Anyone who was rejected because they didn’t have the right parents because the spot went to someone else because they did have the right parents.

Look at the list of people appointed to run executive agencies, serve as judges, etc., and see the degree to which our society is run by elites from a handful of schools. The Supreme Court that issued this decision has one Justice who didn’t go to either Harvard or Yale.

This is a really thought-provoking reply. I appreciate it.

The thing it makes me wonder, though: Isn't this unmerited dominance of Ivy Leaguers in our society the real problem that both AA and the discussion about legacies, is purporting to "solve" or "improve"?

It seems like every society has elites, and we're trying to put a thumb on the scale (or remove other thumbs on the scale really) in hopes we can propel the brightest (poor/nonwhite/non-upper-class) kids into the elite category, but I worry that this is doomed to make little difference because no matter what, not everyone can graduate from Harvard or Yale. No matter what there will be people just as smart/virtuous/etc as the ones admitted to Harvard and Yale who were just unlucky.

I feel like it's more of a problem of humanity -- that we tend to be tribal and exalt some people based on things like what school you went to. Many of the most intelligent and thoughtful people I've worked with dropped out of college or didn't go at all.

Consider two extremes: positions in the next generation's "elite" are randomly selected vs auctioned off. In the latter case, you quickly develop the problem of a parasitic elite who uses that elite power to extract wealth to buy places for their kids in the next generation.

The essential reason America exists was we said "hell no" to a parasitic, hereditary elite, the British "nobility". So I think it's very in keeping with the American experiment to prevent the reemergence of that sort of elite. I'm not sure we should have an elite at all, but to the extent that we do, I think college admissions should absolutely not favor people based on wealth or family ties.

> The essential reason America exists was we said "hell no" to a parasitic, hereditary elite,

Is it avoidable having a hereditary elite? It seems like every society develops one. It even happened in the supposedly classless USSR and they had a name for it the nomenklatura https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura. Even in the US there has existed groups with hereditary and elite status but there has been a lot of social change over the past 100 years. The American problem is deciding who that elite should be now. I think a lot of the conflict and turmoil we are having is caused by different groups fighting to establish themselves as the hereditary elite.

Peter Turchin's theory about elite overproduction might have merit applied in our context. We have too many people vying for too few elite seats and the losers seek vengeance. Admissions into elite schools appears to have become a battleground.

It is avoidable, and the US has done a reasonably good job of avoiding it. It's notable how little current political and economic leaders are the grandchildren of previous major figures. We could do better, of course. And we should.

I have not seen this argument used when discussing the striking down of affirmative action.

That anyone who doesn't get accepted to a school "because of affirmative action" could still "be accepted to another school and still be able to get a high quality education".

Why protect an institution like legacy admissions that is about as far as meritocratic as possible?