-Caveat Lector- http://www.yaleherald.com/archive/xxxi/2001.01.19/opinion/p11bblue.html
True blue-bloods shouldn't get royal treatment BY DANIEL KRUGER Yale talks a lot about diversity and scholarship. Indeed, Yale officials seem to value these aspects of the University so much that ideas on how to improve both are hardly ever absent from the campus dialogue. Recently, much of this discussion has centered on admissions policies—issues such as how to make the cover of the viewbook look more enticing, how to recruit from underrepresented areas, and whether or not to accept the Common Application. These are fine points for consideration, but it's time to consider the most striking, and least discussed, of Yale College admissions practices— automatic preference for legacies. V. STEPHANIE CARENDI/YH It's notably odd that an applicant's family name might affect his or her admission into an institution that espouses "liberal" learning. In 1863, Josh-ua Chamberlain, who would later become president of Bowdoin College in Maine, noted that, "In America, we judge you by what you do, not by who your father was." The reality today is striking: those whose parents were affiliated with Yale College or one of the graduate schools were admitted to the class of 2004 at a rate of 29.8 percent. Over the past 10 years, the admittance rate for those whose families were Yale- affiliated varied to well above 30 percent. In contrast, Yale's combined acceptance rate for all students last year was a mere 16.2 percent—and this was unusually high. Are students with family connections really twice as qualified to attend Yale? There are some valid reasons to expect relatives of Yale affiliates to have a higher acceptance rate. They usually come from privileged families. Indeed, true equal opportunity in college admissions is a mere utopian dream, since one cannot divorce such heavily influential factors as economic class, nationality, and family stability from childhood ach-ievement. However, in an age when even the British House of Lords has eliminated hereditary considerations, we should demand to know how Yale possibly justifies an admissions policy that specifically considers the family background into which applicants are born. Indeed, special consideration for legacies seems opposed to the goals of equity that are commonly accepted—if not always practiced—in America today. Yale, in its policy statement, claims to strive to "ensure equal opportunity for students, employees, and applicants for employment or admission." A policy that weighs an applicant's credentials with his or her birth status doesn't seem to fit the spirit of Yale's statement. Rather, this is an affront to scholarship and the individual achievements of every prospective Yale student. Legacy considerations also seem to offset, if not oppose, Yale's commitment to a diverse student body. According to Undergraduate Admissions, 14.1 percent of the matriculates in the class of 2004 had families with some kind of Yale affiliation. This pool constituted a larger percentage of the class than any single ethnic or racial minority group, radically differing from the demographic make-up of the country at large. The Department of Undergraduate Admission's official line is understandably downplayed, usually appearing in an obscure spot in news articles around admission time. Typically, it makes claims such as "being a legacy can push you over the edge" but not "automatically decide whether an applicant is admitted." Truly there are some compelling benefits to the school of admitting legacies. Members of "Yale families" tend to contribute to the University in numerous ways, from monetary donations to appearances at events on behalf of Yale. Perhaps the Admissions Office might view special consideration for their children as a way of insuring such continued alumni involvement. Yale students who support maintaining legacy consideration in the admissions process—and they were heard in force at a Yale Political Union debate last term—often argue on the grounds of aristocratic leadership. They hold that prospective students whose parents were Yale-educated were taught to have a greater appreciation for the institution. Legacy proponents further claim that such applicants have been taught throughout their childhoods to emulate the leadership qualities that Yale seeks. But even if this assertion could be verified generally, it is hardly substantial enough to be the basis for an admissions policy. Yale already knows that if it is ever truly to achieve a diverse group of scholars, its admissions philosophy needs to change. While image reform and outreach to under-represented areas are important, Yale should take its own initiative further and finally abolish legacy considerations. The world is filled with talented students who could contribute much to future classes —it would be a shame for Yale to pass them by for the sake of tradition and sentiment. Daniel Kruger is a freshman in Timothy Dwight College. Graphic by V. Stephanie Carendi. Back to Opinion... A<:>E<:>R ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Forwarded for your information. The text and intent of the article has to stand on its own merits. Therefore, unless I am a first-hand witness to any event described, I cannot attest to its validity. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of teachers, elders or wise men. Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all. Then accept it and live up to it." The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutra <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
