> they would not do things to jeopardize their reputation or standing. So I think it's just not the case that there are unqualified legacy admits

This is known to be false. Development cases, where donor’s buy admission, are real. They’re limited, but universities do them regularly.

If you look at Jared Kushner’s case, for example, his parents weren’t even legacies!

If they keep this number small, like five per year, would it really dilute Harvard’s brand? I doubt it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_case

▲

onetimeusename 6 days ago | parent [-]

I am talking about now. In the past, there was even a Jewish Quota. (Side Note: According to Bill Buckley there was also an Irish Catholic Quota). I am talking about right now in a post SFFA and post Varsity Blues era. I can't really comment on whether development cases exist or how many there are. Today, admissions are scrutinized not only to comply with law but various pressure groups and law firms. Development cases and legacy admissions are often conflated.

I am making a case that goes against the stereotype of what a legacy admit is. I think that stereotype of a unqualified child of rich alums is not accurate anymore. The Harvard data suggested legacy admits were above the average admitted student. I think that is more likely the case today. Also, to give an example, since an 18 year old was born in 2007, those legacy admits could be children of tech startup founders and Stanford has a strong interest in cultivating tech ties. But the more salient point I am making is that the assumption legacy admits are unqualified I believe not to be true. No one has actually made that case. They argued instead along racial grounds.

	▲	doctorpangloss 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		> the assumption legacy admits are unqualified I believe not to be true. > some analysis of data > stereotype of a unqualified child of rich alums is not accurate anymore Yeah. What data might that be? Gini coefficient has been rising since 1980, and student achievement / quality of US university freshman classes has declined since at least 1993. So what you're saying couldn't be possible, in fact, you're 200% wrong. It would be completely improbable to observe these trends and for you to also be right. So I think you read a real report about Varsity Blues or whatever, and I think you are using this report to make believe that you are doing something other than first principles thinking. But the first principles thinking, "more students and greater selectivity, therefore, overall class at Harvard has gotten better," is wrong! It's not knowable from first principles what the quality of Ivy League classes are. The people who have measured see declines everywhere, and there's absolutely no reason to believe that those declines should be smaller among the top students - if anything, top students have far further to fall! How's that for first principles? Clearly a bankrupt approach.