|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 25, 2014 10:27:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper2000 on Apr 25, 2014 11:20:12 GMT -5
No, and I agree with the article: "Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton and Columbia collectively have endowments of about $100 billion. They have the means to end this abhorrent practice with a stroke of a pen and the financial resources to endure whatever uncertainty ensues." Georgetown is not in this position in any way, shape, or form. Our fundraising is still not where it needs to be, and the endowment in anemic. We cannot "endure whatever uncertainty ensues."
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 25, 2014 12:32:37 GMT -5
No, and I agree with the article: "Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton and Columbia collectively have endowments of about $100 billion. They have the means to end this abhorrent practice with a stroke of a pen and the financial resources to endure whatever uncertainty ensues." Georgetown is not in this position in any way, shape, or form. Our fundraising is still not where it needs to be, and the endowment in anemic. We cannot "endure whatever uncertainty ensues." I can't determine from your response whether you think the current admissions policies are unfair. It appears to me that you are agreeing with the NYT op-ed that they are unfair, but you also argue that such policies should be continued because they increase donations to Georgetown. (Related question: is there any proof that overall donations would decrease if Georgetown dropped preferential treatment for legacies?) If that is indeed your argument, what other "wrong but profitable" policies do you think GU should consider pursuing until its endowment swells to the point at which morality can be afforded? |
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper2000 on Apr 25, 2014 13:20:38 GMT -5
That is basically my position, but I overstated my level of agreement. I don't think it is immoral or abhorrent, but not ideal. That said, I want my kids to get special consideration--not as a direct quid pro quo--but because I have been a loyal alumnus who gives real money each year (and will give more in the coming years). (Recall from law school the tension between self-regarding and other-regarding values....)
|
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,655
|
Post by seaweed on May 3, 2014 6:38:03 GMT -5
any policy that help contribute to Alonzo's son Trey joining the Hoyas is A-OK with me.
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on May 16, 2014 11:44:20 GMT -5
Unfair or not, legacy admissions to private universities are not public policy. I think you're conflating "public policy" with "government policy." Any principle or standard which broadly affects the public is public policy. Re: Hilltopper's comment re: self-regarding and other-regarding virtues, isn't one of Georgetown's unofficial slogans "men and women for others?" Still waiting for someone to provide data which would support the theory that donations would decrease if legacy admissions policies were ended. Would anyone like to defend legacy admissions policy on grounds other than "yeah but it helps me" or "donations would decrease?" I don't find either of those arguments particularly convincing. |
|
SirSaxa
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by SirSaxa on May 18, 2014 7:58:37 GMT -5
I think there is a pretty easy answer to this one. It starts with another question:
How did Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton and Columbia collectively accumulate endowments of about $100 billion?
I would make a WAG it had something to do with donations from their highly successful alumni base, and that at least a part of the rationale for those donations was to increase the likelihood of legacy admittance.
If we want to change a policy related to admissions for the benefit of the country, we could start with allowing any foreign student who earns a (choose your level) PhD, Masters or Bachelors degree a green card so they can stay here in the USA and contribute to the good of society by pursuing whatever career they choose.
|
|
Just Cos
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Eat 'em up Hoyas
Posts: 1,506
|
Post by Just Cos on May 18, 2014 12:22:10 GMT -5
Legacy admission policy is low on the list of things to reconsider in the admissions office.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
|
Post by RusskyHoya on May 18, 2014 14:13:09 GMT -5
Unfair or not, legacy admissions to private universities are not public policy. I think you're conflating "public policy" with "government policy." Any principle or standard which broadly affects the public is public policy. Re: Hilltopper's comment re: self-regarding and other-regarding virtues, isn't one of Georgetown's unofficial slogans "men and women for others?" Still waiting for someone to provide data which would support the theory that donations would decrease if legacy admissions policies were ended. Would anyone like to defend legacy admissions policy on grounds other than "yeah but it helps me" or "donations would decrease?" I don't find either of those arguments particularly convincing. Austin, I don't think anyone can provide you with the data you're asking for, largely because I cannot think of any institution that has discontinued legacy preference. Perhaps if you had access to comprehensive donation and enrollment data over time, you could compare practices in the past - when legacy preference held a much stronger influence at many institutions - to the present. It's like the old example of the Bushes: George H.W. Bush was the youngest of his brothers - they all went to Yale. George W. Bush was the oldest of his brothers - he was the only one to go to Yale. But, of course, such donation data is private, so you won't find it. As for a defense of legacy admissions, I think it boils down to this: universities are many things, one of which is that they are broad-based, multi-generational communities. The entire concept of community is based on a preference and affinity for those inside the community vs. those outside it, as well as a desire to establish continuity and propagate the community. This is how clans, religions, families, sports fanbases, etc. etc. all work. Obviously, these traits carry with them the potential for negative effects and outcomes: tribalism, religious intolerance, family feuds, sports fanaticism, and - on a broader scale - racism, elitism, and supremacism. They must be guarded against and mitigated. At the same time, though, communities provide a number of benefits, most notably support structures and vehicles for meaningful collective action. They provide a way to circumvent the uncertainty and individualism of game theory through mechanisms of loyalty and belonging. So, to take it down from the abstract to the specific: legacy preference is a means of strengthening a university's communal bonds by leveraging and integrating another, much stronger kind of bond: familial. Other tools of this sort have been and are still used: religious preferences (most often seen in parochial primary and secondary schools); geographic preferences (it's not just about tax money - state universities are deeply tied up with state identity and community); donor preferences (if you've 'invested' in an institution and become a stakeholder, it is like being a shareholder, and it conveys certain benefits). These mechanisms all work to bind individuals closer to the institution (and vice versa), strengthening the community and helping to ensure its survival, as well as enabling it to work better and do more. The stronger the community, the greater the potential for productive collective action. Personally, given the findings of Putnam's "Bowling Alone" and other such evidence of increasing atomization, polarization, and fracturing within our society, I think we need more strong communities, not fewer. It may seem unseemly that a few Ivies have 11-digit endowments, but even those stockpiles pale in comparison to the money that has been acquired and squirreled away by the leading captains of finance. Chipping away at institutions' right to free association will do little to address the broader systemic reasons for gross and increasing inequality. In fact, it might even be counter-productive, as I'll try to explain a bit later. |
|
|
|
Post by reformation on May 18, 2014 17:09:19 GMT -5
While I think its a university's prerogative to allow legacy preferences, I think its unclear whether or not its a good or bad idea. I guess that depends on the effective execution of the policy by the university admin. I also think Russky that you've ignored the academic cost of a legacy admissions -most people would assume that there is some marginal dilution of the academic quality of the student body. For Gtwn I think there is also an effect on the academic rigor of the undergrad curriculum. I was involved a number of years ago in some curriculum reform efforts that were met with resistance by admin in part because of fear that legacy admits, recruited athletes, and diversity admits could not hack a truly rigorous undergrad curriculum.(I did not agree with this and I doubt that those groups would agree with that either, but that was the admin's view-fear of a prominent dean who I greatly respect). I guess the tradeoff of extra money for a dilution of academic quality + a less egalitarian process can be outweighed if the fundraising is significant enough. I think the whole multigenerational gestalt that you are pedaling has some validity maybe, but is a lot less tangible than both the other costs and benefits. It also makes Gtwn less diverse in a number of ways which I generally think are not good.
Its a tough call I admit as I am glad that my children will get some preference and I have to admit as my kids get closer to college age it will affect what I give. (My wife also went to an elite univ so we also factor that into our giving there.) However; my kids advantage at Gtwn and the other ivies that my wife and I attended are great for them, however, the flip side is that it will be harder for my kids to get into another elite univ than it would otherwise be because of that elite univ's legacy admit policy.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,409
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on May 18, 2014 17:26:47 GMT -5
Does Georgetown have a legacy policy? You would not know from some of my classmates' experiences as their sons/daughter did not get admitted. At least one was a student/athlete legacy.
|
|
|
|
Post by reformation on May 18, 2014 21:17:44 GMT -5
If the parents aren't material and consistent donors, I suspect the legacy preference is pretty minimal
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnJacquesLayup on May 19, 2014 9:34:33 GMT -5
I was one of several legacy applicants to GU from my high school in the late 90s. The other applicants were rejected, while I received a conditional acceptance. I was required to take three courses during the summer session prior to my potential freshmen year and pass each course with a 3.0 or higher. I was determined to go to GU, so I accepted this condition while passing on all of my other college acceptances.
So, in my experience, while I was presumably accepted to GU on an unlevel playing field (in my favor), I don't view my acceptance to GU as something that was just handed to me. And I would guess that my fellow applicants from high school would question exactly how much preference GU gave/gives to legacy applicants.
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on May 19, 2014 10:12:09 GMT -5
Two other unspoken but not unimportant benefits of legacy preference: increased yield and near certainty that anyone who was a significant enough donor to warrant legacy preference will also be paying full freight. These benefits are obviously not exclusive to Georgetown.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
|
Post by RusskyHoya on May 19, 2014 13:09:59 GMT -5
Two other unspoken but not unimportant benefits of legacy preference: increased yield and near certainty that anyone who was a significant enough donor to warrant legacy preference will also be paying full freight. These benefits are obviously not exclusive to Georgetown. I think we need to amend that to say "anyone who was a significant enough donor to warrant significant legacy preference will also be paying full freight." As you know far better than I, one does not have to be a donor at all to get some added consideration (e.g. ARA). Like most things, it's a spectrum.  |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on May 19, 2014 17:27:54 GMT -5
As for a defense of legacy admissions, I think it boils down to this: universities are many things, one of which is that they are broad-based, multi-generational communities. The entire concept of community is based on a preference and affinity for those inside the community vs. those outside it, as well as a desire to establish continuity and propagate the community. This is how clans, religions, families, sports fanbases, etc. etc. all work. Obviously, these traits carry with them the potential for negative effects and outcomes: tribalism, religious intolerance, family feuds, sports fanaticism, and - on a broader scale - racism, elitism, and supremacism. They must be guarded against and mitigated. At the same time, though, communities provide a number of benefits, most notably support structures and vehicles for meaningful collective action. They provide a way to circumvent the uncertainty and individualism of game theory through mechanisms of loyalty and belonging. So, to take it down from the abstract to the specific: legacy preference is a means of strengthening a university's communal bonds by leveraging and integrating another, much stronger kind of bond: familial. Other tools of this sort have been and are still used: religious preferences (most often seen in parochial primary and secondary schools); geographic preferences (it's not just about tax money - state universities are deeply tied up with state identity and community); donor preferences (if you've 'invested' in an institution and become a stakeholder, it is like being a shareholder, and it conveys certain benefits). These mechanisms all work to bind individuals closer to the institution (and vice versa), strengthening the community and helping to ensure its survival, as well as enabling it to work better and do more. The stronger the community, the greater the potential for productive collective action. Personally, given the findings of Putnam's "Bowling Alone" and other such evidence of increasing atomization, polarization, and fracturing within our society, I think we need more strong communities, not fewer. It may seem unseemly that a few Ivies have 11-digit endowments, but even those stockpiles pale in comparison to the money that has been acquired and squirreled away by the leading captains of finance. Chipping away at institutions' right to free association will do little to address the broader systemic reasons for gross and increasing inequality. In fact, it might even be counter-productive, as I'll try to explain a bit later. Thanks for the thoughtful response. Just to be clear, I am not advocating that we chip away at Georgetown's right to free association. Rather, I believe that Georgetown and other institutions should voluntarily abandon their practice of giving preference to the children of alumni. I agree with you that universities should be "broad-based, multi-generational communities" and "strong communities." I disagree that building strong communities has anything to do with giving preferential treatment to people who share DNA with others who are already members of such communities. If one buys the argument that we can only build a strong Georgetown by leveraging already-existing communities with strong bonds, one could argue just as easily that admissions preferences should be given to supporters of Man United. As you point out, some universities are created to serve specific communities, and I don't have any problem with Georgetown admitting more Catholics than Methodists or the University of Washington admitting mostly residents of the state of Washington. I just don't see much of a connection between Georgetown's mission or identity and existing "Georgetown families." Additionally, Georgetown's acknowledgment that it gives some preference to the children of Georgetown graduates results in some alumni believing (wrongly, probably) that their children will receive highly preferential treatment in the admissions process. If such applicants receive rejection letters, how does that affect the strength of the multi-generational Georgetown community? In other words, if Georgetown rejects the children of alumni more often that it admits them, it's easy to argue that a legacy admissions policy breaks more communal bonds than it creates. Alumni whose children are not admitted may view Georgetown as breaking some sort of implicit promise, even though no promise was ever really made. This is all theoretical, of course. Just as there is no data to support the assertion that current legacy admissions policies increase donations, there is no data to suggest that donations suffer due to bitterness on the part of alumni whose children were not admitted to Georgetown. If we don't know whether a policy has positive or negative effects, why maintain the policy? Here's what I plan to tell my kids if they ask about getting into Georgetown: I have no idea what the current admissions policies are regarding legacy admissions. I have no idea what the admissions policies regarding legacy admissions will be when you apply to college. I don't expect that you will receive any preferential treatment, and you should not either. If you are admitted to Georgetown, you will likely never know whether you received preferential treatment. If you did receive it, consider yourself lucky. |
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on May 19, 2014 22:13:03 GMT -5
Its hard to agree with the authors premise because he doesnt say how many students of the total are legacy. Hard to see what the true impact is with out this info. Also would be good to know how many legacies got in purely because of money/legacy and not academics.
There also isnt a very well developed thesis: is the problem that legacy admission is keeping others from being admitted or is it bad because you are giving preference for purely economic reasons?
He also implies that going to Harvard, Princeton, Yale, or Columbia is super important (as these are the only schools he focuses on), but says he has seen the positive impact of an college education at John Jay College. HPYC only have, what 20K undergrads? 30K? Is going to Michigan that much of a step down? or UVA? or UCLA? If the level of success of a college education is a "ticket out of poverty" as he says, than why is not a public school education just as good as an Ivy league one?
He also mentions Oxford and Cambridge not having legacy admissions. But they have much different admissions processes from US schools. You cant compare the two systems in this context.
I dont think ending legacy admissions would have much of a negative impact on any school (if it did then the school has many more problems). I also dont think ending it would have much of a "positive effect" on other students other than a few more of them getting in.
Isnt some of the acceptance process actually showing you like the school and will probably accept if you are offered?(I dont know, that is what I believed when i was applying to colleges). Having legacy would show this enthusiasm to a certain extent, i would think.
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on May 20, 2014 7:54:01 GMT -5
Isnt some of the acceptance process actually showing you like the school and will probably accept if you are offered?(I dont know, that is what I believed when i was applying to colleges). Having legacy would show this enthusiasm to a certain extent, i would think. Recognizing that my previous comment re: better yield on legacies may seem contradictory, I can state with some degree of authority that Georgetown does not base its individual admissions decisions on perceived likelihood of attendance. In other words, there is no admissions criteria that attempts to determine whether Georgetown is a student's first choice, at least not until consideration of the waiting list. The fact that legacies (and other special categories of admits such as recruited athletes) yield at a higher rate is not a reason they are admitted - it just means you need to admit fewer of them in order to get the representative portion of the class that you desire or intend. Consideration of yield is different at some of Georgetown's peers - certainly colleges that offer binding Early Decision options give a strong preferential tip to those students who they know they will enroll at 100% yield. Given that such binding programs are prohibitive for students who will want to compare financial aid offers, preferential early decision policies are certainly more problematic for issues of diversity than any legacy preference I know of, but at least the effect is fairly transparent to anyone who is paying attention. Finally, there are colleges that have a bit less confidence in their ability to attract the very top students (known in some circles as "safety schools") that may attempt to track what is known as "expressed interest" and choose to wait list or even deny otherwise more qualified students based on the fact that they did not visit the school, or attend an information session, or respond to a particular email prompt. These policies are not transparent at all, they amount to arbitrary gamesmanship, and they add to the overall paranoia and feeling of "randomness" that makes the college admissions experience so stressful to many high school seniors. |
|
CWS
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 272
|
Post by CWS on May 20, 2014 8:37:12 GMT -5
I've only served on an admissions committee a couple of times some years ago (as a faculty rep; each admissions committee is required to have a faculty member). The language of "giving preference" to children of alums might be misleading (as if it's some clear factor). What struck me while on the committee is just how arbitrary the differences between one candidate and another is. We get so many great applicants; it's almost impossible to make choices to prefer one over the other; I was constantly second-guessing myself. I tell children of friends of mine applying to Georgetown that's it's a crap shoot, and not to take it personally if they don't get in (and I can say that truthfully having seen the decision process from the inside). This guy is great, but he seems more about a pre-law degree than really investing in an undergraduate program. Do we need people with broader interests even if academically less stellar? This guy is brilliant but he has no extra curriculars. This young woman came from a struggling background but seems to be full of herself. This guy seems so creative, but he doesn't seem motivated to do standard coursework. I found myself looking for ANYTHING to help me to score person "X" higher than person "Y". Of course, the committees which the faculty serve on are looking at the middle bunch of applicants. Some other group has rejected the obvious "no's" and accepted the obvious "yes's". I don't know what role alumni preferences played in those decisions. In my own committee it was one consideration in a confusing, complex array of issues and judgments. I found the amount of consideration given appropriate: respecting the appropriate significance of bonds and community without compromising on the excellence we seek in the next generation of Hoyas. My main goal while serving on the committees was to try and get as many people from Texas accepted as possible. I can think of no better way of making Georgetown great.  |
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on May 20, 2014 9:07:43 GMT -5
The type of legacy "preference" that may occur in the school-based (i.e. COL/SFS/MSB/NHS) admissions committees differs from the separate review that all children and siblings of alums who do not emerge from the committees receive. If individual committee members believe the tie to the university community is a differentiating factor for the applicant, they are free to evaluate them accordingly, but that is not a formal policy, and indeed the admissions committees do not have any information regarding the family history of giving or other service to the university. Once the committee review is complete, there is a separate evaluation that explicitly considers what the family has done for Georgetown, and there are a small number of admissions spots reserved for that group in addition to those who will be admitted based on their evaluation against the entire applicant pool in their school.
|
|
