Postdocs and undergraduate legacy for your kids

[juilletmercredi]

And I'm saying that legacy status is a racist, classist and stupid criteria to use when selecting who to admit.

 

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.

 

These things are not mutually exclusive. Considering legacy status does have the effect of being racist and classist at elite schools, since non-white students weren't admitted to most of the ones that care about this until the 1960s at the earliest, and even now non-white students represent a minority of students on campus. It's classist because elite universities that care about this are typically very expensive and the ones who tend to have legacy also come from wealthy families.

 

However, I'm pretty sure it's true that legacies do give more. I don't have proof for that, nor do I want to find it, but the reason I'm pretty sure it's true is that universities wouldn't offer legacy preference in admissions if it didn't benefit them in some way. Some schools are open about this; Stanford, for example, checks to see if the parents of legacy candidates have "maintained their connection to the school," i.e., given money. Aaaand that in turn engenders more money. If your son or daughter attends your university and is reliving all the same traditions that you lived XX years ago, then you relive them too, and maybe your nostalgia motivates you to donate.

 

Does that trump the disadvantage that legacy preference puts non-white students and poor students at? No. Am I saying this to defend the practice of legacy admissions? No. Of course university admissions are unfair; they would be even without legacy admissions. That doesn't mean it doesn't have some advantage for the student body lucky enough to be there, legacy or no.

 

Anyway, the answer to the original question depends entirely on the university. At most universities, I'm guessing the answer is no, postdocs don't count. The reason is embedded in the above - legacy admissions exists primarily to drum up more monetary support and preserve traditions (which may also drum up that $$$). Undergrads obviously are the focus of that experience, so undergrad legacies are important to many elite schools. Graduate students at some elite universities may also feel strong ties because their experience, in some ways, mirrors that of the undergrads. For example, elite law and business school grads often form tight-knit networks and have traditions of their own that may engender giving, so universities may see an interest in extending a slight bump in admissions to the kids of grad student alumni, although it's probably not as big as if you were an undergrad. (This is exactly what Columbia, my graduate university, does - small bump for kids of grad alumni; bigger bump for kids of undergrad alumni. And honestly, I have to say that I do feel a certain kind of connection to Columbia, even as a grad alumna.)

 

But postdocs are far more like employees than students. I'm a postdoc at Penn State and I don't know much of anything about their traditions and experiences, nor do I really care that much. I am not inclined to donate money to Penn State, and I don't feel warm fuzzy feelings towards PSU as a university. It's a great place to work! But I don't have nostalgia about it. And they probably know that, so why extend legacy preference to my kids when they're not going to get anything out of it?

[Catria]

At that point, I would most fondly remember the educational level most responsible for my career when everything is said and done and, if I get to postdoc stage, postdoc, otherwise, PhD.

 

But these traditions are not only built on undergraduate alumni donations but also on postdoc contributions (from grant overhead, research)

 

However, development cases, which are often lumped together with legacies, do not perfectly overlap. And development cases (i.e. children of big donors; at Stanford the minimum threshold to qualify is $500k or so, but I'm not sure whether it's $500k one-time or $500k over the lifetime of the parent) can enjoy an even bigger advantage than legacies (or even enjoy an advantage where legacies do not).

Edited August 4, 2015 by Catria

[dr. t]

I think in any case we can all agree that a school's legacy policy is not a useful criteria for deciding between post-doc appointments, which seemed to be the impetus behind the original post.

 

Also, ExDecay and Geo, bhr is generally not a fan of the Ivies, if you hadn't noticed. 

[dr. t]

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.

 

That depends entirely on how a school attempts to craft a student body and on how you define the purpose of the modern university.

[ExponentialDecay]

One can be not fond without frothing at the mouth.

[bhr]

One can be not fond without frothing at the mouth.

I don't think I'm "frothing" anywhere, and think the personal attack is uncalled for. I think that elite private universities have produced a lot of brilliant scholars and great innovations, but also think that they perpetuate inequalities and care more about increasing their endowments than anything. I also think that they get by, in some cases, with producing outdated scholarship because of their brand value.

[ExponentialDecay]

 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.

 

That's a little unreasonable.

[dr. t]

I think that elite private universities have produced a lot of brilliant scholars and great innovations, but also think that they perpetuate inequalities and care more about increasing their endowments than anything. I also think that they get by, in some cases, with producing outdated scholarship because of their brand value.

 

1) Ivies certainly perpetuate economic and social inequalities, but I don't see how they stand out in this regard.

 

2) I doubt any Ivy has a strong enough central organization to pursue any one goal beyond all others. The two with which I have had personal experience certainly do not. Nor, again, is the pursuit of increasing one's penis endowment the unique (or even the particular) providence of the Ivy league.

 

3) Many scholars and departments get by on brand value instead of scholarship, but the Ivies are, once again, far from unique in this.

 

4) Downvoting everyone who disagrees with you in a civil discussion (here and elsewhere) makes you look pretty frothy.

Edited August 6, 2015 by telkanuru

[ExponentialDecay]

[bhr]

Ah, the meme, the last resort of someone who can't defend their point.

 

[ExponentialDecay]

I have defended my point, way back on page 1. Your response was to silently downvote me. I thought a bit of humor would help Your Highness to get out of your shell.

Edited August 6, 2015 by ExponentialDecay

[rising_star]

bhr, pretty much all universities perpetuate inequalities. Take the state university that keeps raising fees but whose scholarships only cover tuition. As those fees rise, students who could otherwise afford to go can no longer afford it, thereby privileging those with money and perpetuating inequalities. You single out the Ivies for this but they aren't the only ones doing this. Plus, there's the fact that certain Ivies have such generous financial aid for those with need that it can be less expensive to go to an Ivy for some students than it is to go to a state university (see again that point about fees I made earlier in this paragraph).

 

To the original point of this post, I'll just say that I hadn't heard of any school letting the children of postdocs claim legacy status until I read this thread. It's a bizarre idea to me and I certainly wouldn't make any major life or career decision based on it. If we were talking about the tuition benefits for the children of tenure-track faculty, well, that's a whole 'nother ball game, especially if you have children nearing college age.

[Catria]

On 8/6/2015 at 5:44 PM, rising_star said:

To the original point of this post, I'll just say that I hadn't heard of any school letting the children of postdocs claim legacy status until I read this thread. It's a bizarre idea to me and I certainly wouldn't make any major life or career decision based on it. If we were talking about the tuition benefits for the children of tenure-track faculty, well, that's a whole 'nother ball game, especially if you have children nearing college age.

The only school I know for a fact where postdoc legacy actually counts for anything is not for undergraduate admissions, but for law school at that particular school.

It surprised me that Saskatchewan Law would treat a postdoc legacy the same as having a relative work for the same amount of time in another capacity within Saskatchewan... and the latter somehow gives a bump to an applicant. (Any claim to legacy status has to be mentioned on one's personal statement for law school there)

[fuzzylogician]

37 minutes ago, Catria said:

It surprised me that Saskatchewan Law would treat a postdoc legacy the same as having a relative work for the same amount of time in another capacity within Saskatchewan... and the latter somehow gives a bump to an applicant. (Any claim to legacy status has to be mentioned on one's personal statement for law school there)

A postdoc is kind of a weird status, but in many places a postdoc is actually considered a university employee (and at others something like a student), so I'm not all that surprised that if a university considers postdocs employees, then they get whatever benefits other employees who've worked there for the same amount of time would get.