Admissions discrimination - now straight people get screwed over too!

Does anyone really believe that this is anything more than a cynical move by the leftist college establishment to score more points with their core constituencies? It makes some sense to say that poor applicants may be better qualified than their test scores indicate (although basing it on race is a whole other debate). This unfair bonus for another of the left’s favorite groups serves no education purpose, and amounts to mere posturing, further screwing up the already messed up admissions not-really-a-quota-smile-wink-nod system.

And since this is the Pit…fuck 'em.

I wonder how long it’ll take for this policy to be abused by white high-school students and their parents looking for any edge they can get.


And what kind of policies will the college take to combat such abuse?

“All right, Bobby, tongue-kiss this dude and you’re in! I want to see some PASSION, dammit!”

Ah, good old The Leftist College Establishment. Why, with one implementation and two entire colleges “considering it” in the tiny education market of the United States, this is indeed a shocking indictment of the Left’s clutching grasp on the liberal arts community. Why, do you realise that this hideous move affects a student community numbering two thousand!? Shame on you, The Leftist College Establishment, for compromising our nation so!

Wait, what?

This is a pretty silly policy, but hey, it’s a private school so they should be able to do what they want. I’d be very suprised if it became wide-spread among colleges-- donors probably wouldn’t be too thrilled about it.

Those were my first thoughts as well. I can’t imagine how this policy would be feasible; anyone can claim to be homosexual.

A Princeton official says:

but I just don’t agree.

What does “legacies” mean in this situation? Is it similar to a scholarship or a bursary?

The three colleges considering this are insanely competitive. I can see applicants checking the little box marked “gay” on the application form, because it’s not like potential romantic partners read those, or anyone but the admissions office, for that matter.

And, yes, I do think it’ll be abused. There’s something about the college admissions process that encourages moral and ethical bankruptcy.


But if a ton of kids are doing this, won’t only a limited number (claiming gay) still get in? I may not understand the admissions process, but it seems like if it were to be amzingly abused, it would become counter-productive to lie about it.

You have a parent who went there. It’s how Bush probably got into Yale. You don’t get a scholarship, just a one-up in the admissions process.

athelas, I think I have to agree with you on this one. I am not aware that gays suffer from any educational disadvantages. Totally unscientific, but the gays I have met and known are smarter than average and better educated. Seems like Middlebury College either need to fess up and call it a quota or be called out for Bullshit on this policy.


BTW, that doesn’t make much sense. What is the constintuency of a “college establishment”? Sounds like you buy into the “gay agenda” meme that gets floated whenever these types of things surface.

Thanks. Something else to not agree with on the American school system. :stuck_out_tongue:

Anyway, I don’t see the point of this. Way to easy to abuse - this in particular -

  • makes it sound like you’re more likely to get in if you just worked with a pro-LGBT organisation, which is nuts. I wouldn’t have thought there was such a big problem around gay people getting into this college for them to amend their application process this way.

And see, on a fundamental level I can see giving that type of community service some sort of recognition. I mean, it is certainly a worthy thing for a teenager to spend their spare time working with. That said, it’s no more worthy than volunteering at the SPCA, running a book drive for the library, or working on the debate team.

Then again, I’m pretty much against AA in our current system. I think that AA certainly had its time and place, but that time has passed and that place is getting beaten down. As I see it, AA does nothing but harm our present system and those it is trying to protect. I went to a mostly black high school and I remember many of my friends saying something along the lines of, “I don’t want AA to get me into college. I want to know that I was good enough on my own- without the help of the color of my skin.” Anecdotal, sure, but it’s fair.

I’m not sure the situation described in the OP is a particularly good thing, but i’m not going to lose any sleep over it.

In fact, i’ll lose no sleep over any type of affirmative action as long as religious organizations continue to be allowed to discriminate in their acceptance and hiring procedures for what are essentially secular positions.

It is reasonable to expect an applicant for the clergy, or for some specifically religious counseling or advising position, to adhere to the tenets of the religion in question. It is not reasonable to expect the same thing from a receptionist or an accountant. I can’t, to my knowledge, set up a specifically atheist organization and give preference to atheists over Christians and Jews and Muslims in my hiring procedures, even if i express a genuine concern that the atheist principles and aims of my organization need to be implemented by people who don’t believe in a supreme being.

I fully agree with the principle of freedom of religion, but i think we’ve allowed religions to dictate the terms of what is acceptable, and the result is that their discretion is so broad as to effectively allow them to discriminate even in areas where the vast majority of the duties are secular.

Fix that problem, then come back and we’ll chat about affirmative action.

It’s also amazing that the OP’s quotation actually mentions the subject of legacies, and yet the OP can’t seem to get very worked up over that particular system of preferential treatment.

Sure, I could get behind that. Community service as a reason for preferential treatment. But not in a case like this, though; I don’t think you could reward one method of service but not others. In general it’s a good idea though, and certainly more deserving of preferential treatment than just having a parent who went to that college.

I think much of AA in the university system now is based more on promoting “diversity” in the student body than on trying compensate for discrimintation. And I suspect that is the primary reason behind this move. I just can’t see this catching on, though. I wouldn’t be surprised if heads roll somewhere because someone thought this was a good thing to do.

Thing is, though, legacies aren’t about “deserving” or “fair,” they’re about money.

If a school stops giving preferential treatment to the kids of alumni, they might find that the supply of alumni donations (massive sources of income for many schools) begin to dry up.

As usual, when money is a key motivator, questions of what is just and right tend to be pushed aside.

It’s nice to hear these schools described as “insanely competitive”, to be sure. I guess I would have thought “highly” was accurate enough, but at any rate, it seems unlikely students would be so desperate as to fake homosexuality to get into a NESCAC school, or equivalent. Harvard or Yale? Possibly.

I don’t know how old you are, but if you’re like me and went to college over 20 years ago, you might not be familair with how much more competitive the process is. Or, rather, how many HS kids pull out all the stops to get into a good school. Middlebury may be a NESCAC school, but it’s still a top-rated academic institution. US News and World report ranked it as the 5th best liberal arts college in the country.