Just thought I’d share this here…
Nitpick: this is not true. I can’t speak for every school, but MIT makes it exceedingly clear that they give zero preference to legacies. My husband is an MIT grad, and our son applied to MIT this past year. MIT sent my husband both e-mails and snail mails to remind us that our son would not receive any preference.
In the event, CairoSon was rejected; had their been a legacy boost, he might very well have been accepted given that he was a credible if not amazing candidate. Nonetheless, I commend MIT for its approach. They are absolutely right to give no preference to legacies.
On the merits, you are right. But selfishly, I’m glad this is not the case at Stanford–otherwise, my kids would probably have little chance to get in.
On your second link: It is unclear whether the case that was dismissed by the judge was a sexual assault case or not. If it was, good on the prosecutors. If not, I’d have a bit of trouble with it.
I served as juror on a felony burglary case once. The window on a business was smashed and people were observed entering the store and handing goods out. The cops arrived and everybody scattered. The defendant was found crouching behind a semi-trailer in the back of the next lot over. The prosecution put forth its case, we broke for a late lunch, and when we came back, the judge announced that he had dismissed the case and thanked us for our time.
When the prosecution rested its case, I literally thought, “That’s it? I’ll listen to the defense but I’m going to find hard to convict on what’s before me now.” For example, the witness who IDed the defendant was across the street, seven traffic lanes and two parking lots away. The arresting officer testified the defendant was unable to give a good account as to why he was hiding behind a trailer and his shoes were confiscated when he was arrested, but the shoes were not offered as evidence nor was there any mention of any forensic discoveries (like glass fragments on the soles).
The two attorneys and several jurors (including me) hung around for a couple minutes afterward and at least the ones who stuck around were of the same mind as me: it would have been hard to convict. The prosecutor said she knew the case was pretty unwinnable, but the office had decided to go ahead if only to show the kid how much trouble he could get into.
I’m fairly certain that he was guilty, but that’s a long, long away from “beyond the shadow of a doubt.” The judge’s decision to dismiss the case was okay by me.
It wasn’t a sexual assault case, but the description (from the prosecutor, so TTFWIW) does sound like something that’s at least worth letting the jury see:
And he’s won the vote for identity thieves everywhere.
Totally understand and agree. I approve of the MIT policy, but if our son had been accepted and MIT had a pro-legacy policy…well, let’s just say I would not have said, “but this is a tainted acceptance! You can’t go there!” We would have all been thrilled.
Oh shit, you’re right. MIT and Cal Tech do not seem to practice legacy preferences (or athletic or racial preferences for that matter). Neither do some of the top public schools.
I agree. Intellectually I know that it is not fair for my son to get a legacy preference but people are weird when it comes to their own kids. Notions of fairness and equity are frequently put on hold, see letter from Brock Turner’s parents.
It’s “beyond a reasonable doubt,” not “beyond the shadow of a doubt.”
But I know what you mean. I was on a jury once that hung, because while some people were going with a “gut feeling” the defendant was guilty, others couldn’t get past the horrible presentation of the prosecution. I mean, you could have made a “What not to do” video from the prosecutor’s performance. He stuttered, and forgot things, changed his mind about what he was talking about mid-sentence, and relied mainly on teary testimony by an unlikable victim, who couldn’t actually identify the defendant-- he claimed to recognize him in court, but he had not be able to pick out his picture, nor identify him in a line-up earlier; and on the testimony of the arresting officer who emphasized the fact that the defendant had a gun. A lot of people in Indiana have guns and have never committed a crime. The victim couldn’t identify the type of gun his attacker had-- not even whether or not it took a clip or was a revolver.
There was no other evidence whatsoever. I know the world isn’t CSI, but there was nothing. It was a daylight crime, and there were no witnesses.
I realize the prosecutor has only what the police give him, but they probably should have dismissed this one.
Agreed, except that I don’t find it all that weird. I think evolutionary psychology has a more powerful grip on human beings than most people understand, or are comfortable admitting. I don’t even try to fight it: I figure other parents can try to advance their kids as best as they can, and good luck to everyone.
There’s nothing weird about that at all. A parent prefers the welfare of their child over other children. It is perfectly rational to prefer there be a fair system for all children while acting for your child’s best interests within an unfair system. This is a classic problem, quite easily described with basic arithmetic, in microeconomics.
Nor is this something people struggle to admit, as Slackerinc suggest. Of course people admit they love their kids more than kids they don’t know. I buy Christmas presents for my kids, but not for yours. Everyone understands that.
Sure, but look at the example we are discussing. Many people will feel sheepish about admitting “yeah, my kid got into Stanford/Harvard/Yale/etc. because of a family connection that I exploited”.
And your construction of “It is perfectly rational to prefer there be a fair system for all children while acting for your child’s best interests within an unfair system” kind of sidesteps the point: if there were a referendum banning legacy admissions, would you vote for it? I would vote against it as things stand now. If my dad were not a Stanford alum (or equivalent), I would vote *for *it. I’m not going to pretend otherwise, but I continue to believe most people would not so brazenly admit something like that.
The defendant was probably another Stanford alum. :rolleyes:
I wonder what her lap times were.
It depends on how much I personally would benefit or not benefit from such a policy.
I’m not saying that you love your kids more than a stranger’s kids. I’m saying that otherwise fair and honest people ignore concepts of fairness if it provides an advantage for their own kids.
Everyone TALKS about how they want there to be fairness and a level playing field in education but they actively pursue legacy advantages and turn a blind eye to discrimination that helps their own kids. They’re not just doing the best they can within an unfair system, they have a preference for the unfair system because the unfair system provides unearned advantages for their kid.
Right. **RickJay **and I both copped to doing this. But he seems to think most parents not only do it but make no bones about it. I believe a lot of them are not so up front about it, and if I’m reading you right, I think you agree?
So because the same judge sentenced a different offender who pled guilty to a different offense to the minimum he possibly could means he’s racist?
:dubious:
And there’s more:
Yes, that is correct. People are usually ashamed of unfair advantages and will generally deny having them.