Just a few days after the Supreme Court’s ruling against racial preferences in college admissions, a coalition of Black and Latino interest groups has lodged a complaint against Harvard University. The grievance pertains to a different type of preference: the special treatment given to the offspring of alumni. The complaint highlights that legacy admissions disproportionately advantage white applicants, and if race-based considerations are to be strictly limited, then other preferences that inadvertently favor certain racial groups must also be eliminated.
The argument put forth by the plaintiffs is undeniably compelling. In 2018, my employer, Princeton University, accepted only about 5 percent of all applicants. However, for legacy applicants, the acceptance rate was around 30 percent. This begs the question: why reserve a special lane for predominantly white students who already benefit from numerous social and economic advantages? Furthermore, when examining the evidence, legacy admissions don’t even result in increased alumni giving, which presumably serves as the strongest justification for this practice. Therefore, not only is the policy morally questionable, but it also lacks logical coherence.
Nevertheless, before affirmative action policies were dismantled, legacy admissions had some unintended and surprising consequences. While legacy students did receive an advantage in the admissions process, they were already on a trajectory toward success simply by virtue of being born into privilege. In fact, there is ample evidence to suggest that attending an elite institution like Princeton, as opposed to a less selective college, made no difference in their future earnings.
However, one group did experience significant economic benefits from attending elite schools: students from low-income backgrounds, students of color, and students whose parents did not have a college degree. The reason for this is the exposure these students gained to peers who came from privileged backgrounds — the exact type of students that legacy preferences admit in disproportionately high numbers.
It may be assumed that legacy admissions primarily benefit privileged students at the expense of underprivileged ones. Yet, it is highly likely that if legacy preferences were eliminated, they would be replaced by other forms of privilege rather than by underprivileged individuals. Additionally, legacy students, with their extensive social and cultural connections, play a role in the success of less advantaged students at elite schools, albeit in less obvious ways.
With the end of affirmative action, these discussions become somewhat moot. Predictions suggest that the representation of Black, Latino, and Native American students in selective colleges will decline significantly in the coming years, potentially returning to levels seen in the 1960s. In order for colleges and universities to uphold fairness, it is imperative that all preferences, not only legacy ones, that advantage the privileged must be eliminated. However, as institutions redesign their admission systems, it is worth considering how the presence of privilege can benefit the disadvantaged.
Start by reflecting on the benefits that students derive from attending elite schools. Ideally, one might assume that the most significant advantage would be the exceptional knowledge delivered by professors in the classroom. However, empirical evidence does not support this assumption. Other forms of capital, such as symbolic capital (the prestige associated with prestigious institutions), social capital (networking opportunities), and cultural capital (exposure to high-status practices and norms) play more substantial roles. Graduating from an elite school provides gains in all three areas: affiliation with a prestigious organization, connections to influential individuals, and acculturation in high-status settings.
Students from privileged backgrounds already possess much of this capital before even setting foot on campus. Attending an elite college does little to augment their advantages. However, for students from underprivileged backgrounds—who are less likely to have pre-established networks or cultural references that resonate with powerful gatekeepers—an elite college experience can be transformative.
Extensive research supports this perspective. Your chances of securing a job at a specific workplace increase significantly if your social network links you to it, and the more prestigious the school, the more exclusive the network becomes. Sociologist Lauren Rivera, a professor at Northwestern University, has also demonstrated the impact of “cultural matching” during job applications. Elite recruiters respond positively to cultural similarities, such as shared literary references or participation in specific sports, that students acquire at prestigious colleges because these shared traits remind recruiters of themselves.
Likewise, sociologist Anthony Abraham Jack of Boston University has shown that students from underrepresented communities can gain relative privilege by attending elite schools, where they forge relationships with socially advantaged peers and acquire valuable cultural cues.
Of course, colleges did not establish legacy admissions as a means to benefit minority and low-income students, but the reality is that if elite institutions were to admit only minority and low-income students, the effects of this policy would be significantly diminished. With the demise of affirmative action, the peculiar advantages of legacy admissions disappear, rendering the policy impossible to justify.
I would undoubtedly support the elimination of legacy admissions. However, I do not envision their removal significantly tipping the scale in favor of historically marginalized and excluded individuals. Legacy students constitute only a small fraction of the pool of privileged children who possess ample symbolic, social, and cultural capital. Even without the added boost that legacies currently enjoy, it would be nearly impossible to level the playing field for individuals from less advantaged backgrounds who lack the financial means to acquire the same experiences and qualities that make their wealthier peers appear naturally qualified.
Shamus Khan is a professor of sociology and American studies at Princeton University and the author of “Privilege: The Making of an Adolescent Elite at St. Paul’s School.”
The New York Times is committed to publishing a diverse range of letters to the editor. We value your thoughts and opinions on this article. Here are some tips for submitting your letter, and you can reach us at [email protected]. Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion), and Instagram.
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.
