Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
Lanny, the point is that Harvard won't go bankrupt and need to shut its doors if legacy admissions end. When a system is corrupt and unfair yet profitable, we shouldn't just shrug our shoulders and congratulate those who benefit from that system on their privilege, we should be looking at making that system more fair and less profitable.
|
Harvard's own publication states it is the alumni contributions that were key to the successful year of growth in endowment.
Quote:
I know it's difficult for you to understand anything beyond your blinkered viewpoint and unwillingness to entertain anyone else's opinions, but your point that legacy admissions exist and make money is entirely irrelevant to whether it's moral that they exist. Try to follow along, no one is arguing that these universities aren't making money from their alumni, they are arguing that the money is influencing these institutions in a profoundly negative way by enabling the perpetuation of privilege.
Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk
|
No ####. That is their unspoken charter. The reason these schools can build the endowments they do is because of the privilege attending their institutions provide to graduates. Recognizing legacy opportunity is how the money and privilege keeps flowing, for both parties. EVERY school is trying to be like this and EVERY student wants this. It's why students apply to the best schools they can in hopes of gaining that leg up that an elite school's degree provides. An elite school provides a massive leg up, everyone knows it, and everyone hopes to have opportunity to use it to their advantage. The argument that it is immoral is social justice warrior horse####. Private interests can do whatever they want, including having specific recruitment behaviors and criteria that may rub people the wrong way. It's exactly why the courts ruled the way they did.