I just read that some of the regents do not want to give priority for legacy applicants because too many of them are white. This seems like reverse discrimination to me.

We got rid of legacies years ago unless they brought it back again?

They stopped legacy admissions in the 80's.

If you honestly believe in it being merit based, legacy should not be a factor.

A&M has been practicing reverse discrimination against white people for well over two decades now. Nothing new.

We haven't done legacy in forever, nor should any public institution. Earn your way in. I have issues with some of our admission practices, but not this one

Remember that day a few years ago when all you folks on Texags were making fun of my school because a bunch of kids were waving dildos around at each other?

And then I told you that this same mentality would eventually creep across the Brazos River Valley and infest your school?

Gird ye loins.

It's no longer legacy, but donor status.

Had two idiots in my high school make it into A&M with no business being there based upon their academic performance. Their dad is a big donor.

It's a business.

rgleml said:

---

I just read that some of the regents do not want to give priority for legacy applicants because too many of them are white. This seems like reverse discrimination to me.

---

Legacy admits have been gone for at least two decades, possibly more.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

It's no longer legacy, but donor status.

Had two idiots in my high school make it into A&M with no business being there based upon their academic performance. Their dad is a big donor.

It's a business.

---

Does he know Lori Mcloughlin or Felicity Huffman?

There is no such thing as "reverse" discrimination.

There is just "discrimination".

Intelligent people need to stop using that phrase.

There's no such thing as "reverse discrimination." This is straight up discrimination.

Stupe said:

---

There is no such thing as "reverse" discrimination.

There is just "discrimination".

Intelligent people need to stop using that phrase.

---

irregardless of there education

One thing that I've learned from reading this site is that the educational level of a person is not always an accurate measure of a person's intelligence.

Stupe said:

---

One thing that I've learned from reading this site is that the educational level of a person is not always an accurate measure of a person's intelligence.

---

Thank you for perfectly demonstrating that.

Discrimination is discrimination.

There's no, "reverse discrimination".

Tanya 93 said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

It's no longer legacy, but donor status.

Had two idiots in my high school make it into A&M with no business being there based upon their academic performance. Their dad is a big donor.

It's a business.

---

Does he know Lori Mcloughlin or Felicity Huffman?

---

Its a little less insidious than USC. They weren't tying up athletic scholarship or paying an intermediary. There's a great long article that I can't find right now that goes through the ins and outs of admission. The thesis is that 'need blind' is a farce. Every admissions office has to balance merit, diversity goals, and paying the bills.

If mom and dad are big donors at any academic institution, it's not worth pissing off that money forever by denying their kid. Just the reality of it all.

Tanya 93 said:

---

If you honestly believe in it being merit based, legacy should not be a factor.

---

I dont necessarily disagree.

That said, if there is a pool of similar applicants, why shouldn't the family's connection to the school be used as a deciding factor? That would seem to benefit the school in a myriad of ways.

Companies reward good customers all the time. Alumni have a much closer relationship to a University, than a customer to a business.

I dont think it should be THE deciding factor, but why not 'A' factor?

Just to throw this in:

All universities should be private and they should be able to accept whatever students they want. If they want a reputation of being completely merit based and that their students grades are a true reflection of their abilities, then they would not consider color, legacy status, background, etc. If they want to go down as "woke" and have their less qualified students to get lower salaries, have lower employment rates, and whatnot, then go full lib. It's up to them.


As long as public money is involved, it should be 100% merit based. Academic admissions should only be given ID#s. No name, no race, no neighborhood, etc. Just SAT/ACT scores and possibly scores from custom entrance exams. For athletes, merit is their 40 time, their vertical jump, their bench press. The lower their grades the better.

Priority should be given to native Texans. Then anyone else if there's room.

I covered the issue in The Batt back in 2003-ish when Gates got rid of legacy points in the admissions process. If memory serves, it was done to appease Garnet Coleman and other members of the permanently-aggrieved class in the Texas Legislature.

What was discovered when the policy went into effect was that not only did it adversely change the outcome for around 50-60 white students, it actually reduced the number of minority students admitted by 2 or 3 persons. Turns out they could benefit from the legacy boost as much or more than their white counterparts.

At the time, I advocated for the end of legacy admissions on merit grounds. But in retrospect, I think A&M is a better place for its multigenerational family legacies, both culturally and financially. If we are going to count subjective performance on essay prompts such as, "Describe how you will contribute to the diversity of A&M" in admitting students, then a few points for legacy applicants is more than fair.

ETA- looking back at the numbers, it looks like legacy points were a deciding factor for 300 whites and 30 minorities. The policy still benefitted minorities, but that didn't fit the narrative.

rgleml said:

---

I just read that some of the regents do not want to give priority for legacy applicants because too many of them are white. This seems like reverse discrimination to me.

---

Dr. Gates eliminated legacy points on applications at the same time he eliminated race points on applications.

And if getting into A&M is THAT important to a student and their family, go get an apartment zoned to a HS where the student can be a Top 10% admit.

Failing that, there's Team Blinn, A&M Galveston... and a bunch of other options.

If any student wants an Aggie Ring and diploma, they can earn it.

If only they could measure, truly measure, red ass on the application i would be satisfied so long as they took the high score applicants.

rgleml said:

---

I just read that some of the regents do not want to give priority for legacy applicants because too many of them are white. This seems like reverse discrimination to me.

---

Where did you read this?

Now do illegal immigrants without a SS number or drivers license.

Tanya 93 said:

---

If you honestly believe in it being merit based, legacy should not be a factor.

---

And you know perfectly well why admissions can't be solely merit based.

BenFiasco14 said:

---

A&M has been practicing reverse discrimination against white people for well over two decades now. Nothing new.

---

When I was editor of Texas Aggie Magazine, I wrote an article on admissions. Went over and interviewed several people and put all my stats and everything together. This is probably about late 2006, early 2007.

Even with that time it was interesting to see some of the things they were looking at rather than grades and such. And diversity was definitely a big push even then and I know it's gotten even more since then.

So you're not wrong and what you're saying.

And now looking around the country and how many universities are dropping SAT or ACT scores or even rankings in the school it's a very strange process.

Now I'm sure A&M has changed their admissions processes several times since then but it was an eye-opener. It's definitely nothing like it was back when I came to school.

But I do think people would be staggered to know that they get like 50,000 applications and can only accept 12 to 15,000 applications a year now too. Actually it's probably even more now. So it's a lot more people wanting to come as well.

Vision 2020

Tanya 93 said:

---

If you honestly believe in it being merit based, legacy should not be a factor.

---

And top 10% should be done away with, along with any preference for POC over whites and/or Asians.

Top 10% at Booker T in Houston probably isn't even top 60% at Memorial.

I feel pretty strongly legacy had something to do with my son being accepted to aTm 6 years ago. He was only in top 17% of his class and not involved in much during high school, decent SAT but not special. You can bet he hammered Essay 3 trying to tie in legacy of dad, uncle, twin sister. I was shocked he received an acceptance letter. I have season FB tix but not a BMA donor.

Tanya 93 said:

---

If you honestly believe in it being merit based, legacy should not be a factor.

---

Other than the reality that donations from legacy generations has to be infinitely more per person than 1st Gen donors on average.

58-7 said:

---

I feel pretty strongly legacy had something to do with my son being accepted to aTm 6 years ago. He was only in top 17% of his class and not involved in much during high school, decent SAT but not special. You can bet he hammered Essay 3 trying to tie in legacy of dad, uncle, twin sister. I was shocked he received an acceptance letter. I have season FB tix but not a BMA donor.

---

I love merit-based acceptance in general, but in terms of culture and preserving what makes us unique, I'd much rather take a legacy kid of any race who was raised to love A&M than some book worm from China who doesn't give two sh*ts about this country, much less our University.

Try 50,000 applications.
It's a different process than it used to be.

Buford T. Justice said:

---

Try 50,000 applications.
It's a different process than it used to be.

---

Yes that's actually correct I meant they're only taking 10 to 12,000, maybe more now. I will correct that.