First gen students at elite universities (including Emory) favor elimination of legacy preferences

Colleges and Universities A-Z Emory University
1

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/02/when-affirmative-action-benefits-the-wealthy/553313/

Up until now, most of the legal and political fights over college-admissions policies have centered around the use of race as a factor in admissions at selective colleges. But that may be changing. On Wednesday, student groups at 13 elite colleges announced that they are mobilizing against a different type of affirmative-action program: that which privileges the children of alumni.

As a start, student organizations that champion the rights of low-income and minority communities at Princeton, Yale, Cornell, Brown, Columbia, and the University of Chicago plan to gather signatures for petitions to hold non-binding referenda in the spring on whether students think it is fair for their respective institution to give admissions preference to “legacies.”

If students vote to eliminate legacy preferences on their given campus, the groups plan to build alliances with alumni who oppose legacy preferences on principle. (Students at the other seven institutions involved—Duke, Swarthmore, Emory, University of Pennsylvania, Harvard, Vanderbilt, and Amherst—plan to pursue referenda later or use other means to draw attention to this issue, such as op-eds.)

2

This, IMO, seems like a dumb referendum or vote. Most students are not legacy and most students are selfish and therefore will not vote for keeping this preference. On the other hand, one has to wonder what impact that would have on giving at these institutions if qualified legacy candidates are turned down. I wonder if the vote was to keep your scholarship and have legacy admissions what the vote would look like?

3

@nightstalker160
I agree this is silly. It’s a similar argument that is made against Affirmative A. At the end of the day people are selfish so if it doesn’t benefit them, they want it gone. Even though it might hurt their future kids or siblings.

4

@nightstalker160
@VANDEMORY1342

Legacy preferences are based on whether relatives attended/attend the school university.

Preferences for those who’ve given a lot to a university are a different matter as that preference can benefit someone whose relatives never attended but nonetheless chose to give a lot to a school.

http://diverseeducation.com/article/110227/

"Among the 12 schools targeted by the coalition, only Princeton University would provide The Associated Press its admission rates for legacy applicants. There, the rate for children of alumni has hovered around 30 percent for the past five years, compared with about 7 percent for all applicants.

Cornell University declined to provide acceptance rates but said 16 percent of this year’s freshmen have a parent or grandparent who attended. The share at the University of Pennsylvania is 14 percent.

Opponents cite research including a 2010 study at Harvard finding that at 30 elite schools, the probability of admission increased 45 percentage points for students with a parent who attended. Some other studies have found no connection between legacy policies and alumni fundraising.

Among the practice’s critics are some who have benefited from it. Former President George W. Bush, for example, called for an end to legacy preference even though it helped him get into Yale, which his father and grandfather attended. Instead, Bush said schools should judge applicants simply based on merit."

5

If these first generation students succeed in ending legacy preferences, they’ll be in a different boat in a couple of decades with their own kids who will no longer be able to claim the first generation hook: the slate will be wiped clean and their kids will not benefit from their accomplishments.

6

Who is going to pay for these students to attend these colleges? once alumni stop paying charitable contribution, it is downhill everything.

7

@BiffBrown do you feel the same about ED1s? Yes, there’s controversy there because it’s known as a rich kid’s round. You take on legacies here who are qualified to matriculate at Emory. The fact is that there are so many applicants with such similar statistics that this is a tie breaker. At that point, you have to ask yourself if Emory has a prevailing interest in legacy admissions? For now, I’m assuming that you have no use for the Emory Alumni Association . . .until you do, of course. Someday there might be networking opportunities where you use your Emory status to perhaps land a position that you may not have even had access to. Imagine that?

You seem okay with someone paying for access as long as “it’s a lot”. They are teaching you well at Emory or Oxford.

8

Seems short sighted to me. I don’t think there are a lot of legacy kids gaining admission to elite/selective universities that don’t at least meet minimum academic standards (let’s say 25% stats wise) and if there are it is not a statistically relevant number. Wonder how those first generation kids would feel if all the legacy kids banded together and petitioned for the “bump” that first generation kids get these days be eliminated? And I wonder who it is that those low income kids think is paying for them to attend those schools?

9

Colleges are not democracies. They admit the students that they want to admit to give them classes that they want that they believe will best serve the long term interests of the institution in the long term. They won’t put that up for a vote.

10

@ljberkow

I’ve mostly copied and pasted pertinent sections from 2 different publications.

I don’t believe I’ve offered an opinion on legacy admissions except to say that legacy preferences differ from donor preferences, though there’s obviously some overlap between those that donate and alums.

There’s a lot of confusion being expressed here in all the posts defending legacy admissions.

First, Emory alums (and alums of other elite institutions) can pass on advantages to their children that increase their chances of admission to elite universities without there being a legacy preference. The benefits of a good college education include enhanced career opportunities and specific skills useful to the job market. Having a wealthy and well-educated parent obviously helps the children access better educational and other opportunities.

Second, a parent who loves learning (which an elite education can confer) can pass that on to the kids who then become better and more enthusiastic learners, which also helps with college admissions.

Third, I’ve never said that paying for access is OK though I am saying that the usual defense of legacy preferences (that colleges should give the kids an admissions preference if their parents donate) is really a defense of donor preferences - which is a different animal.

Fourth, I’m not convinced that all schools use legacies only to break ties. I’ve not seen data to that effect.

11

So many other things to worry about. Truly wealthy people will always find ways in. Middle class legacies would be hurt. Course this year legacies struck out at most schools in our area.

12

@BiffBrown , "Having a wealthy and well-educated parent obviously helps the children access better educational and other opportunities."

Okay, got it. You assume the alumni are all wealthy, but you are okay having them “pay a lot”. Not every alumni is wealthy, but your argument approaches class warfare and nobody is going to engage you in that.

13

I am torn on this one.

On the one hand, I agree that students who have the advantage of college-educated parents already have an advantage in terms of getting into college.

On the other hand, I know that my son’s admission to my alma mater has made me a more active alumna. And thus I can see how legacy admissions make alumni more loyal and active… including ones who give much more money and time than I ever have or will.

I am not a big donor type, either in terms of my money or my time commitment. I write an occasional check for a charity in the amount of twenty dollars if a student or teacher or parent where I work is collecting. On my own, I also donate twenty dollars a year to each of the two organizations that support research into my son’s disease.

I never donated to my alma mater before my son was in 8th grade and I started reading College Confidential. I had not known that legacy admissions existed. I never thought of a college as a charity (though now I think about the fact that they help poor students), and I was just annoyed by solicitation calls. But once I knew legacy admissions existed, I promptly sent them a check for… twenty dollars. By his junior year, I gave $120 for the year. Pennies compared to richer or more generous donors, but still more than I would have given otherwise.

I never attended any alumni reunions or anything.

After my son was admitted, I became an Admissions Volunteer. I loved my college because it made my son happy. I now identify more as an alumna than I ever felt before.

I am currently actively working to arrange a visit from the college to my son’s high school (where he is the first student ever to attend my alma mater, at least since Naviance began). I signed up to help them reach out to potential applicants and newly admitted students in my geographic area. I said students interested in my career could reach out to me.

Suddenly, I am helping my college. Why? Because I identify more with the college as now it is special to two generations of my family, not only me but also my son.

I never will know if my son’s status as a legacy helped with his admissions or not. He is a strong student, and he was a typical applicant for his college. What tipped him in above similarly qualified applicants? Was it the wise move of applying early decision? Was it his essays, which were great? Was it his recommendations? Was it just the total strength of his application? Or was he helped by being a legacy?

I do not know. I do know he deserves to be there on his own merits, because he is an amazing student. I am confident he will thrive there. Students like him are admitted every year without legacy. But other students like him are rejected every year, too.

I also think it would be unfair if legacy status worked AGAINST applicants, if the college has to prove they are not admitting legacies following this movement. But yeah, students of educated parents already have an advantage that first generation students do not. At a minimum, they grew up with books and conversations, their parents knew to save money for college, they knew about visiting colleges and about how college admissions work.

14

Legacy admissions are NOT taking anything away from first generation. URM, or any other special preference groups whose applications fall into buckets. The legacy applicants are competing for spots against people in similar backgrounds from similar public and private schools, with similar socio-economic background. In other words, even if URM, the legacy URM, if all else is equal, gets the nod. In other words, if there are five kids from a tony suburb such as Winnetka, Illinois, all apply and all are in the top 10% of their class, if they are going to admit three of them, one will probably be the legacy. If there are a couple of legacies, maybe the one a bit more involved with the alumni association gets the extra bump. My point none of this comes at the expense of kids from less advantaged backgrounds. They’re covered and that’s probably the case at just about all of those 12 universities (maybe not so much Dartmouth). Certainly Emory does its part to work for a diverse student population.

15

@ljberkow

There is no evidence that legacy admissions are used strictly to break ties.

And you offer no evidence in support of that assertion.

I never suggested donor preferences are good.

In the absence of legacy preferences, highly qualified students may have to attend a different elite school than their parents. That’s hardly a tragedy.

16

"Harvard’s incoming class of 2021 is made up of over 29 percent legacy students, reports The Harvard Crimson. Last year’s applicants who had Harvard in their blood were three times more likely to get into the school than those without.

The case is the same at Stanford. In fact, across the top 30 schools in the U.S., one review from 2011 discussed in the Washington Post found that children of alumni “had a 45 percent greater chance of admission” than other applicants."
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/06/harvards-incoming-class-is-one-third-legacy.html

More data on the impact of legacy admissions.

17

In our family of first generation college students my sister attended a small highly regarded school which gave her financial aid and scholarship $ We were quite poor and not minority so money was limited as were opportunities for school. Fast track down the road 30 years. Each year she gives five figures to that school in the form of scholarships. The $ is given to low income women who have worked during high school ( race is not a factor). Each year those 5 women write her notes about what the money has done for them ( often they didn’t have to work two jobs while in school). She has given money for more than 15 years. This year her son will apply. It’s not his first choice. But,…she even said she didn’t want to make them feel bad or feel pressure to accept him. She’s coming from a place of thankfulness. After all these years. So take away the legacy and you take away value for all.
I would love to thank the person who paid for my IVY league scholarships. If they hadn’t donated I would be in a different place. Am I grateful? Absolutely. Would I take away their legacy for their child? Are you kidding me? And FYI, I have crates many jobs which I feel gives back to society.
Honestly, I cannot believe people can have so little gratitude

18

http://www.browndailyherald.com/2018/03/05/powell-dispelling-legacy-myths-help-focus-access/

I would like to think that Emory is similar to Brown in the way it puts together each class and achieves diversity. Those pushing an agenda here push an agenda of ignorance, but I don’t believe there is any malice or lack of gratitude. The ignorance is mainly due to the lack of understanding of the process.

Their response to this is perfect. Such policies actually positively impact future diversity goals. As long as colleges look to increase aid and serve URMs, First Generation students, and other groups, legacy will not negatively impact that group. They cannot see the forest for the trees. A Stanford study showed that most legacy admissions fall in the top part of their respective classes. The advantage most have is against others in their respective buckets, whether they are URM legacy (and both Emory and Brown have many) or other groups. Their admission has zero impact on First Generation students with the exception that maybe an alumni will get more involved or contribute more.

“There is no written policy about how applicants’ status as a child of an alum may be considered in their admission process, because they are reviewed like all other aspirants to Brown — one case at a time, and without the use of formulas or quotas.”

"So why do we also pay attention to whether an applicant is a child of a Brown alum? Many of these students grew up immersed in the values of Brown. They are often mentors and guides to other students in navigating the University. We see them giving back through BrownConnect by mentoring and developing internship opportunities for Brown students. And yes, they also support Brown’s priorities financially, though this is not the focus. All members of the campus and alumni community benefit from the unique attributes that children of Brown contribute.

And these students reflect the growing diversity of our campus and therefore our alumni base. One in five children of alums who enrolled at Brown this year are students of color. Over the past five years, 29 percent to 39 percent have been students on financial aid. They come from big cities and rural America."

19

@Happytimes2001 @ljberkow

If you believe that the very wealthy should be able to buy their children’s way into elite universities (which I don’t), then you don’t really believe in legacy admissions. Many alums do not contribute financially to their alma maters in any significant way. A few do - the very wealthy - after all who can afford to donate a 6, 7or 8 figured sum in the hopes that their children will be admitted down the road - only the very wealthy. There are also those with no connections to a university who donate a lot - because they are wealthy and because they know their children have no chance of getting in otherwise. You can read about Jared Kushner and his dad’s $2.5 million donation that got him into Harvard here:
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-story-behind-jared-kushners-curious-acceptance-into-harvard

Legacy preferences are exactly that. Individuals who are connected to a university in a familial way (defined differently for different schools) are held to a different (lower) standard than those who aren’t. If alum children were already better qualified than there would be no need for legacy admissions; there would be no need to hold them to a lower standard. That is simple logic.

Many times the highly unqualified get in because of legacy preferences especially when you combine legacy + large donation.

Eg. Meg Whitman (former eBay CEO)'s sons and Princeton
http://www.newser.com/story/98987/meet-meg-whitmans-awful-sons.html

There is the superficially appealing argument that alums give more to their schools by way of service or volunteerism. The problem is that others who are not former students can volunteer away on behalf of say, Harvard, and not receive any credit at all towards their children’s admissions. Here, the doors to admissions are not being held open to those whose volunteerism stands out; it’s being held open to the already well-connected (in my example Harvard alums). I use Harvard as an example because 30% legacy admitted is clearly excessive.

20

@BiffBrown Colleges originally expanded their intake numbers to allow for many things among them: First generation, minorities, less wealthy students etc. This has mapped to the democratic ideal that everyone should be able to access higher ed. As the beneficiary of a great education on the basis of the above. I am more than willing to accept that others before me gave so that I may benefit. I appreciate that fact and have gratitude. I am not going to tell someone who gave me an education that they should not have the right to have a boost for their children. You are in fact not correct. Many alumni have given much over many years to create the best schools in the US starting with John Harvard. IF you take away the incentives for them to support these schools you will take away the support financial and otherwise. So while I won’t argue with you about who “deserves” what I will say this.
My sister who is listed above worked at 13 in McDonalds. She works ( and has worked) harder than many people I know to provide the life she wanted. This includes having enough money to donate with largesse to the college she attended. I think philanthropy is misunderstood my many. Our financial advisor likes to say that they people who talk the most give the least. Who makes you the arbiter to decide what someone who is generous is entitled to?
I am a big supporter of first generation students and their benefactors. I have been the recipient of big dollars and find education to be an important part of who I am and what my community is like. Giving money helps. So while I don’t give money with the eye to get my kid into a school, I am not blind to the fact of donations.
Life is not fair. That said. We can make it better by giving esp. to our alma maters.