College Admissions: Affirmative Action and Legacy Preference
Recently some Princeton (see article) sociologists conducted a study on legacy applicants and minority/athlete applicants at competitive colleges nationwide. The study indicated that minorty students/athletes fair better academically than do legacy students.
These sociologists found that on average legacy students receive a boost equivalent to 47 SAT points, while athletes and minority students receive a boost of about 108 SAT points during the admissions process. In 2004 Yale accepted 30 percent of legacy applicants which is roughly three times the acceptance rate for non-legacy applicants. Some people argue that these boosts allow students to be admitted even though their qualifications are slightly sub-par, and speculate that the students will not be able to keep up with the elite academics. The study was conducted to see whether or not these speculations were true. According to the sociologists, the study showed that "Affirmative action programs do not appear to set up either minorities or athletes for academic failure by dumping them unprepared into a very competitive academic environment." Surprisingly, the only evidence the study did suggest was that children of the alumni were slightly unprepared compared to the average student. (See Yale's article for further details.)
In light of this information has your opinion changed about affirmative action? Do you agree with the study that minority students/athletes are sufficiently prepared for the elite universities, and that legacy students may be unprepared?
Few people seem to debate the fairness of legacy status as intensely as they debate the fairness of affirmative action programs. Which preferential treatment do you think is more "fair"? Affirmative action or legacy? If legacy preferences are already given, does it seem more appropriate that programs are implemented to balance the admissions process for minorites?
Lastly, this college comparison can translate into the work world. Many people get jobs through nepotism, i.e. "networking" or because somebody "puts in a good word for them." This in a way, is similar to "legacy status" of college admissions. This may be one reason that makes it much harder for minorities and women to obtain higher executive jobs because they do not have people pulling for them. With this in mind does affirmative action seem necessary in order to balance this out?
These sociologists found that on average legacy students receive a boost equivalent to 47 SAT points, while athletes and minority students receive a boost of about 108 SAT points during the admissions process. In 2004 Yale accepted 30 percent of legacy applicants which is roughly three times the acceptance rate for non-legacy applicants. Some people argue that these boosts allow students to be admitted even though their qualifications are slightly sub-par, and speculate that the students will not be able to keep up with the elite academics. The study was conducted to see whether or not these speculations were true. According to the sociologists, the study showed that "Affirmative action programs do not appear to set up either minorities or athletes for academic failure by dumping them unprepared into a very competitive academic environment." Surprisingly, the only evidence the study did suggest was that children of the alumni were slightly unprepared compared to the average student. (See Yale's article for further details.)
In light of this information has your opinion changed about affirmative action? Do you agree with the study that minority students/athletes are sufficiently prepared for the elite universities, and that legacy students may be unprepared?
Few people seem to debate the fairness of legacy status as intensely as they debate the fairness of affirmative action programs. Which preferential treatment do you think is more "fair"? Affirmative action or legacy? If legacy preferences are already given, does it seem more appropriate that programs are implemented to balance the admissions process for minorites?
Lastly, this college comparison can translate into the work world. Many people get jobs through nepotism, i.e. "networking" or because somebody "puts in a good word for them." This in a way, is similar to "legacy status" of college admissions. This may be one reason that makes it much harder for minorities and women to obtain higher executive jobs because they do not have people pulling for them. With this in mind does affirmative action seem necessary in order to balance this out?
posted by Frekinawesome at
2:08 PM
1 Comments:
I believe this post does a good job of highlighting the other options that are similar to affirmative action in how many admissions boards may give more attention to certain candidates over others. Nepotism and legacy status are not to be underestimated as they certainly give several candidates the same "upper-hand" that some minority applicants may receive. This being the case, legacy and nepotism practices certainly make affirmative action look fair and certainly worthwhile. Some of the numbers mentioned in this post read that legacy students and athletes may receive more aid than minority students. It all breaks down to the fact that most of these students must already have attained and earned good scores and grades to even be considered for these schools, regardless of their parents or talent on any competitive field.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home