<p>Interesting thoughts about legacy admissions are out in a new book. Some of the thoughts by the author seemed to me pretty unremarkable: that being a legacy helps an applicant at some schools (thought not as much as a kid may think)0, or that it helps white kids more than minority kids. </p>
<p>But some ran counter intuitive to me: that legacy admits havent been proven to boost alumni contributions </p>
<p>"After inclusion of appropriate controls, including wealth, there is no statistically significant evidence of a causal relationship between legacy-preference policies and total alumni giving at top universities." The researchers also examined giving at seven institutions that dropped legacy preferences during the period of the study. They found "no short-term measurable reduction in alumni giving as a result of abolishing legacy preferences." For example, after Texas A&M eliminated the use of legacy preferences, in 2004, donations took a small hit, but then they increased substantially from 2005 to 2007.</p>
<p>I also didnt realize that preference for alumni offspring was purely a U.S. thing, devised essentially to keep out Jews and other undesirables early in the 20th century. </p>
<p>Interesting but some questions on validity. I have serious doubts about the claim that “legacy” is something that was not created until early 20th century. Before then, there was at least psuedo legacy since admission depended significantly on soft factors such as social class, who you know, etc. and at the time there were no admissions tests, little was known about the quality of high schools and thus the large majority of admittees came from feeder schools (all of which factors would have highly favored legacies). Also, I would like to see what was actually done to determine impact of legacy on donations to see if there is true validity to the survey and its methodology (it is commisioned and produced by those not in favor of legacy indicating a bias to begin with), The belief expressed on the illegality of legacy (such as laws rejecting favortism to “nobility”) truly comes from those legal minds who are strongly opposed to legacy because those are very weak arguments.</p>
<p>Like “adding 160 SAT points to a candidate’s record” on a 1600-point scale? Legacies “make up 10 to 25 percent of the student body at selective institutions”? Wow! I wonder if that holds up at even the most selective institutions? Those are huge numbers, far bigger than I would have thought legacy status worth. So at a school with admissions stats like Amherst (not imputing this practice to Amherst, just using its stats as an example), a legacy applicant with a 1300 SAT CR+M, putting him in the school’s 4th quartile of enrolled freshman (and therefore an unlikely admit), would have the same chances of admission as a non-legacy applicant with a 1460, who comes in around the middle of the 2d quartile? That’s a HUGE game-changer. </p>
<p>I’d like to see more data to back this up. If the legacy advantage is that great, then IMO there is something seriously wrong in the admissions policies of top colleges and universities. I support affirmative action for URMs, but if you add to that a legacy preference that so seriously stacks the deck in favor of children of privilege, the odds against talented white and Asian kids who don’t come from such privileged backgrounds start to look really long. At a minimum it calls for a little truth-in-advertising about what the real admit rate is for non-URM, non-legacy kids.</p>
<p>A Boston Magazine article from some years back - memory is hazy - described the legacy admissions at Harvard as far and away the most powerful admissions preference program, with 3X as many kids in that category as in affirmative action. They noted the irony in strenuous arguements regarding one lesser kind of admdissions preference and a harrowing silence regarding the larger program.</p>
<p>“I also didn’t realize that preference for alumni offspring was purely a U.S. thing”–It isn’t. It’s been the same all over the world for a long, long time. I like that in the U.S. it is a “consideration” that is done out in the open, but openly or not, it happens everywhere.</p>
<p>If you’ve looked for info on Williams for a long time and haven’t found it, I doubt I will, Kei. Do you think that in the U.S. it is done out in the open in most colleges and universities if it is done at all? Or is it mostly hidden from public scrutiny?</p>
<p>The 160 point SAT boost that legacy applicants receive is one half of what black applicants receive. So if you’re complaining about legacy preferences, then you should also be complaining about racial preferences.</p>
<p>So this means on today’s SAT scale, legacies get 240 “extra SAT points” and black applicants get 480? Wow. I definitely agree with affirmative action based on economic status but… not on race. Why? Yes, African-Americans have been oppressed for hundreds of years in our country, but realize that more recent African immigrants to the United States also get this boost. For example, I know an Algerian businessman who made a killing and then moved to the United States and had a child. This rich kid grew up and got into Harvard with solidly unremarkable statistics all-round, probably just because he put “black” as his race. (Technically, Algerians could also be considered Middle Eastern…)</p>
<p>Two classmates with lower test scores and lower class rank than my D were admitted to Princeton and she was not. They were legacies. An “URM” was admitted with much lower qualifications.</p>
<p>All-state Athelete and NMF doesn’t get you much in the Ivies compared to who your ancestors were.</p>
<p>Not if you believe that there are historical and/or sociological justifications for race-based affirmative action.</p>
<p>What are the still-standing (now that the “legacies = loyalty and donations” argument is kaput) justifications for legacies? To keep elite American colleges wealthy and white?</p>
<p>I think it is also important to think about other benefits of being a legacy. Say you are a legacy of Yale, you will also have the benefit of growing up in a household that presumably holds higher education and academics in high regard (thus higher grades, SAT’s, etc.).</p>
<p>Additionally, one could also have a deep-rooted desire to attend a school that spans for 15+ years. This is certainly related to “desire” to attend a specific university.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, I think that college admissions are much more holistic than the author led on. Granted, its formulaic nature made it easier to understand. College admissions are holistic, and legacies are undoubtedly a factor in an admissions decision. I think that they should be of some consideration if legacy status is indicative of a desire to attend a school. However, this should not be an excuse to admit unqualified students.</p>
<p>*To digress, I find it funny that the author implies that America continues to be this bastion of meritocracy. The working world is largely about who you know and networking, so I guess it makes sense that college admissions is an introduction to that. Its not right or wrong, its just the reality.</p>
<p>Edit:
I also think the 19th comment puts it (and the flaws in the article) very succinctly.</p>
<p>@willmingtonwave: If legacy applicants indeed benefit from growing up in an academically-minded household, then as you point out, such benefits are already reflected in higher grades/SAT scores. There is no need for legacy preferences to drive home the point. Similarly a deep-rooted desire to attend the college can be adequately expressed in the application essay, or by applying ED i.e. the same way non-legacy students signal to colleges that they really want to attend that particular college.</p>
<p>What does need to be explored is the hypothesis that legacy students do better in college than non-legacy students with similar backgrounds (SAT scores, grades ect). I suspect you wouldn’t find much of a difference there.</p>
<p>I really cannot see much justification for legacy preferences, if the article is indeed right about legacy preferences being uncorrelated with donations. In fact if donations were the major factor behind legacy preferences, it makes more sense for the college to ask this question on the application form: “what pct. of your future income are you willing to donate to the college?”, and choose the applicants who commit a greater proportion.</p>
<p>I agree NBZ. The problem lies in the fact that at many top schools, high grades and SAT scores are expected. They can make you a competitive applicant, but they will not “make” you as an applicant. These are the sort of schools that the author was talking about where legacy can play a big part of admissions. At these schools, admission is much more holistic and much less formulaic.</p>
<p>And yes, you can just write an essay and apply ED. That is what I did. I really only desired to attend one school, wrote some solid essays and applied ED. However, an applicant who talks about taking walks on campus with their parents when they were younger, or going to games, or whatever can make a really compelling case to attend a school. Sure, it might not be equal that these folks have an innate advantage, but I think it is important to have students who have a bond to the school (and again, you certainly don’t need to be a legacy to have that.</p>
<p>Legacy, affirmative action, athletics, being famous, and basically all hooks should not be considered in the admission process. Fairness can only be accomplished if individuals are judged on an equal basis, this is of course assuming that colleges take individual circumstances into serious account, a move that should replace the function of all hooks.</p>
<p>Given the choice between two methods of admitting students, one proposed by a guy doing a study and one developed by the school, I will take the school’s method every time. Schools ought to be able to do what they feel is in their best interest in accordance with their mission.</p>