Where is the outrage over these numbers?

[UVA2Law]

     Here are some telling numbers about legacy students and their acceptance to a few top universities across the nation.  At UPenn the overall acceptance rate is 21% the acceptance rate for legacy is 41%.  At Princeton the overall acceptance rate is 11%, the rate for legacy is 35%.  At Stanford the overall rate is 13% where as the legacy rate is 25%.  At Harvard the overall acceptance rate is 11% but the acceptance rate for legacy is 40%.  Why aren't people complaining about this?  Is it because the primary beneficiaries of this type of affirmative action are White?  I do not want to belive that is it but unfortunately I think that is the sad truth. 

     Since the late 1960s there has been a definite back lash against Blacks and Civil Rights.  Nixon's successful Southern Strategy demonized Black Americans and the "activist judges" who enforced Civil Rights legislation.  Since then the progress of the 1960s has been rolled back gradually.  Affirmative action has lasted 40 years but it has been badly battered and bruised.  It's attackers hide behind ideas of fairness and eqaulity, not realizing that AA leads to just that.  Before the implementation of AA Blacks made up less then 5% of the college population.  By 1990 that percentage swelled to 12%, the percentage they held in the general population.  The Black middle class continues to grow exponentially and Black representation in top professions is growing.  AA works, plain and simple.  With numbers out on the disparity between Black and White males, however, it is painfully clear that we still have some work to do.  I would like to reach out to White opponents out there and ask them to think critically about the policy.  It is not as prevelant as you think it is.  It doesn't make much difference in the admissions process.  It does NOT just benefit Blacks or Hispanics but those with different ideological perspectives, geographic backgrounds, legacy students, and many more.  Our country is diverse and our top professions should represent those different backgrounds, not just racially but other factors as well.  Race is truly A fact and not THE factor in admissions process and you should remember that before you attack it.  If you are going to attack it then at least be consistent: oppose AA for race, legacy, donation gifts, geographic differences, ideological differences, etc.

[George Jefferson²]

     Here are some telling numbers about legacy students and their acceptance to a few top universities across the nation.  At UPenn the overall acceptance rate is 21% the acceptance rate for legacy is 41%.  At Princeton the overall acceptance rate is 11%, the rate for legacy is 35%.  At Stanford the overall rate is 13% where as the legacy rate is 25%.  At Harvard the overall acceptance rate is 11% but the acceptance rate for legacy is 40%.  Why aren't people complaining about this?  Is it because the primary beneficiaries of this type of affirmative action are White?  I do not want to belive that is it but unfortunately I think that is the sad truth. 

     Since the late 1960s there has been a definite back lash against Blacks and Civil Rights.  Nixon's successful Southern Strategy demonized Black Americans and the "activist judges" who enforced Civil Rights legislation.  Since then the progress of the 1960s has been rolled back gradually.  Affirmative action has lasted 40 years but it has been badly battered and bruised.  It's attackers hide behind ideas of fairness and eqaulity, not realizing that AA leads to just that.  Before the implementation of AA Blacks made up less then 5% of the college population.  By 1990 that percentage swelled to 12%, the percentage they held in the general population.  The Black middle class continues to grow exponentially and Black representation in top professions is growing.  AA works, plain and simple.  With numbers out on the disparity between Black and White males, however, it is painfully clear that we still have some work to do.  I would like to reach out to White opponents out there and ask them to think critically about the policy.  It is not as prevelant as you think it is.  It doesn't make much difference in the admissions process.  It does NOT just benefit Blacks or Hispanics but those with different ideological perspectives, geographic backgrounds, legacy students, and many more.  Our country is diverse and our top professions should represent those different backgrounds, not just racially but other factors as well.  Race is truly A fact and not THE factor in admissions process and you should remember that before you attack it.  If you are going to attack it then at least be consistent: oppose AA for race, legacy, donation gifts, geographic differences, ideological differences, etc.

If a minority isn't to blame, no one is guilty. Enjoy your evening

[Alamo]

     Here are some telling numbers about legacy students and their acceptance to a few top universities across the nation.  At UPenn the overall acceptance rate is 21% the acceptance rate for legacy is 41%.  At Princeton the overall acceptance rate is 11%, the rate for legacy is 35%.  At Stanford the overall rate is 13% where as the legacy rate is 25%.  At Harvard the overall acceptance rate is 11% but the acceptance rate for legacy is 40%. 

I don't find these numbers in and of themselves alarming.  They would have to be combined with the overall qualifications of the legacy students in question to have any real meaning to me.  If the average GPA/LSAT of legacies is significantly lower, this bothers me.  If not, I don't think it's much of an issue.

Of course it's sad that inequalities of wealth enable legacy students to achieve better test results through better financial means for preparation, but I don't think that restricting the access of legacy students is the best means of addressing the SES divide.  I'm a proponent of inheritance caps to accomplish that end.

[galex]

What happens when a person is both URM & legacy?  Are they more advantaged in admissions than a person with only one of these statuses, or is it more of an either/or thing?

[dun]

Legacies are more important and more beneficial to the rest of the student population and financial health of an institution than urms.

[UVA2Law]

     Here are some telling numbers about legacy students and their acceptance to a few top universities across the nation.  At UPenn the overall acceptance rate is 21% the acceptance rate for legacy is 41%.  At Princeton the overall acceptance rate is 11%, the rate for legacy is 35%.  At Stanford the overall rate is 13% where as the legacy rate is 25%.  At Harvard the overall acceptance rate is 11% but the acceptance rate for legacy is 40%.  Why aren't people complaining about this?  Is it because the primary beneficiaries of this type of affirmative action are White?  I do not want to belive that is it but unfortunately I think that is the sad truth. 

     Since the late 1960s there has been a definite back lash against Blacks and Civil Rights.  Nixon's successful Southern Strategy demonized Black Americans and the "activist judges" who enforced Civil Rights legislation.  Since then the progress of the 1960s has been rolled back gradually.  Affirmative action has lasted 40 years but it has been badly battered and bruised.  It's attackers hide behind ideas of fairness and eqaulity, not realizing that AA leads to just that.  Before the implementation of AA Blacks made up less then 5% of the college population.  By 1990 that percentage swelled to 12%, the percentage they held in the general population.  The Black middle class continues to grow exponentially and Black representation in top professions is growing.  AA works, plain and simple.  With numbers out on the disparity between Black and White males, however, it is painfully clear that we still have some work to do.  I would like to reach out to White opponents out there and ask them to think critically about the policy.  It is not as prevelant as you think it is.  It doesn't make much difference in the admissions process.  It does NOT just benefit Blacks or Hispanics but those with different ideological perspectives, geographic backgrounds, legacy students, and many more.  Our country is diverse and our top professions should represent those different backgrounds, not just racially but other factors as well.  Race is truly A fact and not THE factor in admissions process and you should remember that before you attack it.  If you are going to attack it then at least be consistent: oppose AA for race, legacy, donation gifts, geographic differences, ideological differences, etc.

I would have thought that a 2L at UVA would be able to discern the difference between correlation and causation.  It seems to me that if the parents were intelligent enough to get into the schools, then their kids who would have inherited their genes would be able to do better in school and on the SAT than an applicant from the general pool.

As for AA working, representation does not prove this.  Artifically putting people in positions where they are not qualified to be does not mean AA works.  It would "work" if after one generation, the gap was gone.  It isn't, so it doesn't.

Lastly, with respect to AA benefitting everyone, this can only be true if one is able to attend a school.  When someone who is not qualified is admitted, somebody else who is more qualified necessarily must be rejected.  That person does not benefit.





In your comment you make several mistakes that most opposed to AA constantly repeat.  "When someone who is NOT qualified” what makes you think they are not qualified?  How do you determine qualification?  Just scores?  Just GPA? Just undergraduate classes?  A combination of the three?  Are you saying that the only things that determine what someone has to offer are test scores and grades?  Look at UVA for example.  It's undergraduate program boasts one of the highest graduation rate for Blacks (90%) and they are aggressive when it comes to minority recruitment and AA, so to say that these people are not qualified is a gross inaccuracy.

As for AA not working I guess I should clarify that I didn't mean to imply that it is the sole contributor to upward mobility among Blacks.  For you to say that the gap would "disappear" after a generation, however, is expecting a bit much.  You honestly think that it should only take a generation to fix centuries of wrong doing?  I would like to know how you determine is someone is "MORE" qualified than the other Also, you make that same flawd argument that "someone took my spot."  The fact is that Blacks don't make up a large enough proportion of any competitive school to make that much of a difference.

Also, although the gap has not completely disappeared it has been reduced drastically over the past few decades since the implementation of civil rights legislation, including AA.  There does seem to be a correlation between AA and the upward mobility of Blacks over the past years.  Like I said, the Black middle class is growing, representation among top professions is up (meaning that employers thought they were qualified), and the wealth and income gap between Blacks and Whites is shrinking.  I think you should check out Bowen and Bok's book on affirmative action to get some hard numbers and facts and then form an opinion.  The name is the Shape of the River.  It offers several graphs and a more analytical assessment of AA.

Just as a side not I find it interesting that when someone mentions numbers regarding the higher rates of acceptance for minorities it elicits offensive attacks on AA.  When disparities between admitted legacy students and others are displayed, people defend the legacy students and suggest that there is not enough evidence to conclude that they were given any preferential treatment.   [/size]

[dun]

Alumni fuel donation campaigns. Admitting legacies is good business. They're a sucker bet.

100% correct. 

[redemption]

In your comment you make several mistakes that most opposed to AA constantly repeat.  "When someone who is NOT qualified” what makes you think they are not qualified?  How do you determine qualification? 

Don't take Googler too seriously.

What he means is that "qualified" is any combination of whatever is in the application that would have gotten him into HLS, and would have saved him from the ignominy of a CLS waitlist experience.

This is him:
http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=cornell06

I think you'll find, if you continue this discussion with him, that he'll de-emphasize GPA and stress the LSAT as markers for who is qualified and who is not.

I wouldn't bother, though. I can save you the trouble and summarize for you what you will gather about his position from discussing things with him:

1. blacks are inferior: they are lazy, criminal and congenitally stupid

2. these things are true because he has some black friends who agree with him on this score

3. legacies deserve to be admitted because they are not likely to be blacks

4. if you find these views to be repugnant and wrong, then you are an idealist liberal and are clearly biased against conservatives.


If you have some time to kill and want a laugh, check out how long he loitered in the "HLS" thread after they rejected him.

[Alamo]

Just as a side not I find it interesting that when someone mentions numbers regarding the higher rates of acceptance for minorities it elicits offensive attacks on AA.  When disparities between admitted legacy students and others are displayed, people defend the legacy students and suggest that there is not enough evidence to conclude that they were given any preferential treatment. [/size]

Although I support AA, it's pretty common knowledge that in terms of LSAT and GPA, numbers for minorities are generally lower at most schools.  Considerable evidence supports this, and I'm not going to get into the socioeconomipoliticultural reasons for it. 

You, on the other hand, produced no evidence of the legacy students' qualifications, making any sort of meaningful comparison relevant of legacy vs. minority student admittances virtually impossible.

[redemption]

Red, is that you?  Or Scott? 

Not me, I'm afraid.