Harvard’s freshman class is more than one-third legacy - why that’s a problem | Hacker News Reader

Harvard’s freshman class is more than one-third legacy - why that’s a problem

cnbc.com

33 pointshhs11 comments

People don't seem to get: the world isn't anywhere close to this lie of meritocracy they've been sold. There's a small fraction of society with the right pedigree who don't have to work hard and have everything handed to them because of who their parents are. This fraction is the predominant constituent of Ivy League universities, whereas merit students who worked hard are a tiny minority.

Who is handing it to them, and where do they get it from?

Basically from their parents and their parent's friends. It's kind of funny because I can see the OP's point: on the one hand people are sold this idea of a meritocracy. If you think about "the American dream", anyone no matter what their background can "make it" through hard work. But there is an unspoken implication there: that you can "make it". What happens after you "make it"? Presumably you're on easy street. You don't have to work hard any more. Your family is taken care of. They don't have to work hard any more.

I tend to think of the "American dream" more like a class lottery. Sort of like the movie Ratatouille, it's not that anyone can be in the upper class, but people from the upper class may have come from anywhere. I think of people like basketball players who come out of poverty. Their mother used to clean toilets 14 hours a day and now that her son is a famous basketball player she can spend her days relaxing in a big house and she never has to clean toilets again.

But the OP is correct. No matter how people made it to the upper class, once they are there their family has an advantage. Even if you start with a totally fair meritocracy where people get their just rewards, because they want to provide for their children (and their children's children) you end up with a class of "old money" who own and control most things of importance.

I'm not sure there is a way around it other than massive inheritance taxes and high inflation, which are historically not super popular ;-)

By that description, we can draw a line around the people born in regular old middle class households, and another line around the wealthy, and imagine them trading with one another, much like poor countries in the mid to late 20th century, that are now wealthy. This should demonstrate there is nothing holding back the rest of this country's population from getting wealthy too, while some rich kids inherit from their parents, or go to some rich-kids-only-(except-not-exactly) university.

A different situation is if some wealthy people engineer things so as to effect transfer payments from the middle/poor classes (or just everybody in general) to themselves. I.e., rent-seeking, which obviously exists. While I don't like legacy admissions, afaict it's not rent-seeking.

Somewhat related to your point is this fantastic visualization by NYT. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-c...

From a purely cynical point of view - how else do you expect to keep the spigot of alumni cash flowing if alumni kids are not going to be able to attend?

Articles like this drive me nuts. There is a world of people that do have a large amount of liquid capital. However, it’s a ridiculous claim to make that 1/3 of the people are some how more privileged than you in society and that’s why they go there. The truth is that Harvard, Yale, Cambridge...etc are REALLY good at fostering loyalty and a sense of legacy. Very rarely is there a sense of legacy at “state university of X”. Harvard simply is good at promoting legacy, while 2/3 of their student population are not legacy.

"State university of X" typically doesn't have a great academic reputation in comparison with Harvard. That's a very significant reason not to go there if you can get accepted at a top school.

It is well-documented that these school give admission preferences to 'legacy' applicants, and that's why there's a high proportion of such students, and the OP cites and links to some of this documentation. It is not a case, as you seem to be suggesting, that children of alumni are simply more likely to want to go to them. The desire to attend elite schools is obviously quite widespread, as having a degree from such is seen, not without cause, as granting you access to all sorts of opportunities.

Also, where I'm from it is not at all uncommon for multiple generations of family to have gone to the University of Michigan or Michigan State (both of which are fine schools, one is more prestigious than the other). For whatever reasons. The desire (or parental pressure) to go to a school your parents went to, when your parents went to university, is in fact not limited to Ivies and elite schools. While most public universities don't seem to give 'legacy' preferences... the U of Michigan in fact does. It is also an especially prestigious public university.

Having grown up in East Lansing, having family that have graduated from Michigan State, and currently work there, they do prioritize legacy. It’s even asks on the admissions form. This is a country and world of competition. This includes students but also thriving schools. The best way to create a successful business is loyalty, which bring value to your asset. Ivy League schools would not be what they are today (Ivy League) without legacy. Sorry, but you can’t have both capitalism and socialism.

Prioritizing "legacy" admissions and making it easier to get admitted if you are "legacy" is quite a different thing than what I thought you were originally suggesting, that schools have a disproportionate number of "legacy" students because they are "simply good at promoting legacy."

It's because they make it _easier to get in_ if you are legacy. You can consider that a method of "promotion", but it's not that they "simply go there" because they disproportionately _desire_ to, it's that the schools preferentially admit them.

You can think this is fine, but in fact it makes most people kinda mad, especially in the case of elite schools, because they know how valuable a degree from an elite school is as a credential, and prioritizing the children of people who already have such a credential to get it seems unfair. You can think it's appropriate, but it's dishonest to imply it's not happening.

I do like your implied admission that we should not expect "meritocracy" from capitalism. Let's start being clear about that, agreed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com