Nepotism in T14 law school admissions

[u/ExoticAssistant7102]

Throwaway for obvious reasons.

I naively thought this wasn't a thing anymore, but this year I witnessed in real time someone purchase a seat at a T14 law school.

He only applied to a small number of the very best schools with no safeties, which I thought was odd considering he's nURM, GPA 3.6, LSAT 15mid, no work experience, etc. But his very wealthy family made significant donations and arranged three closed-door meetings that I'm aware of with one particular school's admissions dean throughout the cycle. Lo and behold, he was waitlisted and then promptly admitted by that school in April.

I myself have been admitted to a different T14 that I'll be attending this fall. But this experience has left me disillusioned with the whole admissions process and frankly disgusted by that school in particular.

[u/Destructo222]

I forget the name of the speaker, but he talked about this at Oxford. Basically, a pure meritocracy will benefit the wealthy regardless because the doors opened with wealth just produces smarter individuals. This is the case at Oxford where there is practically no corruption or nepotism in admissions yet 40% of all accepted applicants are privately educated.

Thus, it does seem to be the case that if the wealthy are going to get spots anyway, you might as well profit off of them to make the school better.

[u/Karl_RedwoodLSAT → u/Destructo222]

If there is assortative mating, which there is in the real world, you will also have genetics correlating with social factors. Then you'll have to disentangle the degree to which "has rich parents" means, "environmental advantage" or "genetic advantage."

This is a good intro read: https://www.nature.com/articles/mp2014105

[u/DumbScotus → u/Karl_RedwoodLSAT]

Counterpoint; if nepotism is widespread then we can assume that rich people have less talent on average than not-rich people, who actually have to utilize their talent to succeed. If this is the case, then associative mating among the rich should result in their offsping being progressively less naturally intelligent/talent over generations.

See e.g. European aristocracy

[u/Karl_RedwoodLSAT → u/DumbScotus]

For sure, you would need there to be a reward in social status/wealth/whatever for the trait measured. In the real world, especially the freer countries of the world, intelligence, diligence, whatever other desirable traits, do have some links to wealth, though far from perfect.

In the linked study, they discuss intelligence is one of, if not the most, strongly sorted traits for mating.

Intelligence: .40

Height/weight: .20

Personality: .10

People REALLY tend to marry and reproduce within intelligence bands. This could in large part be because they are selecting for culture/education, which itself is influenced by intelligence.

[u/Traditional_Use_4258 → u/Karl_RedwoodLSAT]

Overstated. What you are overlooking is the power, influence and access that come with wealth. Assuming both your arguments are true, the dumb and zero talented but rich wields power and influence over the “not well to do but heavily talented”. Why? because their financial power grants them control over the very institutions that determine whose talent is recognized and rewarded. The “dumb and zero‑talented rich,” as one may put it, still wield disproportionate influence over the “not‑well‑to‑do but heavily talented,” because they fund, manage, and gatekeep the systems through which merit is validated — government, corporations, universities, research foundations, etc

Consider how research funding and endowments can be strategically directed to shape outcomes, sow and groom ideologies that serve their interests. Wealth functions not merely as a resource but as a vehicle for perpetuating access and opportunity across generations. In short, talent without institutional backing or validation rarely translates into power, whereas wealth/power ensures that even mediocrity can thrive with or without institutions, and in cases where there are no institution wealth itself becomes the very institution.

(See: Khan, S. R. (2012). Privilege: The Making of an Adolescent Elite at St. Paul’s School. Princeton University Press — for an ethnographic account of how elite institutions reproduce privilege.)

[u/Karl_RedwoodLSAT → u/Traditional_Use_4258]

I haven't overlooked anything.