There was no evidence in Ingraham's rant to support her claim; none whatsoever. The purpose of this rant isn't because Harris isn't capable of being president but to do to her what the cons did to Hilary Clinton, poison her image making her unacceptable to the average American.
Number6 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:56 am
There was no evidence in Ingraham's rant to support her claim; none whatsoever. The purpose of this rant isn't because Harris isn't capable of being president but to do to her what the cons did to Hilary Clinton, poison her image making her unacceptable to the average American.
It's Ingraham who is unacceptable to Americans.
It works too...people who should KNOW BETTER bought into the bullshit about HRC and some will with Kamala too...I really respect the person who can look back and say "you know, maybe I was wrong."
gounion wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:27 am
The right goes apoplectic over a black person getting into a college over a "more qualified" white person. But the practice of "legacy" is something they don't mind at all. They don't mind that GW Bush didn't have good enough grades to get into the University of Texas Law School, but he was accepted with open arms by both Yale and Harvard, as a legacy.
And no one on the right whines about how he kept a more qualified student from going.
Seems that the only thing the right thinks you need to be "More Qualified" is to be male and have white skin.
You keep bleating that nonsense as if it were significant. The number of people getting into college because of legacy is minimal. Why is it you never mention Al Gore who did the same thing. Except his legacy was a politically connected father
Glennfs wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 3:54 pm
You keep bleating that nonsense as if it were significant. The number of people getting into college because of legacy is minimal. Why is it you never mention Al Gore who did the same thing. Except his legacy was a politically connected father
Yep, he got in too. But he wasn't trying to shut down Affirmative Action to keep blacks out, as you want them to.
Glennfs wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 3:54 pm
You keep bleating that nonsense as if it were significant. The number of people getting into college because of legacy is minimal. Why is it you never mention Al Gore who did the same thing. Except his legacy was a politically connected father
So 33% of those who are admitted to Harvard because they legacies is insignificant?
When it comes to kicking the unfair “extra look” colleges give to legacy applicants, Harvard is falling behind, and its peers are taking the lead. Just last Wednesday, Amherst College announced that it will be doing away with legacy admissions — joining the ranks of schools such as Caltech and MIT, who already do not consider legacy status.
It doesn’t take much to recognize that the Harvard admissions process is grossly competitive — after all, the acceptance rate for the Class of 2025 was a staggering low of 3.43 percent. The children of alumni have excelled in this hypercompetitive environment. Between 2014 and 2019, the acceptance rate for legacies, 33 percent, dwarfed Harvard’s overall acceptance rate of only 6 percent.
It’s not hard to guess why. For starters, the children of Harvard alumni are disproportionately wealthy; nearly a third of legacy freshmen hail from half-a-million dollar households. Standardized tests such as the SAT have been shown to correlate strongly with applicants’ household income (thanks in part to eager parents and pricey tutors, the wealthier the student, the better the score). And the ability to participate in extracurriculars that colleges salivate over can oftentimes depend on nothing more than the thickness of your parents’ wallets. Not to mention, being reared by the educational elite is probably conducive to the cultivation of academic talent, which college admissions rightly rewards.
So, if abolishing legacy preference would still leave intact the substantial other advantages enjoyed by children of Harvard alumni, why does the University cling so tightly to the widely panned practice? For what other reason would the University be upholding a system that almost exclusively privileges the wealthy and white? The argument that the University has put forth comes down to money: alumni donate more if they know their children are given extra consideration, irrespective of their abilities. That cash, in turn, allows Harvard to further its educational mission. Harvard Crimsom
Glennfs wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 3:54 pm
You keep bleating that nonsense as if it were significant. The number of people getting into college because of legacy is minimal. Why is it you never mention Al Gore who did the same thing. Except his legacy was a politically connected father
Wow, Glenn, you suddenly ignore this thread after Number Six took you to the woodshed.
Number6 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 4:59 pm
So 33% of those who are admitted to Harvard because they legacies is insignificant?
"At a place like Harvard, you're more likely to be rejected than admitted," Warikoo says.
As the study led by Duke shows, more than two-thirds of legacy applicants were not admitted to Harvard despite their connections.
Probably half or more of the colleges have legacy programs. I’ve seen numbers that say over 50% of all college admissions are legacies. Kids like to go to schools their family has tradition with. The vast majority of legacies have nothing to do with wealth or influence.
Bludogdem wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 8:30 pm
"At a place like Harvard, you're more likely to be rejected than admitted," Warikoo says.
As the study led by Duke shows, more than two-thirds of legacy applicants were not admitted to Harvard despite their connections.
Probably half or more of the colleges have legacy programs. I’ve seen numbers that say over 50% of all college admissions are legacies. Kids like to go to schools their family has tradition with. The vast majority of legacies have nothing to do with wealth or influence.
Still, if 33% of the Harvard students are legacies then than means 67% aren't. It means 33% of those admitted had an additional "entitlement" because someone in their family went to Harvard. I have a feeling those legacies mean $$$s to Harvard.
Number6 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 10:05 pm
Still, if 33% of the Harvard students are legacies then than means 67% aren't. It means 33% of those admitted had an additional "entitlement" because someone in their family went to Harvard. I have a feeling those legacies mean $$$s to Harvard.
Schools like this often have ancestry-based financial aid. For instance, there's a scholarship there for people with the last name Baxendale or Hudson.
Nothing wrong with that - these families are free in a free country to distribute their money however they want, as long as it's by legal means.
But it's really irrational to argue so passionately about "merit" like being a legacy and getting a scholarship because your last name is Hudson, vs so-called using race to get ahead, or whatever. Especially in a country like ours, with such a long history of using race/ancestry specifically to deprive entire groups of people of rights. We won't be hearing Glennfs and some of these other people complaining about ancestry-based scholarships, though.
________________________________
The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them. ~ Ida B. Wells ________________________________
Bludogdem wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 8:30 pm
"At a place like Harvard, you're more likely to be rejected than admitted," Warikoo says.
As the study led by Duke shows, more than two-thirds of legacy applicants were not admitted to Harvard despite their connections.
Probably half or more of the colleges have legacy programs. I’ve seen numbers that say over 50% of all college admissions are legacies. Kids like to go to schools their family has tradition with. The vast majority of legacies have nothing to do with wealth or influence.
Your article says otherwise:
For example, a study led by an economist at Duke University in North Carolina found that legacy applicants had an admit rate of about 34% across six consecutive admissions cycles at Harvard University in Massachusetts, compared with a roughly 6% overall admit rate for nonlegacy students.
It's funny how you guys on the right defend legacies while screaming that Affirmative Action must end.
Glennfs wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:15 am
Funny on how when you are proven wrong you don't admit it.
You said legacies were a "tiny" portion.
You admit YOU were wrong?
And I wasn't proven wrong at all. I've said admitting legacies before "more qualified" applicants is fine with you, but BY GOD, you don't want ONE black person admitted before "more qualified" whites.
There's no way GW Bush should have been in Yale or Harvard. But that's fine with you. It's all about keeping blacks out.
Glennfs wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:15 am
Funny on how when you are proven wrong you don't admit it.
What are your references for this statement: “The number of people getting into college because of legacy is minimal.”
Please source this claim.
Keep in mind that the only reason affirmative action exists is because preferences for whites in all aspects of US society was not only legal, it was mandated by the government.
Last edited by carmenjonze on Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
________________________________
The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them. ~ Ida B. Wells ________________________________
carmenjonze wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:19 am
What are your references for this statement: “The number of people getting into college because of legacy is minimal.”
Glennfs wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:20 am
Bluedog made the claim and it was sourced
YOUR claim:
Glennfs wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 3:54 pm
You keep bleating that nonsense as if it were significant. The number of people getting into college because of legacy is minimal. Why is it you never mention Al Gore who did the same thing. Except his legacy was a politically connected father
Speaking of legacy and merit and affirmative action and all of that...really the issue here is race and the University of California's own "legacy" of whites-first/whites-rule.
That said, I am actually pretty ambivalent about this ruling, and not just because I've been touted as "a test taker." I do feel that as flawed and based in US eugenics as they are, standardized testing results have helped so-called minorities other than my own, such as East Asians, become very well-represented in the UC system. I want them to be very well represented in the UC system (though not the anti-Black types who buy into being sticks for white supremacism.)
I also know that of all the "minorities" in the UC system, African Amrericans represent less than 2% at some UC schools. Been there; sorry to anyone who has endured being a Black person at a PWI. And yet, African Americans will be blamed squarely for this policy. No other "minority."
________________________________
The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them. ~ Ida B. Wells ________________________________
