

Looking to the Past to Ban Legacy Admissions - robg
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/11/20/legacy

======
bilbo0s
On October 25, 1854 sub ordinates of Russian General Pavel Liprandi looked on
in horror as a mass of allied cavalry charged positions they had lately taken
up in and around an area in the Crimea known as Balaklava. Initially,
believing the cavalry men to be intoxicated, the Russian response to this
threat was delayed several moments. Regaining their countenance, Russian
commanders ordered the enemy cavalry charging towards them destroyed. Russian
artillery subsequently opened fire, raining destruction on the enemy cavalry.
Les Chasseurs d'Afrique, as shocked and surprised at the developing scene as
the Russians, hurriedly organized themselves and rode to the assistance of
their bumbling Anglo counterparts, providing cover for the retreating cavalry
men.

At the end of it all, the attacking cavalry was devastated. Less than half of
the allied cavalry men committed to the initial attack made it back to their
lines. Of this number was their commander, a man by the name of James Thomas
Brudenell. He returned, and considered himself to have given it 'the old
college try', went to his yacht, waiting in Balaklava harbor, and ate a
champagne dinner.

This cavalry unit is known to history as the 'Light Brigade'. It was commanded
by wealthy men who had purchased commissions that more capable, but less
wealthy men could not afford.

We bear witness to the results of our modern day 'Charge of the Light Brigade'
daily in our newspapers, on our favorite internet news sites, on our favorite
blogs, and via Fox and CNN.

My point is that the current crises will necessitate some rather unpalatable
structural changes for the United States. The abandonment of legacy admissions
may be one of them.

~~~
potatolicious
IMHO the whole concept of legacy admissions (among other things) is distinctly
un-American. The USA is all about hard work, perseverance, and talent. This is
what has made America great, and it is _only_ through this that America can
remain this way.

More and more American society resembles the old European oligarchies of old,
the one the people fought so hard to free themselves from. Patents of nobility
are gone, but the aristocrats remain all the same.

It saddens me - I've known so many people who had so much raw talent, but
never got the help they needed to really excel. I know people who got poor
grades in school who could hack circles around me. Yet here I am in college,
surrounded by a bunch of pompous idiots who are only here because mommy and
daddy could afford to send them to the best tutors, and boost their marks so
far beyond what normal, but talented folks get.

Many of the most talented developers I know never got the chance to go to a
prestigious school, or even study CS at a formal level. Yet the people around
me by and large can't hack their way out of a wet paper bag. The talented,
truly obsessive hackers don't get any help from society, but the career-
seekers who aren't the least interested in the code they write are. There's no
justice.

~~~
antiform
I'm of the belief that it doesn't really matter for the type of people you are
talking about.

If these "lost" people are as talented and ambitious as you claim, they will
have no problem succeeding at whatever field in which they choose to apply
themselves. If they could "hack circles around [you]," then they will have no
problem hacking one of the most peculiar and challenging systems of all, the
steps needed to be successful in everyday society.

If they are that capable, then surely putting together a decent college
application and getting into a good school or getting a great job would be
piece of cake. You might have to bite the bullet and do things like create a
resume and apply for jobs or take the SATs, gather the necessary papers, and
submit your applications, but sooner or later smart, industrious people will
realize that you don't get anywhere by complaining about your situation.

Talented, truly obsessive hackers don't need help from society, because they
have the fortitude and resourcefulness to succeed on their own. You can't stop
them from learning and working on hard problems. The "career-seekers" can take
their safe, well-paid programming jobs at big companies and buy their cookie-
cutter house in the suburbs next to all the other "career-seekers," with their
white picket fence, 2.5 kids, and a dog. Good for them. But the kinds of
hackers you are talking about would not be happy with that kind of lifestyle.
They would probably want to be on the bleeding edge, to be a visionary or
trendsetter rather than somebody who blindly walks along path paved before
them. I believe that if you have a passion as strong as this, the rejection
letters from jobs or colleges will lie and fade to ashes, forgotten as you
blaze ahead into the life that you forge for yourself.

~~~
potatolicious
You would be right, but we've built a system that's stacked against the people
I describe. The people I talk about can hack circles around me - but they
never got high marks in school (family trouble, learning disability, etc.),
and therefore never went to a prestigious college. _Many_ employers' hiring
practices are obscenely stacked against coders with no degrees (or even
degrees from a "crappier" college).

What you're describing is the precise problem with legacy admissions - the
fact that we are judging a person's skill set via the college they went to,
and controlling people's futures as a result of our artificial interference
with what ought to be a true meritocracy.

If people _are_ objective, and looked at a person's hacking talent instead of
whether or not they went to MIT, then I agree - these people can clearly carve
a path for themselves despite not going to a prestigious school. But this is
not the case.

For the record - the people I'm talking about _do_ work on some insanely cool
projects despite the fact that they don't go to well-known colleges, or have
degrees at all, but they constantly struggle to be taken seriously. When they
walk into an interview (if they're lucky enough to get one) the fact that they
come from some podunk college automatically tilts the playing field _far_ away
from them.

To try to be objective - I don't think we can really correct people's
perception that people from "good schools" perform better. So instead of
fighting this false presumption, let's make sure we stack our college student
body with truly qualified and talented people.

------
wallflower
"As the number of applicants has soared in recent years, premier schools admit
as few as 1 in 10 students, a far more selective rate compared with a
generation ago. To make room for an academically borderline development case,
a top college typically rejects _nine_ _other_ _applicants_ , many of whom
might have greater intellectual potential."

[http://www.projo.com/education/content/projo_20060917_brown9...](http://www.projo.com/education/content/projo_20060917_brown917.327aa8d.html)

------
cpr
No leg to stand on for private institutions. They are free to set whatever
preferences they like. (And they all have them, especially for athletes at
schools with sports dynasties, etc.)

~~~
gojomo
All sorts of politically-popular restrictions have been applied to any
institution that takes a single dollar of federal funding -- as project
grants, student scholarships, or even student loans that have to be repaid. So
there's hardly any fully 'private' institutions left which have the freedom
you describe.

~~~
Prrometheus
Bush's secretary of education is even an advocate of standardized tests for
college students, like they have in high school. The federal government
doesn't have the constitutional power to impose them, but it can withhold
funds from institutions that don't make their students take the tests.

If the bureaucrats have their way, our colleges will one day rival our primary
education in quality.

