After SCOTUS banned AA in higher ed (incl graduate programs), the next battleground is legacy admits...and I think student athletes will follow next. Corporate DEI is likewise on the chopping block as we've already see lawsuits emerge
Ultimately, I'm all for this. I think if you support banning AA in higher ed, you likewise should also support banning legacy / student athletes (and of course corporate DEI) to make it as level a playing field as possible for merit to rise to the top. Curious to hear what the forum thinks
Sounds fair. SCOTUS ruling was a great step to unlocking conversations and actions on all of the above
Yeah this was always going to be the next step. Net net it’ll be a fairer system though worse for the universities themselves as a ton of legacies come from big donors. So less revenue for the university but a better system overall
im not sure if student athletes will be next. Highest probability chance is corporate DEI then legacy then student athletes in that order if I had to bet
Irrespective of the merits/demerits, the market demand for corporate DEI isn’t going away just as it isn’t with college AA.
Therefore, it’s not clear this decision will change much of anything. Harvard will find another method that suits their existing admissions philosophy but is also compliant with the new legal standard. Employers will do the same if comparable decisions emerge.
As for legacy admissions/donations, 1 rich donor legacy kid pays for X scholarships is defensible on its face, but from a societal (not university) perspective it’s still kinda shit. It’s not clear to me that my alma mater or any other elite private college are deserving of tax free status to say nothing of my money. We’ve written a blank check to tertiary education and they’ve taken advantage (see tuition inflation and federal student loans explosion).
How much further would Bill Ackman’s charitable giving be going if he donated it to another cause? Elite universities have nearly 1:1 student to admin ratios in some cases so you’re paying for a lot of dogshit instead of your money going to work.
Not really. AA is unconstitutional as ruled by the SCOTUS. Legacy is an individual choice by the universities and does not violate anyone's constitutional rights. Same for athletes.
But it’s going to be an equal protection under the law argument. Legacies are getting a break not available to other applicants. No diff from affirmative action preferences that harm Asian applicants.
No because universities can choose whoever they want based on whatever criteria they want to select for. Same way how engineering schools will favour students who are strong in stem, ivy leagues can favour athletes because they want people for their sports teams. This doesn't go against the constitution whereas selecting based on race and gender does.
Also same way how legacy doesn't go against constitution. Constitution specifically states that can't discriminate based on race, doesn't say anything about wealth.
"Legacy is an individual choice."So was race-based AA. And if race-based AA violates the 14th then so does legacy. If discriminating on the basis of race is unacceptable then so is choosing a thing that discriminates.
Arguably even if the lawsuits don't end up forcing the change, it's a TERRIBLE look for universities (which start from the premise of wokeness to begin with) when AA has been massively cut down while you're still letting in legacies. Strong chance that top 50 universities cut back voluntarily on legacies
I don't think you know what "wokeness" means beyond "something I disagree with," but I happen to agree that legacy admissions are a stain on the application process. It's one of the main reasons I think anyone who complained about affirmative action needed to have a long look in the mirror about their bigotry and bias, because if you've decided "hey, it's okay that rich kids get a massive leg up but not that historically discriminated-against minorities do," then clearly all you really care about is keeping minorities out, not a meritocratic admissions process.
ZERO shot student-athletes will be next imo. Also, completely different ballgame than AA/legacy since athletic ability is a function of a student's own work, rather than something they were arbitrarily born into.
Yea, athletic prowess has nothing to do with “what you’re born into”
Lmao, sure. But you can make the same argument for intelligence, which is influenced by BOTH genetic and environmental factors. Just because a kid grew up with two 6'4 parents doesn't mean they're guaranteed to play sports at the collegiate level. Of course it makes it easier, but it's largely determined by a student's own actions AFTER they are born. Same thing with a kid whose parents both have phds.
Athletic ability, especially at the college and above levels, is absolutely genetic.
Ask yourself, if you trained harder in high school, would you become LeBron James? Probably not, right?
Athletes are extremely gifted both in physique and ability, and it's pretty obvious when you see them play live.
As a former college and professional athlete, it’s not just talent. You have to work for it. Yes, my dad was also a world class athlete in his day so I had some genetics, but I spent the better part of my younger years working out 4-6 hours per day, while also working on a farm. Being a top athlete requires dedication and not just talent. Talent is just a baseline.
This does often translate to academic and professional success. Working 90 hours per week never bothered me. I did a lot harder things in my athletic pursuits.
It isn’t about becoming Lebron James, it’s about being good enough to compete at a high level. While genetics play a role, it is smaller than you think and more similar to how genetics impact intelligence (at least how we measure it).
None of my parents or grandparents were athletes, yet I competed in D1 athletics. It was essentially a job for me, training a couple hours a day in high school and more in college. That’s not to say I wasn’t gifted, but no different than someone who is “naturally smart” but doesn’t try vs the person who works really hard (at school or work).
As others have said, student athlete is very slim chance (although maybe things will change with NIL deals and the profiting off of these programs). Being a top athlete requires a lot of what universities are looking for in their classes; you can’t equate being a nationally ranked athlete to a legacy admit.
It's possible a rogue lower court could strike down legacy admissions, but it's obviously not unconstitutional and the US Supreme Court in its current makeup would not strike down legacy admissions. They would have to hang their hat entirely on disparate impact, and I can't see 5 justices voting in such a manner, though it's conceivable a rogue lower court could strike down legacy admissions and the Supreme Court refuse to hear the appeal.
Ultimately, none of this really matters. 100 years ago, getting a Harvard degree meant you'd have a truly world class liberal arts education. Today, an Ivy League degree is a total joke and becoming more so with each passing year. The Ivies hand out "As" like candy, their classes have been demonstrated to be identical to classes at other non-Ivy universities, they teach absurd lies to students, and students tend to graduate with less knowledge than when they went in. And things will only continue to accelerate into the abyss as the Ivies desperately try to get around affirmative action bans by getting rid of or highly reducing reliance upon standardized testing, which will bleed down into Wall Street recruiting (the main reason you hire out of the Ivy League is because standardized testing ensures you are hiring high intellectual horsepower, which means shorter learning curves). The next generation of Ivy League graduates will be less intelligent and poorly educated. In 2040, a degree from Yale, Harvard, Brown, et al will mean very little and the prestige of an Ivy League degree will be drastically less than today.
I agree that legacy admissions obviously aren't at risk for the foreseeable future, but what in the fuck are you on about in your second paragraph?
No, it's actually not. I've seen identical classes (with the exact same slides) being taught at Boston College as are being taught at Harvard. Students can load their course schedule up with worthless classes just as they can at any state university. History programs at the Ivies are less rigorous than the ones at Liberty University, Grove City College, or Hillsdale. For decades, grade inflation at the Ivies is the worst kept secret.
Not true at all. You don't think these jobs require a lot of intellectual horsepower because of the high IQ bias. Everyone who gets those jobs has a high IQ and learns the jobs quickly despite having virtually no formal training in accounting or finance at their university. They learn the jobs quickly so you think (they think) the jobs don't require high intellect. You'll see how wrong you are very quickly if Goldman hires newly minted college grads with 1200 SATs rather than 1500 SATs.
You don't get it. When Harvard, Princeton, et al starts admitting a bunch of normal people with normal intellects in a desperate bid to achieve diversity by getting rid of academic merit, their value to Wall Street employers and to elite law schools and medical schools will start to diminish rapidly. Wall Street will start hiring out of engineering programs and elite business schools that still use merit for admissions. Law and especially medical schools will necessarily have to continue to use test scores for admissions and when Princeton can no longer put out a bunch of 170 LSATs or 519 MCATs the prestige of a Princeton degree will start to tank. It won't take generations--it will be a matter of years. The Ivies have the Bud Light problem--there are plenty of alternatives and modern people have very short memories.
What will manifest in a few generations is the dollar return of students. Every study shows that people tend to earn to their IQ, regardless of the university they attend. You can't take an 1100 SAT and put it into Harvard and expect the Harvard name and contacts to pull that person along so that he or she will be rich in the future and give money back to the school. You start admitting less than stellar people and they'll economically perform to their ability and be able to donate in like fashion.
If you are going to ban race-based AA on the basis that it is racial discrimination then it makes sense to ban legacy admissions and the like. If you are going to say something is not acceptable because it discriminates on the basis of race then it must be just as unacceptable to choose a thing that then discriminates on the basis of race.
How does legacy admissions discriminate based on race? Legacy admissions is highly lucrative for universities and makes it possible for schools to provide aid for the poor.
Have there actually been any studies indicating a correlation between donations and legacy admission?
It discriminates on the basis of wealth and class. It's basically just a proxy for "we're allocating x number of slots for rich white kids."
If you think that's okay, fine. But in that case, you presumably would also be okay with universities having admissions requirements like "must have a household income under X and come from an inner city zip code." Which would, again, be an obvious proxy for ethnic background, because the students fitting those criteria are overwhelmingly likely to be black or Latino... just like the legacy kids are likely to be white.
Thinking student athletes are in anyway at risk is an erroneous take.
Classic nerd fan fiction on this board. Make a lefty layup.
I think that the sports and legacy stuff is so lucrative for the universities that they would consider opting out of federal funding.
Agreed. Schools can actually discriminate based on any category without any legal repurcussions so long as they take no federal money. Grove City College, for example, takes no federal money for just this reason. Harvard, Yale, etc. could openly and proudly discriminate against Asian students to own 19th century white slaveowners if they turn down federal money.
Y'all are missing the biggest nuance here: Discrimination in admissions IS ALLOWED and is LITERALLY THE JOB of the admissions committee, but discriminating based on RACE is unconstitutional. Colleges have to discriminate. That's how they build their entire student body, by saying "You get in because of XYZ and you don't because of ABC."
You are legally allowed to discriminate. You can discriminate based on athletic ability and legacy, that's totally allowed, because there's not a literal amendment to the Constitution banning it. If there wasn't a 14th amendment, then guess what, colleges could discriminate on race.
Also, student athletes are a revenue generator for many colleges, so it's not in their interest to bring fewer of them in, or bring in less talented athletes.
How naive. If colleges decide "for 15% of our students, our admissions standards are going to include a maximum cap on household income and a requirement that you live in an inner-city zip code" it would immediately be challenged as discriminatory.
Opponents of affirmative action are not interested in meritocracy. They're interested in preserving a status quo in which being white and wealthy are the prerequisites for an excellent higher education. If meritocracy was the goal, then the first order of business would have been to challenge legacy admissions (which at Harvard, for example, is usually about 30% of the student body) and not minorities (about half that).
I respect your right to be wrong.
If you think colleges and universities are going to stop with AA, you're wrong. This is the hill they are willing to die on. Many US Colleges have stopped using the MCAT and LSAT, and are advocating for completely abolishing them (in favor of DEI). Colleges promote activism, and will have no problem stirring up the protest machine to make this very ugly. Corporations will fall in line with the letter of the law, and may change quicker and much more quieter. Student Athletes have a place on College teams, why would that change? College sports are a meritocracy (and a huge cash machine for the schools) - why would this go away? Are we getting rid of the Olympics too?
Agreed totally. But their ever-more-radical approaches to achieving racial diversity without use of direct racial preferences will continue to erode the prestige and utility of a college degree. And when medical and law students can't pass their professional exams after taking out $300,000 in student loans, there will be a policy reckoning.
And why is that wrong? Colleges and universities have a reasonable interest in providing an environment in which their students can be exposed to a multiplicity of viewpoints and personalities. Trying to balance out the demographic composition of their incoming classes is perfectly reasonable within that context. If all you did was admit 4.0 GPAs who do nothing but study for the SAT, you'd have a far more boring class. Why shouldn't a university want dancers, musicians, athletes, or artists in their graduating classes? Why shouldn't they want students from poor backgrounds, from different regions of the world, etc? And once you admit that those are all valid reasons to weight an application... you've basically just arrived at affirmative action through the back door.
I don't give a shit about Affirmative Action as a policy, but the resentment that underpinned the lawsuits against it had nothing to do with "meritocracy" or anything like that. We've already admitted that an admissions office is free to seek out the kinds of students they want, which means they're free to tilt admissions towards minorities if they please. So why did anyone bother getting hot under the collar about Affirmative Action in the first place? It barely has any impact on the admissions process, anyway.
Good. Legacy / nepotism is the true plague on meritocracies.
Quia sunt a deleniti ea. Qui ea ea occaecati qui. Consequuntur quia molestias est iusto ut. Ratione saepe dolorem dolores repellendus.
Placeat est voluptas repellendus voluptas labore quia. Necessitatibus incidunt et qui voluptatibus deserunt deleniti. Molestias inventore et officiis est ut itaque dolorum. Ipsam est distinctio quaerat asperiores.
Officiis assumenda rerum corrupti vel deleniti. Et rerum voluptatem voluptas voluptas est fuga. Provident autem quod voluptatem minima assumenda placeat. Voluptatem doloremque consequatur voluptatem dicta.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Placeat qui illum optio voluptatem at. Similique nihil provident qui doloremque.
Dolorem quibusdam suscipit iure quia labore odio qui. Numquam animi quia qui odio ea est et quae. Similique et minus laboriosam quod veritatis tenetur omnis provident.
Officia consequatur expedita sed ut et. Error et enim similique quae ut et voluptatem.