Postdocs and undergraduate legacy for your kids

[Catria]

Suppose that you do a postdoc at a university where legacy is a factor for undergraduate admissions, but did not attend that university for undergrad or grad school.

 

Can your children claim legacy status when applying at that university for undergrad?

[Vene]

I doubt it, as a postdoc you don't get a degree.

[GeoDUDE!]

I don't even think you can claim legacy for graduate school, unless your kid wants to go to that specific graduate school. IE, harvard law is a legacy at harvard law, but not for harvard undergrad. 

[Catria]

I knew that legacy status usually was claimed by scions of undergraduate alumni and, when the college has a graduate school, graduate alumni, though.

 

However, I heard that, for the purposes of determining legacy status, some colleges consider a postdoc as having attended the college and, for other colleges, a postdoc is considered as being an employee of the college.

[TakeruK]

However, I heard that, for the purposes of determining legacy status, some colleges consider a postdoc as having attended the college and, for other colleges, a postdoc is considered as being an employee of the college.

 

Yes, some schools will consider postdocs as "advanced students on practical training" while others consider them as employees. MITACS in Canada did a survey of Canadian postdocs and one of the big questions is how their school classified them. The majority are employees, treated more like staff and faculty, but there are some places that consider them in the same class of people as graduate students. It also varies on field.

 

But either class can be considered for preference in admissions for their children. Employee benefits may include these preferences. So just because you aren't a "student" doesn't mean that you can't get benefits for your children. However, most employee benefits are only valid while you're an employee there, not "legacy".

 

In any case though, if you wonder this about a particular school, you should just check their policies. I think it will vary a lot from place to place. But if you are planning for future children, if you don't already have close-to-college aged children now, keep in mind that admissions/legacy policies can change over decades and your children might not even be interested in the opportunity!

[random_grad]

Legacy was not something that was listed in the various application websites I have encountered at the graduate level. As a matter of fact, I ve encountered it just a few days ago and I am quite shocked. How does one claim legacy?

Edited July 30, 2015 by random_grad

[ilovelab]

What if you are at the school for 1-2 years for your post-doc? I don't see how you can claim legacy at that school. Most scientists have to do multiple post-docs (depending on their sub-field, its very common in neuroscience). You can't claim a legacy at multiple institutions where you would do a post-doc.  

[Catria]

The only school I know for a fact where undergraduate applicants cannot claim legacy status for relatives having done postdocs there is UChicago.

 

Legacy was not something that was listed in the various application websites I have encountered at the graduate level. As a matter of fact, I ve encountered it just a few days ago and I am quite shocked. How does one claim legacy?

 

Legacy means that the applicant has relatives that graduated from that particular school. Usually the strongest weight is given to parents or siblings that attended the school as undergraduates, then graduate degrees, postdocs (if applicable), in-laws, cousins, aunts/uncles, grandparents.

 

What if you are at the school for 1-2 years for your post-doc? I don't see how you can claim legacy at that school. Most scientists have to do multiple post-docs (depending on their sub-field, its very common in neuroscience). You can't claim a legacy at multiple institutions where you would do a post-doc.  

 

Many people that earn graduate degrees earn graduate degrees at different schools than their respective undergrads, and most institutions with graduate schools that allow undergraduate applicants to claim legacy status, will allow undergraduate applicants to claim legacy status for undergraduate and graduate degrees earned by relatives.

 

If you graduated from university A for undergrad, university B for grad school and did a postdoc at university C where relatives of postdocs can claim legacy status, then your children can apply to A, B and C under legacy status for undergrad (if legacy status can be claimed at all three of course).

Edited July 30, 2015 by Catria

[bhr]

Mind you, 90% of schools, and almost all public schools, don't care about legacy status. It is only the money-obsessed schools like the Ivies, with an eye on their endowment, that give preference to legacy students over students who actually deserve enrollment, thus continuing to stratify economic privilege.

[Catria]

Mind you, 90% of schools, and almost all public schools, don't care about legacy status. It is only the money-obsessed schools like the Ivies, with an eye on their endowment, that give preference to legacy students over students who actually deserve enrollment, thus continuing to stratify economic privilege.

 

The trick is that I am attending one of those few public schools that do. Minnesota gives some weight to legacy, but doesn't care about whether the applicant can claim legacy status through a relative having done undergrad, grad or postdoc. UVA also does, but not sure about Michigan or W&M.

 

However, many desirable postdocs are found at those schools that do care about legacy status.

[ExponentialDecay]

Mind you, 90% of schools, and almost all public schools, don't care about legacy status. It is only the money-obsessed schools like the Ivies, with an eye on their endowment, that give preference to legacy students over students who actually deserve enrollment, thus continuing to stratify economic privilege.

 

Why do you believe that legacies don't "deserve" enrollment by virtue of being legacies? You know that having privilege doesn't automatically make you a bad person, right? Like, that's the fundamental concept of privilege.

Edited August 1, 2015 by ExponentialDecay

[bhr]

Why do you believe that legacies don't "deserve" enrollment by virtue of being legacies? You know that having privilege doesn't automatically make you a bad person, right? Like, that's the fundamental concept of privilege.

Did I say that? I said that giving preference to legacies, over a more deserving student (and I dare you to tell me that doesn't happen) just perpetuates privilege. I'm saying that legacy status helps elevate students based on factors that have nothing to do with the student (which is true). If you can't get in on your own merits, and need legacy status to sneak in to a school, you are taking a spot from a student who deserves it more, and are, in fact, a bad person. (And that isn't even getting into the racial and economic disparities tied up in legacy issues).

[Vene]

Why do you believe that legacies don't "deserve" enrollment by virtue of being legacies? You know that having privilege doesn't automatically make you a bad person, right? Like, that's the fundamental concept of privilege.

Why does being from a particular family make somebody qualified for anything? The applicant might be for some other reason, but that's not the same as saying your father did a postdoc here 10 years ago.

[ExponentialDecay]

Why does being from a particular family make somebody qualified for anything? The applicant might be for some other reason, but that's not the same as saying your father did a postdoc here 10 years ago.

 

It doesn't make one qualified. It's an extra point on one's resume. Dude, come on, you're in grad school - you should know how competitive processes work.

[Vene]

It doesn't make one qualified. It's an extra point on one's resume. Dude, come on, you're in grad school - you should know how competitive processes work.

It's a nonsensical point, that's the problem. That a parent of mine when to same school has about as much relevance as when I last had a haircut.

[ExponentialDecay]

It does have relevance for schools that rely on their endowment to function. If you rely on alumni financial contributions, it makes sense to offer small bonuses to those who continue to support the school - through tuition dollars as well as donations. I'm not sure why this is controversial. Institutions that aren't funded by the government need other ways to find the money to, among other things, admit underprivileged students on scholarship. I attended on an an alumni scholarship; it would not have been possible for me to get my education without it. I'm sorry that some people can't achieve highly enough to to beat out qualified legacies on merit (which is what legacy status is - it is a marginal benefit), but not every case where two applicants are not considered equally is an injustice.

 

​Also, notice what bhr actually said:

 

Mind you, 90% of schools, and almost all public schools, don't care about legacy status. It is only the money-obsessed schools like the Ivies, with an eye on their endowment, that give preference to legacy students over students who actually deserve enrollment, thus continuing to stratify economic privilege.

 

They are clearly implying that having legacy status wipes out any and all personal or academic merit a student could have. According to them, where your parents went to school should determine where you go to school, i.e. you are "undeserving" to attend a school your parent went to. 

[EliaEmmers]

They are clearly implying that having legacy status wipes out any and all personal or academic merit a student could have. According to them, where your parents went to school should determine where you go to school, i.e. you are "undeserving" to attend a school your parent went to. 

 

OR the much much MUCH more common case where legacy status outweighs your lack of personal and academic merit. I mean, you can try to twist and turn this in whatever way suits your conviction that systematic discrimination against people of lower resources should remain enshrined in the educational system. However, that does not change the fact that legacy-anything is just another bureaucratic maneuvering to make sure the rich still have first-hand access to as much opportunities they can at the expense of the poor. 

Edited August 2, 2015 by EliaEmmers

[GeoDUDE!]

I think its funny that you guys are trying to argue about this as if there are objective qualifications beyond GPA and GRE scores (and one could argue that those aren't objective either). 

 

Deserving, by definition, is subjective.  What if one of the qualifications to be "deserving" of something is to be part of a legacy. You may disagree with that value, sure, but you aren't the ones who get to decide that. Therefore no one gets into college that is less "deserving" than someone who doesn't, they just fit different criteria than what you judge on.  

[Catria]

One could argue that a postdoc has contributed more to the university than an undergraduate...

[HookedOnSonnets]

 

One could argue that a postdoc has contributed more to the university than an undergraduate...

Legacies are less about the contribution one particular student or employee made in the science or arts and more about, you know, continuing the legacy. Jim got his undergrad at Harvard and now Jim Junior's off to get his undergrad at Harvard. It's all about the camaraderie and the connections you make as an undergrad. And the school hopes that you'll look back fondly over your undergrad years and send a little money their way, and then when Jim III shows up they're going to be more receptive to him than they would be to Mary Noname.

 

There are different ways to contribute. One way the undergrad legacies contribute is in alumni donations, which do carry weight. 

 

You never know, it might help a little to slap "Mom got her post-doc here" on the application - but not nearly as much as "Mom got her undergrad degree here and now I want to follow in her witty and intelligent footsteps".

[bhr]

I think its funny that you guys are trying to argue about this as if there are objective qualifications beyond GPA and GRE scores (and one could argue that those aren't objective either). 

 

Deserving, by definition, is subjective.  What if one of the qualifications to be "deserving" of something is to be part of a legacy. You may disagree with that value, sure, but you aren't the ones who get to decide that. Therefore no one gets into college that is less "deserving" than someone who doesn't, they just fit different criteria than what you judge on.  

And I'm saying that legacy status is a racist, classist and stupid criteria to use when selecting who to admit. Schools that consider it are putting their financial endowments (often times large pots of money that don't get used to benefit the students) above having the best and brightest students.

[GeoDUDE!]

And I'm saying that legacy status is a racist, classist and stupid criteria 

 

It isn't.  Legacies are more likely to contribute to the alumni fund, and admitting a legacy student is makes it more likely that that family will contribute. 

 

There are plenty of things that keep people from different backgrounds out of college, but this really isn't a big deal. 

 

(fwiw, my parents went to Cal State LA, so its not like I really have a stake in this). 

Edited August 3, 2015 by GeoDUDE!

[bhr]

It isn't.  Legacies are more likely to contribute to the alumni fund, and admitting a legacy student is makes it more likely that that family will contribute. 

 

There are plenty of things that keep people from different backgrounds out of college, but this really isn't a big deal. 

 

(fwiw, my parents went to Cal State LA, so its not like I really have a steak in this). 

I challenge you to find proof that legacies are more likely to contribute. In fact, schools are essentially limiting their donor pools if they accept too many people from the same family (I'm taking the argument to the point of being ridiculous, I admit)

 

Also, unless CSLA is an Ag or Culinary School, I wouldn't expect your stake to be a steak.

[GeoDUDE!]

I challenge you to find proof that legacies are more likely to contribute

 

If you contribute money to a school, and then your kid is rejected, are you more or less likely to keep contributing to that school?

 

Also:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshfreedman/2013/11/14/the-farce-of-meritocracy-in-elite-higher-education-why-legacy-admissions-might-be-a-good-thing/

 

vhttp://www.businessinsider.com.au/legacy-kids-have-an-admissions-advantage-2013-6

 

This isn't empirical proof, but the logic is sound. I'm not sure that universities would want to release this information. 

 

I think the proper solution is to make sure that there are elite public schools that can help upward mobility. The problem is these public schools are now becoming just as expensive as the elite private schools, but that's for another thread. 

[HookedOnSonnets]

To counter your articles, GeoDUDE:
I was curious so I looked it up, found this article in the NYT.

 

 

 

Legacy preferences are often justified as a way of building loyalty among alumni, sustaining tradition and increasing donations. But there is no hard evidence to prove this. A study by Winnemac Consulting for the Century Foundation found that from 1998 to 2007, at the nation’s top 100 national universities, if one controls for the wealth of alumni, “there is no statistically significant evidence of a causal relationship between legacy preference policies and total alumni giving.” Moreover, the study found that at the seven universities that dropped legacy preferences during the time of the study, alumni giving didn’t decline.

I don't want to brag or make anyone incredibly jealous of my enormous good fortune and careful breeding, but I followed in my parents' footsteps and went right into my local state college. Did their last name get me in? Or was it the 93% overall acceptance rate? Perhaps both. Perhaps... both.