California Bans Legacy Admissions 💸 A Step Forward or Back?

[@detroit12]

it shouldnt have existed from the start... legacy admissions = bribe . what's the difference between the 2!?

[@mouadlokmane2233]

It’s really refreshing to hear someone think critically about each subject rather than adopt some sort of “pre-made” set of ideas as you described for the left and the right Keep doing what you do

[@reinhardtvorster1447]

To empower economically disadvantaged students definitely aids to more equitable change. I am currently studying medicine at the University of The Witwatersrand in South Africa. In South Africa we still face the consequences of Apartheid. When assessing university admissions it becomes difficult to differentiate between who is more disadvantaged than another, because of the matter being quite subjective. And I am now referring to the disadvantages between indian people, black people and everyone that was affected negatively under the Apartheid regime. I think moving to a economically based system would be more beneficial to develop once discriminated populations. There are several reasons I feel this way. At another university my friend is studying with individuals that come from private schools with the best tutors, educators etc. Yet they still benefit from the affirmative action system at their university. I don't see this where I am studying, individuals that didn't perform as well academically came from poor communities, and because of this opportunity and the privilege of studying with more accessible resources they have grown academically. I think a system that empowers disadvantaged populations is definitely more desirable. I know however the USA has a completely different demographic and many different factors, I do however think it is relevant to identify how it has help SA build democracy

[@tab8294]

Wish you a very happy diwali 🎇 Dr. Jubbal from india

[@shakingwater]

Here's a thought for changing your opinion. Legacy admission donors help fund tuition for lower income students. Although not perfect, the negative is not having enough funds to support lower income students which will drive up student debt for them.

[@kevinjubbalmd]

Interesting counterpoint!

[@malka1762]

counter point to the counter point: some schools' donation systems have a condition thay donations must be used according to the wishes of the donator. so if donators don't care for or are against low-income students attending, schools would not be able to use the funds to help low-income students. technically mostly or only accepting unconditional donations could be a solution. but then you'd see a drop in potential donators that see donating as worthwhile, which would also be an issue.

[@eli.science]

Hey Dr. Jubbal, been watching your videos for years now and was just accepted to med school. Can you please make a Why I didn’t heme/onc!!!

[@kevinjubbalmd]

Congratulations!

[@KazaiChan]

Yeah, the need to pull from the top 5% vs the top 20% really shouldn't matter. They should be choosing people who are well-rounded from the top 20% with the potential to become leaders and make the college stand out long term.

[@JoshYng]

Kevin pls get on a university board they need a leader with this mentality of nuance

[@KazaiChan]

EDIT: I wrote what's below before watching the rest of your video. I 100% agree with you about your views on prioritizing economic disadvantage. I don't think it's a full solution because the degree of how much economic disadvantage impacts you is different by race, but I think this is a more fair way. ___________________________ Regarding the statement that other minorities also face issues that you made... I think the reason that people focus on blacks and hispanics when it comes to academia is because blacks and hispanics are more likely to be pushed out of academic settings whereas asians are held to a higher standard (by both family and community as a whole) which, in turn, leads to asians being more privileged in an academic setting and blacks/hispanics being more disadvantaged. Obviously, affirmative action gave a boost to the academically disadvantaged populations to prop them up in an area where they are more likely to be suppressed... however that does not help asians who have more pressure to succeed and are more likely bestowed a mindset to work hard and achieve high (and to feel worse when unsuccessful).

[@swaggggyb2560]

At face value, the thing about it being based on income sounds good but then I think, you’d probably end up with the same results. I think things like affirmative action were based on income indirectly. Hispanic and black communities tend to be the most economically disadvantaged advantaged while Caucasian and Asian communities tend to be on the opposite side of the spectrum. Not always but generally. Seems to fall in line with the proportion of students from each group to me. Black and Hispanic applicants would receive more help than Caucasian and Asian ones either way. Rather than just placing race on it, it would just be blanket economic status but that largely would follow the same pattern we see now. I think the reason why that would be more accepted is bcus it would sound like one group of people aren’t being treated differently than others and make ppl feel better about it despite it still happening. I believe that even happens now actually. I applied to college in 2019 and I remember being asked my parents income. I assumed it was maybe for scholarships and stuff but I don’t doubt that it was also a consideration towards my admission. Honestly just feel like the race thing made people feel like if they weren’t the right race, they were being discriminated against which in my opinion, wasn’t entirely true. I saw it in the way you see the economic based admissions. It just applied more towards black and Hispanic people.

[@johnrossford7927]

Very interesting video. Ironically, since they struck down Affirmative Action, Black numbers haven't changed much. A minority of schools had a 1% drop. Hispanics had a larger drop in admissions. Asians had THE BIGGEST drop in admissions, which Black people warned about. Now, Asians (East & South) are contending with being replaced by W¥€£ students. So, Affirmative Action helped Asians amongst the most, but the die is cast now.

[@a.a9021]

Where did you get those numbers? I'm seeing the opposite

[@johnrossford7927]

@@a.a9021" Asian American enrollment dropped to 29 percent from 35 percent at Duke; to 24 percent from 30 percent at Yale; and to 23.8 percent from 26 percent at Princeton. At the same time, Black enrollment rose to 13 percent from 12 percent at Duke; stayed at 14 percent at Yale; and dropped to 8.9 percent from 9 percent at Princeton." --Yale, Princeton and Duke Are Questioned Over Decline in Asian Students by New York Times

[@99Michael]

Merit skills and hard work for admissions, or are more holistic admissions and DEI advocates with fingers on the scale?

[@Aaron-cc7yq]

Schools should only uphold this if they actually uphold the affirmative action ruling. We all know that universities, especially Stanford and USC, still give preferential treatment based on race (racism) even though its technically illegal. How would you be able to know if a school accepts a student bc of merit or bc of donations from their parents?

[@ClassyPearl-s1q]

I agree with evening out the playing field, but you know some people are going to argue that it’s wokeness 😂🙄

[@solokiwidestroyer]

I don’t disagree with taking away legacy admissions, but I will add that a much of the value of attending an Ivy league school comes from legacy admissions. Specifically, it’s the connections to the big donors that these schools can offer to their students. When your roommate is the child of a CEO in a Fortune 500 company and your study buddy is the daughter of a former president, you suddenly get the privilege to leverage those connections and get a much bigger advantage in life. It’s definitely not fair and should never have been this way. Still, it’s hard to deny that without legacy admissions, going to these colleges are less worth compared to a top public university for half the cost.

[@esmfamil5086]

The problem is the rick students only become friends with other rich/influential students rather than connecting with disadvantaged students. Imagine not having money to pay for rent, how u gonna hang out at expensive clubs and hobbies that your rich friends engage in? The two don't often mix. It's the rich helping the rich get richer

[@suhkawnit]

It was always messed up in the first place that most of the prestige that comes from attending Ivy League and similar universities had more to do with the networking opportunities than the actual quality of education. I went to med school with classmates who graduated from Ivy League schools and they were consistently scoring near the bottom of our class.

[@modernkhajiit]

hahahahaahaha xD some countries are forever stopped from developement thanks to this "value". Just stop.

[@YoRHa2B]

you wont convince me otherwise ''everyone should get what they earn themselves though hard work'' not by race, money or anything else. if we choose to help someone because of x reason we are discriminating vs people that have what it takes, personally 0 help policy is the best policy ''natural selection in education form''

[@evanmarshall3487]

I'm pretty right wing and I think we need a federal ban on legacy admissions for any university accepting federal funds.

[@appollo1826]

I fail to comprehend why this is a subject of such significance. In what ways do legacy admissions adversely affect individuals? I disregarded Affirmative Action since it failed to benefit its intended recipients. Even if the admission procedure is challenging, Legacy Admission students will retain an advantage without exerting as much effort as their less resourced counterparts. This appears to be a group of affluent individuals expressing discontent towards even wealthier counterparts due to their greater financial resources. Furthermore, who asserts that Asians are an overpopulated when the bulk of these schools are predominantly populated by whites? Whenever we discuss races occurring, we typically imagine the involvement of Black and Latino individuals taking seats of Asian students who are more qualified, rather than the majority population of white students. Did those white students deserve to be there as well? We do not know, we just have anecdotal evidence of a time a black or latino students wasn't qualified, qualified. It appears that white individuals desire minorities to contend for limited resources while they maintain the majority at these institutions of higher education. Whether by design or not it might be something to look into.

[@chesscube8671]

Counterargument since Kevin asked for it: I usually don't comment but you seem to be an honest actor genuinely interested in the arguments from the other side, so I'll explain why I disagree that this policy is a "step in the right direction". My objection comes from the principle of individual rights. We all recognize the fact that individuals have the right to discriminate in whatever way they see fit in their personal lives. If you don't want to date a group of people, no one can force you to. Same with inviting people into your house. If I don't want any black people in my house, the state can not force me to let black people in my house just because I let white people in my house. It is understood that who you let into your house or who you chose to date are private matters and you can discriminatee however you want. For a business, whether organized as a sole proprietorship, corporation, the same principle should hold. No one is entitled to the services of a business (this would be slavery) just like no one is entitled to date you or be let into your house. If you agree with that premise, you must concede that this means that no one's rights are violated if a small business doesn't want to serve black people for example. Since government was instituted by the people to protect individual rights and there is no right to a business's services and no one's rights are violated by a private business discriminating, the state ought not have the authority to come as a moral authority and police these matters. And yes, accepting this position would lead one to reject provisions of certain laws (like the civil rights act of 1964) that are generally accepted to be positive. Public institutions are different because everyone is forced to find these services and thus have a claim to them.

[@a.a9021]

No one is entitled to the services of a business, but people are entitled to not be denied the services of a business on the basis of a protected characteristic, like race, religion, gender, etc. That is the part of individual rights the government protects with things like the Civil Rights Act.

[@chesscube8671]

@@a.a9021 So you are saying there are acceptable vs not acceptable reasons to deny service. This essentially means the state has the final call on who you serve if you can’t refuse for any reason. This means you are not truly free. It ought not be the states final call on what is a “good reason” for a private individual or group of individuals (provate business) to deny someone service (or admission).

[@a.a9021]

@@chesscube8671 Living in _any_ society means you are not "truly free." For the state to protect your individual rights, they must prevent other people from infringing on those rights, meaning others are not "truly free" to behave however they want. Participating in society means you are entitled to the benefits of that society while agreeing to limit your personal freedoms so as not to infringe on anyone else's benefits. For example, you have the right to life, while not having the "freedom" to take anyone else's life. In the area of commerce, you have the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of a protected trait, while not having the freedom to discriminate against others on the basis of a protected trait.

[@chesscube8671]

@@a.a9021 Yea and i’m saying you can not derive from first principles the “right” to not be discriminated against. It ought not be considered a ”right”

[@a.a9021]

@@chesscube8671 What are the "first principles" you are using to determine this?