[downut]

Now fit legacies into this theory.

The wikipedia page on Legacy Preferences is illuminating. Note the Larry Summers quote:

Former Harvard University president Lawrence Summers has stated, "Legacy admissions are integral to the kind of community that any private educational institution is."

[credit_guy]

Just about a month ago I realized for the first time that legacy admissions result, in many cases, in better candidates rather than worse. Not always. But here's an example (from real life, without names obviously): highly qualified student, with lots of national level achievements, Cornell legacy. Applied in the early admission period to Cornell, got in. But the student had a reasonably high chance for Princeton or Yale, let's say. However, the legacy system incentivized him to apply to Cornell, even if his level was slightly higher. Why? Because if he didn't apply in the early period to Cornell, hoping for Princeton or Yale, and didn't get in, then Cornell would not have given him any preference in regular admissions. So he had to choose between nearly 100% admission at Cornell in the early round, vs 10% chance at Princeton, and then a non-negligible chance to not get into Cornell in regular.

My point: legacies are not always dumber than non-legacies. Sometimes they are stronger, and the legacy system incentivizes them to stick to the school where they are legacy.

[only-one1701]

Which kind of student do you think would be more likely to realize that a single data point is of no consequence: legacy or non-legacy?

[onetimeusename]

Let's say two people are applying to Harvard and it's the year 2019 (I think they stopped legacy admissions recently). They both have a 1550 and 4.3 GPA. Both went to good high schools. Both helped underprivileged youths learn to code. However one of them has two alumni parents who are both well known, Pulitzer Prize winning journalists in DC that helped expose the corruption of the much hated X politician during the Y scandal, they are White House Correspondents and they are regularly featured on the news. The other student has parents who are not alumni. Harvard has to pick between these two students. Which one do you think Harvard picks?

Note that you cannot argue the legacy student actually has a lower SAT score because Harvard admitted legacy students had higher than avg. SAT scores and because the study controlled for SAT score.

Believe it or not, this is the kind of profile a lot of legacy admits would have.

[downut]

"Which one do you think Harvard picks?"

Do you not understand what the point of legacy preference admissions is? I will supply it here: Legacies take the place of the higher performing non-legacy candidate, not the equivalent one. Is this difficult to understand? Why?

[toasterlovin]

Legacy admissions actually make a lot of sense if you think that genetics affect the outcomes you care about but also that the relationship between genetics and outcomes is stochastic and messy (which it is, as breeders in the 1800s knew even before the mechanism was understood).

[dragonwriter]

Well, no, if you think that legacy admissions are unnecessary (because, to the extent genetics have an effect on the outcomes you care about, they'll show up in more direct measurements), and counterproductive (because they presume a simple relationship rather than a stochastic and messy one.)

OTOH, legacy admissions make a lot of sense if the outcome you care about is serving an elite class defined rather simply by familial lineages.

[only-one1701]

This assumes, among other dubious stuff, that the initial admission of the ur-student was merit based.