. A meritocracy would seek the most qualified applicant WITHOUT CONSIDERATION of their parent's alma mater, not intentionally excluding the progeny of their own alumni.
All that having been said, I think there are still some people at Harvard and Yale and other schools whose only qualification is the wealth of their families and the number of antecedents who preceded them. Other schools, notably next-tier private schools, also have a number of students who are only there because Mom and Pop are willing to pay a whole lot.
Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 45. Meritocracies, etc. | | | | by zanzibar | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 11:59am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 15 | | | | | |
It's only discrimination if those admitted are admitted on the basis of their alumni relatives and not on their own merits.
My parents have both served on admissions committees at Ivy League schools, and I can tell you that there's a lot more than correlation going on here. Legacy students get a real, tangible leg-up in the admissions process (not an automatic admission, mind you, just a strong boost in consideration). It's not always advertised, but it's quite real.
Brian posted a link above to the University of Pennsylvania showing some of the special "services" they offer to children and grandchildren of alumni. You'll just have to take my word that those services continue on past the application deadlines.
And what you say about nature and nurture is quite true, which is what makes this so sad. People who graduate from top-notch colleges already have a huge advantage, and it's one of the things that stratifies our society and keeps it that way. They by and large make more money than those who don't go to such prestigious schools, and they also tend to appreciate the value of an education. I can't tell you much about genetics, but in a strictly nurture sense, you stand to get a great advantage just by being born into the average ivy-league family... Even without legacy admissions which are just the particularly odiferous icing.
As an aside, one of the interesting things that's I've noticed in the big ivy-league schools is the more recent trend of admitting huge numbers of international students. Not only can these students, by and large, afford the high tuitions (and even make donations) but they often outstrip their American counterparts in academic acheivment (large selection pool, strong discipline.) This has actually caused a major increase in the quality of the education at a lot of these schools, and it's providing the big schools with a road away from legacy money (which got to be a really damaging crutch during some of the leaner times in years past.)
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 19. Who said admissions were 100% merit? | | | | by pflygirl | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 8:41am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Who said admission are 100% merit? Legacy is only one factor admissions officers look at that is NOT merit based - add to that geographical location, race, gender, and income level.
Most universities try to balance their admissions so as not to admit large numbers of students from the same state/city/high school/region. Diversity is desirable for most colleges. Should we stop the horrible practice of stratifying the student population too? Ask a student who got denied from a private school near home because there were too many other "in-state" applicants, or the student at an academic high school with a 1600 SAT who gets denied because 5 other people (also with high SATs) from their high school applied to the same university. If those students were from another state/high school, they would have been admitted. Is that fair? No. who said it was supposed to be?
Columbia is a private school. Like most US universities it receives public funds. But those funds do not nearly cover the operating expense of running the university. Private universities are dependant on donations and their endowment.
Public schools, on the other hand, are funded almost exclusively through tuition and through state and federal funding. (most of THEIR alumni donations seem to go to athletic programs..)
If legacies (and their parents), provide better funding for a university, then it makes supreme sense for a university to admit a greater percentage of them. They are after all, in the business of running a school.
Hardly the most pressing problem facing the educational system today.
*Note, I am the second generation in my family to attend college, but I did not attend as a legacy.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 27. You're right, I was wrong | | | | by Arkestra | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 9:52am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 19 | | | | | |
You're right. It's never just on intrinsic academic ability of the candidate. Point taken.
However, education is one of the major ways for people to improve their social standing (wealth, status, etc). So its availability being tied to money seems quite a negative thing to me, and I didn't realise it was done that directly in the US, hence my somewhat overstated initial posts.
Now I've had a chance to think about it: if universities are honest that the admission of legacies is a trade-off of average academic standards against increased revenue, then fine. Does that really matter? It's that honesty that is potentially lacking here - an institution positioning itself as a church of the mind, but not mentioning the moneychangers in the aforesaid temple.
Perhaps the universities in question should just say "Yep. We effectively sell some places for money. We're a commercial enterprise. So what? You got a problem with that?" Seems like a fair enough position to me.
Down pokey quaint streets in Cambridge / Cycles our distant spastic heritage
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 39. Re: You're right, I was wrong | | | | by eidilon | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 11:11am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 27 | | | | | |
Are there really that many truly meretorious students not getting into good schools because of this? I can see borderline students not getting accepted, which is how I understand it is actually weighted. So they didn't get into one of their "reach" schools. The US has a lot of really good universities. I don't see how they are necessarily being denied a good education. Sure, they might end up getting a degree from Northwestern instead of Yale but is that so terrible?
I think it has been a long time (if ever) that universities positioned themselves as purely meritocratic.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 76. Re: You're right, I was wrong | | | | by strumbucket | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 5:45pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 39 | | | | | |
Are there really that many truly meretorious [sic] students not getting into good schools because of this?
The University of California at Berkeley could admit 100% in-state students who scored 1600 on the SAT, and turn others away, so you figure it out...
got bodybags?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 20. legacy admission | | | | by jare2003 | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 8:57am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
While the notion of legacy admission seems to fly in the face of equality (it does), college admissions is not a meritocracy.
(In the interest of disclosure, I'm a Cornell student.)
Yes, there are a number of legacies here. But it doesn't bother me too much. The sort of legacy admission that put Bush in Andover, Yale, Harvard Business isn't nearly as in force as it used to be (and it never really was at Cornell). While on average, legacies might be slightly less qualified than the average student, so are athletes and underrepresented minorities, as well as students brought in for geographical diversity (students from Dakota or Wyoming, Oklajoma as opposed to the mass of super-privilged kids from Long Island)
Occasionally, there might be someone that really doesn't deserve to be there, but they're certainly probably making massive donations to the school. And that's fine --Legacies, on the average, are paying full-price for the school, as well as probably donating money in addition. This money is helping pay for lower-income students to be at Cornell and other schools.
The only way I'd be at Cornell is due to the need-based aid that they provide me, else I would've been at my state schools in Virginia.
Legacy admits are fine, as long as it doesn't turn back to the old days in the 1950s, when somewhere like Yale was taking 40% of its kids from 6 private prep schools. And even then, I'd have to suppose it's their choice. They are private, after all.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 26. Re: legacy admission | | | | by mandigirl | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 9:52am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 20 | | | | | |
I agree completely, Jare. The main problem with Edwards' argument is that the schools ARE private. Anyone with halfway decent standing can go to public school and receive a fine education. Here in Louisiana, if you finish high school with a 3.0 GPA, you get free tuition at any state school. It's also very easy to get out of state scholarships - I did.
Next we'll see people complaining that New Orleans catholic schools are sexist (most are either only male or only female). Let them admit whoever they want to, it's their school!!!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 53. Re: legacy admission | | | | by jare2003 | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 1:12pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 26 | | | | | |
Are you from New Orleans? I went to Tulane for two years before transferring to Cornell.
On a interesting side not, Cornell actually isn't completely private. Three of the seven undegraduate schools at Cornell were founded with the funding assistance of New York State (and still are partially funded by NYS). They're just about as hard as regular Cornell to get into, except there's a major tuition difference. (12,000/year instead of 25,000).
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 71. Re: legacy admission | | | | by Tessera | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 4:21pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 53 | | | | | |
Oh, would that I'd looked into it more closely before applying...Cornell was my "What the hell, maybe I'll luck out and get in" school, and I just applied to A&S - as you would expect, being a mathematician. Unfortunately, no one told me until afterwards of how much money I could have saved if I'd done two years in the Ag school, then transferred into A&S, applied to the major, and graduated in 4 years. With $50,000 more in my pocket; well, maybe just with less debt. ^_^
BTW, I'm assuming you're a senior, but as of this year tuition at Cornell for freshmen is $39,000. Maybe it's less if you've got your own place, I don't know.
*Note to non-Cornellians: A&S (College of Arts & Sciences) is a private college, costs ~40 grand a year. The College of Agriculture is a state school, and if you're a NY resident is something like 15 grand. =(
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 81. Re: legacy admission | | | | by jare2003 | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 9:03pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 71 | | | | | |
Hehe, I'm actually a junior and in the Industrial and Labor Relations school.
I'm an out of state resident, so it's not that much of a tuition difference. Actually, since i'm so poor, it would have cost the same for me to go to eihter A&S or ILR (this is not to say it's cheap for me at all, i'll have SIGNIFICANT debt when I graduate). I applied to ILR cause it was the best fit for me.
Also, since i want to go to law school, and you know what they say about us ILRies. =) Are you still at Cornell?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 21. Who the heck cares? | | | | by JackH | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 9:06am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
I'm sorry, but I'm baffled. Out of all the issues facing America today, Edwards chooses this one?
This just screams "calculation". Edwards wants to send a message. But a message to who? I don't feel a massive surge of resentment towards legacy admissions out in the country. If you asked most people what the number one issue with higher education today is, maybe 1% would say "legacy admissions".
A country-wide HOPE Scholarship program (like they had in Georgia) would energize people. This won't. And I don't think this is meant to.
It looks like Edwards isn't trying to communicate his "common man" persona to the voters. He's trying to communicate it to the political class with a relatively minor issue - lots of rah-rah symbolism, but very little actual effect. This tells them that Edwards is truly more of a Clinton than a, say, Jerry Brown, Bill Bradley, or any Democratic candidate prior to 1992.
He's a DLC-er in "common man" clothing. And only a DLC-er with no connection whatsoever to the "common man" could make take such a calculated position.
"If you demonstrate a personality deficit in comparison to the likes of John Kerry, you've got major problems" - Anon
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 25. Split-level indifference | | | | by sglover910 | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 9:51am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 21 | | | | | |
I share your befuddlement. I imagine rather more people are affected by, say, public university tuitions rising at rates that vastly exceed inflation. This has all the political acumen of Clinton's first act out of the gate, the don't-ask-don't-tell policy that at best might have garnered some single-digit percentage of the electorate.
On the other hand, does it really matter what Edwards thinks about this or anything else? With the exception of Dean (a real long-shot), does it really matter what any of the prospective Democratic candidates think about anything? It's difficult to imagine a less inspiring crew than Gephardt, Lieberman, Sharpton, Daschle or Edwards. Short of a genuine catastrophe -- in which case we'll have other preoccupations -- it's difficult to imagine any of them shedding their considerable baggage and giving W a real challenge.
An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 28. Re: Split-level indifference | | | | by alaffin | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 9:55am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 25 | | | | | |
Funny thing, everyone said exactly the same thing about his dad halfway through his first and only term too.
Never underestimate the power of a crappy economy to drive an incumbent out of office. If this thing doesn't turn around for real some time this year Bush is done.
I mean assuming someone electable decides to throw their hat into the ring for the Democrats.
Anyone? Please?
satire
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 30. Re: Split-level indifference | | | | by sglover910 | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 10:17am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 28 | | | | | |
Good point. I remember how the first Bush looked invincible after the Gulf war, and how all the likely Democratic candidates lost their nerve and didn't run. Unfortunately, the current likely candidates seem to have drawn the wrong lesson from that -- they really should sit this one out. And the next one. And so on.
On the other hand, it might be fun to see Daschle's face after he gets enough fourth- or fifth-place primary showings. Maybe then he'll get a clue about how rank-and-file Democrats really feel about him.
An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 34. Re: Split-level indifference | | | | by stankow | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 10:42am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 30 | | | | | |
Whenever anyone talks about how Bush will take '04 in a walk, I like to remind them of this SNL skit from '91. Note the total lack of Bill Clinton, and the use of Tipper as a stand-in for Al Gore, since she was the one that people across the country actually knew about back then. And this was a year before the election. If anyone asks you to pick the next Democratic presidential candidate, bet the field.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 35. Re: Split-level indifference | | | | by hrothgar | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 10:55am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 34 | | | | | |
I like to remind them of this SNL skit from '91. Note the total lack of Bill Clinton, and the use of Tipper as a stand-in for Al Gore
Bill Clinton was absent from the sketch because all of the "panelists" at the debate were personalities who had announced they were not running in 1992. I think that was the central joke behind the sketch.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 33. Sometimes.. | | | | by Imp777 | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 10:35am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
being a Legacy just means that admissions officers will politely overlook the fact that you clearly have no money for as long as accounting will let them.
Onion, Potato, zucchini, carrot, STEW!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 43. Need Blind.. | | | | by Sir Real | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 11:43am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
At the private college I attended, we had a legacy system- and no one cared. More amazingly, this was at Oberlin, hot-bed of liberalism.
Of course, it turns out that this was because the vast majority of the legacy kids were decent people who deserved to be there...
No, the real invitation to class warfare was when Oberlin switched from need-blind to need-sensitive admissions. There were problems prior to the switch (a class divide at at $32,000 PER YEAR school) but the policy brought out the worst in all of us.
They explained that every applicant would be assigned a number- "5's" and "4's" would still be admitted without regard to ability to pay; only the "3's" who could pay would be admitted.
Of course, all hell broke lose- there were angry editorials, protests, counter-editorials, and just general drama... It's hard telling people who're paying $32,000 for ideals like equal access that those ideals are being abandoned. (Of course, those believing in equal access for a school that expensive were perhaps delusional).
Not lost in all of this was the fact that grades and test-scores are bought everyday- SAT prep, tutoring, lessons, etc... (They're privileges, not rights- it's why the recipients are called privileged)-
Anyway, it raised the question of talent- if some poor kid works their ass off and gets labeled a "3", and another who coasts through a private school, lessons, and coaching and still gets a "3"- the one with more money wins.
The poor kids thought they were being excluded again. The rich kids thought people were implying their only reason for being there was the trust fund. They were both right...
In the end, Oberlin went through with it. It's a business- they can run it any damn way they want to.
Who says college doesn't prepare you for the real world...
(Full disclosure- Oberlin footed about 2/3 of my bill- probably by accepting those mediocre students who tormented me with their (mis)understanding of post-modernism.)
The serpent, meanwhile, Sleeps his meal off in Paradise -Smiling to hear God's querulous calling.- Ted Hughes
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 48. Re: Need Blind.. | | | | by zanzibar | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 12:21pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 43 | | | | | |
Yes, it's true, and it's a pretty disastrous policy for a college like Oberlin to follow. Oberlin has a certain reputation, which it's earned almost entirely through its acceptance of smart, diverse students. That reputation was already starting to fail them before they made the changes you talk about, but it's happening faster now. Essentially, they're trying to trade their reputation for financial stability, and hoping that there'll be enough name-recognition left over that they can rebound to become a top-ten Liberal Arts school again.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure it's been such a great tradeoff. Oberlin just can't get the same students as east coast colleges like Amherst, no matter how hard it tries. So it's picked up a lot of mediocre students who weren't able to get into those schools, and were relieved to find a relatively prestigious midwestern school happy to take their money.
You could really see the change, too. When I first got there, I was impressed by the general willingness of people to talk about academic matters outside of class. The newest crops of students I saw seemed more interested in playing with their shiny cellphones and getting drunk. But I guess I could just be imagining it.
But I personally don't know what else Oberlin could do, considering how financially screwed up it was. I like to think there was another answer, but I realize that only a few extremely wealthy schools were able to hang onto need-blind admissions. Dartmouth, for instance, with its much larger endowment and wealthier alumni, held a huge fundraising drive and just barely made it. Oberlin never really had that option.
And incidentally, the one thing that partially exhonerates Oberlin's legacy program is the general lack of money possessed by Oberlin alumni. That's also what got them into this mess in the first place.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 47. Nice tactic, but won't win votes from Bush | | | | by superdude | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 12:20pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
It's somewhat satisfying to see Edwards raise this point given Bush's personal history. However, I don't think many Bush voters are seething with anger about their kids not being admitted to Yale. It's not a real a place to them. Finding out that admissions to Yale aren't strictly meritocratic is about as shocking to these people as learning the same information about ascension to the throne of England.
They revere Bush for having gone to Yale, because they have a vague notion that it's the kind of place you should have gone if you want to be president, but for themselves and their children? What's wrong with Central Southwestern Middle Tennessee State?
Bush's appeal is that he seems anti-Eastern, anti-intellectual. He's a plain-spoken heartland kind of guy, but he's got a Yale degree to reassure you that he's not dumb. The kind of people who worry about their kids getting into Yale are the kind Bush ran against, to great effect.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 50. Re: Nice tactic, but won't win votes from Bush | | | | by wetzel | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 12:43pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 47 | | | | | |
What Edwards' position does is indirectly reveal the hypocrisy and appeal to racism in the GOP's stance on affirmative action. When the affirmative action question comes up, Edwards has an easy place to go that highlights his own hard-won success while simultaneously underscoring Bush's history of failing upwards. It's really quite amazing to see Bush's Yale transcript knowing that this transcript got him into Harvard business school.
Let me just say, that as one who is struggling to have enough to build even a modest "record of giving" at my alma mater for my own children, I am hoping we can wait to reform these policies for at least 14 years.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 51. Re: Nice tactic, but won't win votes from Bush | | | | by phenry | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 12:49pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 47 | | | | | |
Bush's appeal is that he seems anti-Eastern, anti-intellectual. He's a plain-spoken heartland kind of guy, but he's got a Yale degree to reassure you that he's not dumb. The kind of people who worry about their kids getting into Yale are the kind Bush ran against, to great effect.
And the opportunity for the Democrats, which I think Edwards sees very clearly, is to demonstrate that Bush is the kind of person who worries about his kids getting into Yale (remember, he's got one there now--although I'm sure her last name had absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever, no way).
Karl Rove's crowning achievement has been to create the illusion that Bush, a man who's never earned anything he ever had, is one of the common folk, a humble bidnessman who decided one day to try his hand at elective office. It's worked extremely well for him thus far, but it's still just an illusion, and the legacy issue--as Edwards well knows--provides Democrats with an opportunity to finally rip it away. Take away Bush's cowboy boots and artificial ranch in Crawford and he becomes Charles Chester Chillingsworth III, Yale '68 (Legacy).
phh | Away for 3 years and still in the karma top 50! Woo hoo!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 55. Excuse me? | | | | by choodak |  | | | at Tue 7 Jan 1:18pm | score of 2 succinct | | | | | | |
The world is headed toward war, our civil liberties are eroding faster than Rosie O'Donnell's thong, Martha Stewart has been implicated in insider trading and the best that a presidential candidate can do is to take issue with legacy admissions. Am I tripping here!?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 61. One-shot Solution | | | | by jasonm1 | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 1:46pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
There is a way to solve all the affirmative action problems completely: blind applications. Schools should not know anything about applicants' personal information... only the contents of their applications.
The proposal: every student submits a form to a government agency with his/her name, SSN, statistical data, address, etc. The agency assigns the student a number that is used for applications to colleges. All the colleges see, as far as personal data, is this number. The colleges decide which numbers are accepted, based on all the academic criteria they ask for in their applications, including the usual SATs, GPA, classes, extra activities, personal statements, etc. Obviously, colleges could not ask about where students are from, their ethnicity, legacy status, and so on (besides which, why should they believe it when they can't verify it?). The colleges then decide which numbers are accepted, send this information to the government agency, which in turn sends out acceptance letters to students and the personal data to the colleges.
Not only would this system almost completely rid us of affirmative action, but it would also be easy to implement and pretty inexpensive. Just about every student already applies for FAFSA, and such a blind ID system would be a simple extension of the FAFSA administration -- hence low cost.
The only place for sneaking in personal data is the personal statement in the application. And of course this cannot be avoided, nor should it be, since character is a genuine measure schools look for. However, whatever they put in there will have little bearing on things for three reasons: 1) If a school reads a student's personal statements, then the student is already in the running for acceptance. 2) The blind system will eliminate pressure on schools to SELECT for diversity, making those pieces of information extraneous, and in general, the schools just won't care. 3) The schools cannot verify any personal info the student puts in there anyway, so they have no reason to put weight on a claim like "my granddad went to your school" etc.
There's also recommendation letters, of course, but again, I consider this legitimate information about "who" the applicant is. If a student can really get a recommendation letter from, say, the senator of his state, or the headmaster of Exeter, then good for him. That's fair.
But hey, then rich kids like Georgie boy and silly agendas like educational affirmative action won't exist -- and some politicians would be out of jobs.
"Always be willing to speak your mind and a base man will avoid you" -- William Blake
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 62. Comment | | | | by mmandell | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 1:47pm | score of 1.5 informative | | | | | | |
Anecdote:About 7 years ago, one of my sons applied to undergraduate school at Georgetown, and he was eminently qualified. I reviewed the information from Georgetown, and if I recall correctly, they stated that space would be reserved for legacies, athletes, sons and daughters of politicians and foreign diplomats, donors to the university, musicians and singers, and others. My son did not get in, which was OK with me because I was not particularly enamored of the Jesuit-style of education. (Note: I rec'd an advanced degree from St. Louis U. so I have some familiarity with the style.)
He attended Washington University, where I, my wife, and other son attended.
NOW, and the main point of this rant, is that I have a daughter -though not blessed with the skills usually necessary to get in W.U. - who wants to attend there. Although we are actively "discouraging" her, on the other hand, having 4 alumni from this university, including 2 who volunteer for the school, in her immediate family, may gain admission for her!
What a kick in the ass!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 66. Political Posturing | | | | by r00 | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 3:20pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
The author of the article, Drake Bennett, admits that Edwards is not really trying to end legacy Admissions:
So might we expect a President Edwards to call out the National Guard to end the privileges of legacy admits? No. Edwards may paint himself as the patron saint of the little guy but he's not the type to waste energy on lost causes. ... Not being the child of a Princeton University alum, for example, isn't a protected category such as race or disability -- and discrimination on that basis is not grounds for legal action.
One could assume that with Edwards' stunning legal career, he might have known that.
Bennett asks a Harvard admissions officer, which one would assume is a member of the Good Ol' Boys Club, about legacy admissions. They don't count for much anymore, and the schools still hold the applicants acedemically and financially responsible.
Edwards' 'goal' is nothing more than political posturing. Excellent and well conceived political posturing, but posturing none the less. He's almost creating a socialist, class conflict between the struggling working class family against the Bush "aristocracy." Edwards came from a middle class family, that wasn't poor. Granted he was the first in his family to receive a college education, that still doesn't mean he was surpressed. He's manipulating the public with moral suasion.
A quick glance over his political career is unimpressive: the only legislation that's on the 'notable and newsworthy' portion of his website [link] is a bill to make nuclear shipments safer. The rest is criticizing the current executive government. He's been in politics for a little over 4 years, has done very little, and now wants to run for president? He needs some posturing.
If you want to end unfair admission standards, end affirmative action.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 70. Re: Political Posturing | | | | by kallisti | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 4:11pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 66 | | | | | |
If you want to end unfair admission standards, end affirmative action.
You were fine up until your last line. I'm not a big supporter of affirmative action, really, but your unsupported random attack makes me inclined to consider all of your previous reasoning at best suspect. Basically, this is about the time I write you off as an unbridled racist. Past experience has shown that the logic behind attacking affirmative action is that white people could be getting into those spots.
If you had either a) made an argument for your position or b) suggested something that supported the goals of affirmative action better than the current system, then maybe someone might take you seriously.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 72. Re: Political Posturing | | | | by r00 | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 4:32pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 70 | | | | | |
I was afraid that if I supported it, then people would accuse me of writing an unrelated comment. My apologies if I offended you. I'm far from racist.
My attack on affirmative action comes primarily from the story of my Iranian friend who went through high school without a father because he had to go to a med school in England because of the way affirmative action breaks down here.
Yes I am white, and affirmative action does sometimes discriminate against white people. I remember the Bakke vs. California Board of Regents in which the Supreme Court ruled his three denials into medschool was unconstitutional because of California's quota system.
Affirmative action doesn't work and is often inconsistent, there are better ways to ensure equality.
Dont write people off without offering the opportunity for people to explain themselves, I do not appreciate being branded an unbridled racist.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 78. That's No Weakness | | | | by uncarved block | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 6:38pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 66 | | | | | |
In a presidential election, being able to claim 'outsider' status* is real prime real estate. If you are in the government, the best panacea is not having a contentious voting record against which your opponent can run. And this has little connection, if any, to reality-- Reagan was able to pose as a Washington outsider running for a second term.
Besides, proposing legislation is really no indicator of power: Newt Gingrich only proposed about three bills his entire career, even after he became Speaker, and you'd be hard pressed to see how it impeded his rise to power, or its exercise once he got to the top.
Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 79. Several Points | | | | by uncarved block | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 7:26pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
I can't really take this as a serious proposal, nor do believe, deep down, does Edwards. For one thing, elite private schools would be exempt, being privately operated, and all that. Anyone else expect a forthcoming detailed plan for how to enact such a plan in public schools? Me neither, as that would require boring exposition, of the sort reporters no longer consider 'sexy' in a presidential candidate.
So the question is, is this good politics or not? IMO, yes, and I can see why there's a bit of 'buzz' about this guy. He's not a front runner, so why not take a few risks? This may not be Clinton playing sax, but it's still pretty innovative. What coverage would a speech about global warming, the economy, or the upcoming war do? There'd be coverage, but not much notice outside the political junkie circuit. A proposal like this, though, gains attention, and can be exploited or dropped later. Edwards can propose dropping affirmative action-- if legacies are on the table-- and appear to be offering a trade in the Bizzaro pundit world of cable TV. If the issue fails to spark, its very triviality allows it to fade quickly.
Better still, it's a soft sell version of the class warfare that Gore got a little mileage out of in 2000. The pertinent issue is not going to be the legacy status of the other Democrats, but the legacy status at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. It's a way to exploit Bush/43's speech difficulties without directly saying so-- 'anyone who talks like this must have had help getting into Yale'. It also makes the 'quaint' father-son presidencies seem a little less so . . .
More cynically, it (perhaps) is a chance to exploit the current conservative media dominance. Gore was mocked repeatedly for his (alleged) claims to have invented the internet, etc, ad nauseam. Well, if the conservative flacks are going to pick up on a trivial matter to exploit (I heard many times that Gore was going to 'take away our cars', a laughable allegation at best), why not plant something like this? "Oh, that Edwards, he's so loony he wants to do away with legacy admissions"-- well, for the listeners who know what that means, the likely response will be, "And the trouble with this is . . . ?" Of course, there's the possibility of an Estate/Death tax euphemism, but I'm not really having much luck thinking of one. Parental contribution benefit? Honored alumni admission credit? Legacy is too PR friendly to succumb easily to a Newspeak substitution.
Last but not least, the election is about two years out. Any posturing now is all about first impressions, not serious campaigning, and should be regarded as such. All this talk about the viability of this suggestion is interesting, but entirely beside the point, as I see it, closer to Clinton's 'boxers or briefs' on MTV than 'did you inhale'.
Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 80. Great Sideways Attack on Bush | | | | by RnRCircus | | | | at Tue 7 Jan 7:50pm | score of 1 astute | | | | | | |
Kudos to Mr Edwards. I love this sideways attack on our illiterate president. At every opportunity the American should be made aware our president is only a person significance do to his bloodline. Let's face it baby Bush would of never gotten into Yale if it weren't for his daddy. For that matter he probably may be the only person who would be denied admission to the University of Miami Florida.
Legacy has done the following for W;
1) It kept him out of Vietnam
2) Got him an Ivy League degree (note I did not say education)
3) Allowed him to get on board with Harkin Energy and garner ill gotten gain
4) Enabled him to get a stadium built for the Texas Rangers which in turn turned his 3% interest in the team into a 10% interest when he sold
5) Become governor of Texas
6) Become King George II of the USA scourge of the Constitution
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | Member Login | | | |
| Man, It's Hard To Even Bash Em
|
|
|
| (3 hrs, 9 mins ago) | -----=o---- |
Sarah Palin stumps for Tx gub'ner, Rick Perry. The intellectually elite come out to show their support. - n29_w95 |
| Hot Air Aloft
|
|
|
| (Sun 7 Feb 11:34am) | -----=o---- |
Submitted for your consideration, the most intriguing idea for political communication in many a moon: The Peace Blimp. - Petronius |
|
