Yep, I think these two things can be true at the same time:

1. Admitting a certain amount of students based on legacy status is not necessarily a bad thing

2. A University should not be eligible for taxpayer funds if they have admissions like (1) or similar holistic criteria.

In a society as diverse as America I think 2 is a fair line to draw. And the universities with large and powerful alumni networks where legacy admissions are most relevant have the least "need" for public funds. They have huge endowments.

▲

nullc 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

I think you could still compromise on 2. by requiring legacy or other discriminatory admissions practices to be a small percentage of the students they give full ride merit scholarships on, or similar.

This is particularly so because the advantage of this kind of school is networking, and it's in the interest of the disadvantaged to give them opportunity to network with the advantaged.

But it's also no big deal if we don't make that compromise.

Public money is precious, and we should think really hard about taking money from the general public just to give it to wealthy institutions any time we do it.

	▲	dgs_sgd 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		I like this idea, like there could be tiers of grant eligibility instead of all or nothing.

▲

s1artibartfast 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I there is a difference in funds given gratis, and funds used to pay for service rendered.

There's also a difference between giving money to a school, and giving money to a student to buy an education they want