Affirmative Action ruling on College Lacrosse recruiting

[DongDenMt]

With the military academies it’s all about readiness . What is good for our military. As stated already it has nothing to do with discrimination.

[MDlaxfan76]

There's a cutout: the service academies can still consider race for admission, so I guess past and present discrimination can be considered only as long as you're willing to die for your discriminating nation?
How can I reformulate that sentence to sound less cynical?

The private money boyz that sponsored this lawsuit all the way to the USSC will take on legacy admission next, right? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

Please explain who the "Private Money Boyz" who sponsored this lawsuit are? I thought an Asian kid brought the suit against Harvard. The ruling defintely impacts the non white and Asian communities in opposing ways. I am less certain how it will impact the white applicant but we will see.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/whos-who- ... 023-06-29/

https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justic ... ion-higher

And his funders: https://www.boston.com/news/the-boston- ... tion-case/

"Along the way, he’s found wealthy conservative backers to bankroll much of his efforts, including the Searle Freedom Trust foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, and DonorsTrust."

[jhu06]

can we send the admin a case of beer for having to spend his 4th of july deleting posts on this thread?

[MDlaxfan76]

I don't think folks actually begrudge the military academies using race to achieve objectives they think are important, it's SCOTUS telling other institutions that their objectives are worthless or have already been met by society.

I agree with the comments above that we're likely to see either elimination or reduction of legacies. At least at those selective private, well-endowed schools where those have been important.

We'll also see these schools move away from test scores, which they already began during COVID. That allows much more emphasis on other factors that will lead to diversity objectives.

Included will be higher emphasis on socio-economic challenges faced, first generation college, etc, which will tilt toward diversity.

I'm not so sure they will give up the tip for athletes, though, yes, there's going to be sensitivity to racial, socio-economic make-up of a sport and that will create pressure on highly white sports like lacrosse and hockey. That said, if I'm not incorrect, sports are a net contributor to diversity overall in places like the Ivies...or close...

But hey, wanna get into a top school as a great athlete and minority student, pick up a hockey or lacrosse stick early on. And study hard!

Lax is cheaper...

[Big Dog]

JHU is already ahead of the curve, discriminating against legacies.

JHU ended the legacy preference, I take it? Cal Tech was out front on that and has gotten pretty good reviews on how it played out for them. The American public at large HATES legacy preferences, so I think pressure will build at more selective colleges/universities to end it now that the affirmative action decision is in the books.

I would argue that at a lot of the Ivies the legacy preference has been functionally highly minimized for a while (at least as compared to 1-2 generations ago), and they haven't formally announced it is over because (a) they don't want the alumni blowback; (b) they like the flow of alumni money from people still hoping Junior will be admitted -- 18 to 20 years of donations before the thin envelope comes to end the hope of the next generation attending the Ivy; and (c) they want to be able to keep admitting 8 figure donors and it's easier to do that in terms of the optics of it all under the camouflage of "regular" legacy admissions.

I can see it both ways; I was first in my family to attend my alma mater and am glad there was room for me; at the same time, the schools rely on $$ from loyal alums and multi-generational families have been and most likely will continue to be extremely generous.

The "American public" doesn't care one iota about legacy presences, as such preferences only affect an extremely small % (fractions of 1%) of them. Heck, I'd suggest that the American public has never heard about legacy admissions, nor have cared to hear about it. The send their kids to local public colleges.

As to the OP, not sure I understand the connection between URM admissions and lacrosse recruits.

[Farfromgeneva]

[quote=laxrules post_id=478552 time=<a href="tel:1688055259">1688055259</a> user_id=684]
Dude it worked for me. I opened it and read it Dude

Either way, the actual decision was posted.

Post lame attempt to read like "twatter", we guess. Not a whole lot to "read".

The Supreme court already "ruled" on "cabal" this is the IVy and friends in that "needs blind" admissions lie.

So, to answer your question....NO.......this will not help the poor, regarding lacrosse recruiting and getting slots.

The "prefferred walkon" status won't go to a poor person. ISn't that what scholarships are for, anyway ? The poor ?

Wow was that hard for you?

I asked a question and you complained about the link I shared. Then you have some good insight/opinion but after you continue to be an A-hole with your criticism.

The link was to introduce the topic and start dialogue.
[/quote]

Welcome to this world.

[Farfromgeneva]

JHU is already ahead of the curve, discriminating against legacies.

JHU ended the legacy preference, I take it? Cal Tech was out front on that and has gotten pretty good reviews on how it played out for them. The American public at large HATES legacy preferences, so I think pressure will build at more selective colleges/universities to end it now that the affirmative action decision is in the books.

I would argue that at a lot of the Ivies the legacy preference has been functionally highly minimized for a while (at least as compared to 1-2 generations ago), and they haven't formally announced it is over because (a) they don't want the alumni blowback; (b) they like the flow of alumni money from people still hoping Junior will be admitted -- 18 to 20 years of donations before the thin envelope comes to end the hope of the next generation attending the Ivy; and (c) they want to be able to keep admitting 8 figure donors and it's easier to do that in terms of the optics of it all under the camouflage of "regular" legacy admissions.

I can see it both ways; I was first in my family to attend my alma mater and am glad there was room for me; at the same time, the schools rely on $$ from loyal alums and multi-generational families have been and most likely will continue to be extremely generous.

There is an irony that once more legacies don’t look the same of course it’s time to get rid of that advantage.

Friend I used to work with endowed named scholarships and made other donations to UPenn and was livid when his kid wasn’t accepted and won’t give another penny. Son went to Wash U on a full ride for academics (daughter is at Rice) so was a fine student. Stringing along alums has a cost.

[Big Dog]

JHU is already ahead of the curve, discriminating against legacies.

JHU ended the legacy preference, I take it? Cal Tech was out front on that and has gotten pretty good reviews on how it played out for them. The American public at large HATES legacy preferences, so I think pressure will build at more selective colleges/universities to end it now that the affirmative action decision is in the books.

I would argue that at a lot of the Ivies the legacy preference has been functionally highly minimized for a while (at least as compared to 1-2 generations ago), and they haven't formally announced it is over because (a) they don't want the alumni blowback; (b) they like the flow of alumni money from people still hoping Junior will be admitted -- 18 to 20 years of donations before the thin envelope comes to end the hope of the next generation attending the Ivy; and (c) they want to be able to keep admitting 8 figure donors and it's easier to do that in terms of the optics of it all under the camouflage of "regular" legacy admissions.

I can see it both ways; I was first in my family to attend my alma mater and am glad there was room for me; at the same time, the schools rely on $$ from loyal alums and multi-generational families have been and most likely will continue to be extremely generous.

There is an irony that once more legacies don’t look the same of course it’s time to get rid of that advantage.

Friend I used to work with endowed named scholarships and made other donations to UPenn and was livid when his kid wasn’t accepted and won’t give another penny. Son went to Wash U on a full ride for academics (daughter is at Rice) so was a fine student. Stringing along alums has a cost.

fwiw: Penn has turned Early Decision into an art form. If a legatee does not apply Early Decision to Penn, they ain't getting in. But I assume that your friend knew that. With regards to this thread, I can see a lot of pressure to reduce ED admissions along with Legacy.

[44WeWantMore]

JHU is already ahead of the curve, discriminating against legacies.

JHU ended the legacy preference, I take it? Cal Tech was out front on that and has gotten pretty good reviews on how it played out for them. The American public at large HATES legacy preferences, so I think pressure will build at more selective colleges/universities to end it now that the affirmative action decision is in the books.

I would argue that at a lot of the Ivies the legacy preference has been functionally highly minimized for a while (at least as compared to 1-2 generations ago), and they haven't formally announced it is over because (a) they don't want the alumni blowback; (b) they like the flow of alumni money from people still hoping Junior will be admitted -- 18 to 20 years of donations before the thin envelope comes to end the hope of the next generation attending the Ivy; and (c) they want to be able to keep admitting 8 figure donors and it's easier to do that in terms of the optics of it all under the camouflage of "regular" legacy admissions.

I can see it both ways; I was first in my family to attend my alma mater and am glad there was room for me; at the same time, the schools rely on $$ from loyal alums and multi-generational families have been and most likely will continue to be extremely generous.

There is an irony that once more legacies don’t look the same of course it’s time to get rid of that advantage.

Friend I used to work with endowed named scholarships and made other donations to UPenn and was livid when his kid wasn’t accepted and won’t give another penny. Son went to Wash U on a full ride for academics (daughter is at Rice) so was a fine student. Stringing along alums has a cost.

fwiw: Penn has turned Early Decision into an art form. If a legatee does not apply Early Decision to Penn, they ain't getting in. But I assume that your friend knew that. With regards to this thread, I can see a lot of pressure to reduce ED admissions along with Legacy.

Early Decision helps schools increase their yield. As long as yield is a major component of the USN&WR ranking, most Admissions Offices will want to keep it. Anybody with a high-schooler looking to get into a competitive college (but is not 100% set on one in particular) learns that the Early Decision choice is a key play to make in the game.

[10stone5]

Chrishawn Hunter - referring to an above post on minority preferences to higher level schools - started out with Rochester’s ROCE6 program.

Got a ride to Westtown, known for bringing in Inner City and Native American scholar athletes,

got into Penn.

Since ended up re-committing to Syracuse.

[Big Dog]

JHU is already ahead of the curve, discriminating against legacies.

JHU ended the legacy preference, I take it? Cal Tech was out front on that and has gotten pretty good reviews on how it played out for them. The American public at large HATES legacy preferences, so I think pressure will build at more selective colleges/universities to end it now that the affirmative action decision is in the books.

I would argue that at a lot of the Ivies the legacy preference has been functionally highly minimized for a while (at least as compared to 1-2 generations ago), and they haven't formally announced it is over because (a) they don't want the alumni blowback; (b) they like the flow of alumni money from people still hoping Junior will be admitted -- 18 to 20 years of donations before the thin envelope comes to end the hope of the next generation attending the Ivy; and (c) they want to be able to keep admitting 8 figure donors and it's easier to do that in terms of the optics of it all under the camouflage of "regular" legacy admissions.

I can see it both ways; I was first in my family to attend my alma mater and am glad there was room for me; at the same time, the schools rely on $$ from loyal alums and multi-generational families have been and most likely will continue to be extremely generous.

There is an irony that once more legacies don’t look the same of course it’s time to get rid of that advantage.

Friend I used to work with endowed named scholarships and made other donations to UPenn and was livid when his kid wasn’t accepted and won’t give another penny. Son went to Wash U on a full ride for academics (daughter is at Rice) so was a fine student. Stringing along alums has a cost.

fwiw: Penn has turned Early Decision into an art form. If a legatee does not apply Early Decision to Penn, they ain't getting in. But I assume that your friend knew that. With regards to this thread, I can see a lot of pressure to reduce ED admissions along with Legacy.

Early Decision helps schools increase their yield. As long as yield is a major component of the USN&WR ranking, most Admissions Offices will want to keep it. Anybody with a high-schooler looking to get into a competitive college (but is not 100% set on one in particular) learns that the Early Decision choice is a key play to make in the game.

Yield has neve been a "major component" on USNews. More importantly, USNews dropped it completely 20+ years ago.

I only mention ED as it 'advantages the advantaged', i.e., those that don't have to compare financial aid offers. (Less important with the Ivies and Hopkins which have fantastic finaid, but most ED colleges do not. And if legacy dis-advantages URM's, so does ED.

[44WeWantMore]

Thank you. I stand corrected on yield.
I do know that JHU allows you to back out of ED if they do not meet your Financial Need, but I do not know the details.

[Farfromgeneva]

JHU is already ahead of the curve, discriminating against legacies.

JHU ended the legacy preference, I take it? Cal Tech was out front on that and has gotten pretty good reviews on how it played out for them. The American public at large HATES legacy preferences, so I think pressure will build at more selective colleges/universities to end it now that the affirmative action decision is in the books.

I would argue that at a lot of the Ivies the legacy preference has been functionally highly minimized for a while (at least as compared to 1-2 generations ago), and they haven't formally announced it is over because (a) they don't want the alumni blowback; (b) they like the flow of alumni money from people still hoping Junior will be admitted -- 18 to 20 years of donations before the thin envelope comes to end the hope of the next generation attending the Ivy; and (c) they want to be able to keep admitting 8 figure donors and it's easier to do that in terms of the optics of it all under the camouflage of "regular" legacy admissions.

I can see it both ways; I was first in my family to attend my alma mater and am glad there was room for me; at the same time, the schools rely on $$ from loyal alums and multi-generational families have been and most likely will continue to be extremely generous.

There is an irony that once more legacies don’t look the same of course it’s time to get rid of that advantage.

Friend I used to work with endowed named scholarships and made other donations to UPenn and was livid when his kid wasn’t accepted and won’t give another penny. Son went to Wash U on a full ride for academics (daughter is at Rice) so was a fine student. Stringing along alums has a cost.

fwiw: Penn has turned Early Decision into an art form. If a legatee does not apply Early Decision to Penn, they ain't getting in. But I assume that your friend knew that. With regards to this thread, I can see a lot of pressure to reduce ED admissions along with Legacy.

Early Decision helps schools increase their yield. As long as yield is a major component of the USN&WR ranking, most Admissions Offices will want to keep it. Anybody with a high-schooler looking to get into a competitive college (but is not 100% set on one in particular) learns that the Early Decision choice is a key play to make in the game.

Yield has neve been a "major component" on USNews. More importantly, USNews dropped it completely 20+ years ago.

I only mention ED as it 'advantages the advantaged', i.e., those that don't have to compare financial aid offers. (Less important with the Ivies and Hopkins which have fantastic finaid, but most ED colleges do not. And if legacy dis-advantages URM's, so does ED.

My understanding is the kid did ED, how he got the deal w Wash U seems odd but smart family with a ton of dough. Type of folks who lost $600k on a house they bought in Buckhead in 2007 bc their market is different type of real estate so didn’t even need the merit aid.

[44WeWantMore]

WashU does give generous merit aid, but a full-ride merit scholarship! Kid must have been pretty impressive to me.

[Big Dog]

WashU does give generous merit aid, but a full-ride merit scholarship! Kid must have been pretty impressive to me.

Very impressive, indeed. Better ROI than paying sticker for Penn.

[Farfromgeneva]

Chrishawn Hunter - referring to an above post on minority preferences to higher level schools - started out with Rochester’s ROCE6 program.

Got a ride to Westtown, known for bringing in Inner City and Native American scholar athletes,

got into Penn.

Since ended up re-committing to Syracuse.

Interesting prospect I was just reading about recently myself.

[Farfromgeneva]

WashU does give generous merit aid, but a full-ride merit scholarship! Kid must have been pretty impressive to me.

Very impressive, indeed. Better ROI than paying sticker for Penn.

I think when dad pumped in mid-high seven (don’t know if he got to 8 cumulative but possible) figures over a 10-15yr stretch that it didn’t matter what other options were available as much as not having that option for his son. This is the same 5’9” un athletic guy who took his kid to the hood to play on a high level AAU team when he was 9-10yrs old and he was the kid getting garbage buckets then and by the time he was rolled through Westminster then a year at this asheville NC prep school wasn’t even going to play college BB. Love the guy and he’s been very successful but he’s out to lunch on sports and his kids. They’re good kids though. Think the daughter is going to Rice for very little to nothing either-his hustle/ADHD and the benefits I’m upbringing of the best schools and tutors money can buy along the way was a better investment.

[mdk01]

WashU does give generous merit aid, but a full-ride merit scholarship! Kid must have been pretty impressive to me.

Wash U, at least in the past, was not flooded with East Coast applicants to the degree the Ivies and JHU are. East Coast wouldn't be a detriment.