quote:

Originally posted by venomX Wow i can't believe you just said that. I hope you're being sarcastic. People being inferior? So you're presupposing that some other people are superior no? Good thing modern racism was supposed to be subtle.

Actually, that was old fashion slavic sarcasm. No need to get offended.

quote:

Originally posted by BiG-_BoSS Actually, that was old fashion slavic sarcasm. No need to get offended.

No worries, that's why i asked . Sarcasm doesn't travel well over the interweb i find.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

Two things:

1) define white. There's an arguement to be made that America is a hore homogenous melting pot than ever before. Ethnic lines have been blurred. There are many more people now that can claim some sort of diverse background that renders them eligilbe for a peculiar scholarship. Does anyone have any statistics on the aggregeate number of dollars available per scholarship applicant? This excuse is not going to work forever.

2) Fuck this. I have a ridiculous student loan that's going to be a pain in my ass for years. That's my yin for the legacy yang. College is quickly trumped by experience if you land near something you enjoy or have passion for. College reputation and ranking isn't everything.

Last edited by Shakka on Dec-09-2006 at 05:46

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Mixed views. I can certainly see the side of the argument that claims that students are getting into schools that they otherwise might not be accepted into. I can say that I got accepted to a school that would've otherwise been quite a stretch for me had it not been for the fact that a sibling was already attending. I think at the end of they day, provided a student can hack it at a school academically, I do not have any serious problems with legacy programs. Now, with respect the legacy program and its difference between scholarships--a couple of points: 1. Colleges and Universities obviously have a vested interest in taking in money, building their endowments, etc., so that they can continue to improve their ranking and the quality of the education they can offer. Given that their alumni are generally their most dependable and significant contributors, it makes obvious sense to pander to them a bit, even if it means accepting a student who might've been on the fence, or just on the other side of it. It's like a good business relationship--you maintain your network and it is mutually beneficial. 2. Colleges and Universities have a vested interest in maintaining/improving their overall ranking (as stated above), so it does not behoove them to just accept a second-rate student just because his/her family may have donated a few extra bucks. Obviously as more money is on the line, more exceptions will be made, but a university isn't going to dilute their classes with bad apples in any pervasive manner that I could see. If they do, why would anyone want to go there? Isn't the prestige in the quality of the education, not the names of the people who attend? 3. If a college or university is private, do they not reserve the right to admit who they please? If they are public, can anyone show a study that shows that the amount of legacy admissions that otherwise might not have been accepted are significant or material relative to the number of non-merit, non-need based scholarships available? 4. Edit: I'd add that legacy programs are, in theory, color blind/race blind, so it's not exactly and apples-to-apples comparison, though I still think it's a relevant debate.

I can't disagree with your points above too much, but I think you were addressing the issue a bit more from a business perspective rather than an ethical one. I wouldn't even know where to look for your request for #3, nor will I speculate on that without any evidence to support it. My point, however, is derived primarily from an ethical standpoint and one that I think lends credence to disallowing legacy points for the very same reason as disallowing entrance points based on race/ethnicity. From that perspective I still cannot see legacy points seemingly supercede points awarded based on race.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I can't disagree with your points above too much, but I think you were addressing the issue a bit more from a business perspective rather than an ethical one.

Lol--true--we all have our own distinct points of view. But the truth is that money ultimately makes the wheels turn, so to the extent that it becomes part of the equation, you could see how a see-saw decision could go either way.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I still cannot see legacy points seemingly supercede points awarded based on race.

Not that this is right, or fair, but I could see how legacy points would supercede race points. Most of the time, with legacies, the parents bring money into the school with donations. Rare is the case that a completely unqualified student gets in without a donation simply because their parent went to the school. If that were the case, the would be far more abuse than there is even now.

___________________
Lost Souls