I mean, there's a few good points that were made(yes, wealth certainly does a lot!), but let's face reality here: most white folks on the whole don't actually have the economic privilege to actually have strings pulled for them.

I was mainly thinking of the first and fourth panels when I wrote that, I believe. But it's possible I might have missed some of the context, somehow.

Last edited Tue Mar 10, 2015, 09:35 AM - Edit history (1)

"Legacy admission" is what someone whose relative attended a college gets. It isn't limited to white people, nor is it extended to white children whose parents haven't attended the college.

So the point is muddied...

If you think that the vast majority of 'legacies' AREN'T Wealthy Whites, you are not aware of history.

You may someday have to face up to the fact that skin color has played a role in many different types of economic opportunities.

"If you think that the vast majority of 'legacies' AREN'T Wealthy Whites, you are not aware of history."

Nevertheless, the vast majority of college student aren't there under legacy admissions. As much as it hurts the theory, poor white people are the majority of white people. The rich are a distinct minority.

So again, who is misleading whom here?

Even if they were, it only magnifies my first point, however--that legacy admissions are a function of wealth.

The "father" and "grandfather" and the "they are both doctors" part? I.e., one of the definitions of "wealth" being something (asset and money) that can be passed on to the next generation, and the panel establishes multigenerational. The dialog in that panel is just about tripping over itself to show "wealth" without trying to be obtuse to somehow suggest that this is a family of "poor country doctors".

and remember; you can't please everybody!