The movement to put an end to legacy admissions, which give preferential treatment to the children of alumni, is currently gaining momentum. In this era of rising populism and resentment towards elites, it is high time that universities eliminated admissions practices that seem to promote inherited privilege. Surprisingly, a recent analysis by The Washington Post revealed that more than 100 selective schools, including all eight Ivy League institutions, still practice legacy admissions. Now, with the Supreme Court’s ruling against race-conscious admissions, particularly in the case involving Harvard and their legacy preferences, these policies undermine the credibility of institutions that claim to value merit-based admissions and diversity.
While it is true that legacy admits are typically qualified, defenders of legacy admissions argue that these applicants have grown up in environments that better prepare them for success. New data indicates that if legacy applicants from families in the top 1 percent of earners were not considered legacies, they would still have five times the likelihood of non-legacy applicants with the same academic profiles to secure spots at selective schools. The same applies to legacies from families below the 90th percentile of income earners, who are about three times as likely. University officials claim that legacy admissions cultivate loyalty and community among alumni, encouraging donations that can support scholarships and other programs.
However, these arguments don’t justify the continuation of admissions advantages based on birth, family wealth, and willingness to donate. Many elite private universities already possess significant endowments and generous financial aid programs that enable them to sustain themselves without sacrificing their credibility. Those universities with less wealth should explore alternative methods of funding their programs that don’t involve extracting self-interest-driven “philanthropy” from alumni. State legislatures could increase funding for public universities, allowing them to abandon legacy policies. Private schools could establish tuition rates that reflect their operational needs, implementing financial aid systems that ensure all qualified admitted students can afford to attend. Universities could also reevaluate their spending rates to determine whether they are necessary to support core teaching and research.
While ending legacy admissions may not have a significant impact on the overall composition of student bodies, even a slight improvement in perceived or actual fairness is worthwhile. Harvard’s legacy admissions policy, which has come under heavy scrutiny during the recent affirmative action case, exemplifies the inherent problems with the status quo. Approximately 70 percent of Harvard’s legacy admits are white, and more than 40 percent of white undergraduates admitted to the university between 2009 and 2014 were legacies. Despite a significant increase in Harvard’s applicant pool over the past 20 years, with legacies now making up less than 5 percent of total applications, the percentage of legacy applicants admitted has remained the same. This means that a child of alumni who was four times more likely to be admitted to Harvard’s Class of 2000 was nine times more likely to be offered a place in the Class of 2017.
While there may be other factors contributing to this disparity beyond admissions office favoritism towards legacies, as long as legacy admissions policies remain in place, universities will continue to be vulnerable to criticism. Harvard is not the only institution that should be concerned about living up to its meritocratic ideals. Any university that aims to identify and nurture talent, regardless of its origin, should eliminate legacy status from their admissions equation.
The opinions expressed in this editorial represent the views of The Washington Post as an institution. They are the result of debates among members of the Editorial Board, separate from the newsroom. The Editorial Board consists of Opinion Editor David Shipley, Deputy Opinion Editor Karen Tumulty, Associate Opinion Editor Stephen Stromberg (national politics and policy), Lee Hockstader (European affairs, based in Paris), David E. Hoffman (global public health), James Hohmann (domestic policy and electoral politics), Charles Lane (foreign affairs, national security, international economics), Heather Long (economics), Associate Editor Ruth Marcus, Mili Mitra (public policy solutions and audience development), Keith B. Richburg (foreign affairs), and Molly Roberts (technology and society).
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
