<p>I am continuously stunned that a state-funded school that claims to have a vested interest in fairness and equality continues to heavily favor legacies or birthright applicants over non-legacies. Maybe I could understand this reasoning at a private institution, but not at a state school. Why should the fact that one's parents or grandparents were wealthy enough to attend UVA positively impact an applicant? This is a relic of some old school club mentality, and not befitting of a state run school. Are some taxpayers and residents of Virginia more important and valuable than others simply because they are third or fifth generation college graduates?</p>
<p>Being first gen gets the same weighting as being legacy. <a href=“http://avillage.web.virginia.edu/iaas/cds/cds1314all.shtm”>http://avillage.web.virginia.edu/iaas/cds/cds1314all.shtm</a></p>
<p>Are you basing that on the checkmark under “Very Important” or on actual numbers showing there are the same number of First Gen students as there are Birthrights?</p>
<p>Anyone who thinks legacy or birthright belongs at a state-funded institution should read this excellent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education which says: “Thomas Jefferson famously sought to promote in America a “natural aristocracy” based on “virtue and talent,” rather than an “artificial aristocracy” based on wealth. “By reserving places on campus for members of the pseudo-aristocracy of ‘wealth and birth,’” Lind writes, “legacy preferences introduce an aristocratic snake into the democratic republican Garden of Eden.””
<a href=“10 Myths About Legacy Preferences in College Admissions”>http://chronicle.com/article/10-Myths-About-Legacy/124561/</a></p>
<p>There doesn’t have to be the same number of first-generation students to prove the point. Perhaps more legacy students apply than first-generation students, or perhaps more choose to attend because they tend to be wealthier (which sucks for other reasons). Also often first-generation students are, unfortunately, less well-prepared and thus less competitive for admission even with extra weight to their application.</p>
<p>For better or for worse, public universities are basically non-profit businesses - they need to find ways to survive financially, especially as state funding decreases. UVa has the advantage of being a major flagship university with a long history and a lot of wealthy alumni. One of the ways that they preserve major gifts and donations is by admitting a (probably small) number of legacies. Not only can they secure donations from their parents, they also create dynasties who remain unwaveringly loyal to UVa and give thousands or millions. Not only that, but legacies help preserve traditions that make the school fun and memorable for other students.</p>
<p>Note that I’m saying that I agree or disagree with this practice - just that I understand why they do it.</p>
<p>The nature of a state flagship university is such that there will be a significant number of legacies, even if there is no admission preference for legacies, due to many graduates staying in the state, eventually becoming parents, and sending their kids to the state flagship university. So it is not clear that legacy preferences are needed to create loyal dynasties or preserve traditions. Of course, they may exist to keep donating alumni loyal with their donations.</p>
<p>As far as the appropriateness of such legacy preferences in a public university goes, that likely has a lot to do with the high level goals of the public university or state. Perhaps it just means that Virginia places a higher priority on satisfying donating alumni versus meritocratic access to the first generation students.</p>
<p>Business Insider also wrote a scathing article on the inherent unfairness of legacy admissions at elite schools, which are inherently a disadvantage to people of color and which give children of the rich a taxpayer funder advantage at state schools. From Business Insider: "How much of a boost do they get? A 2011 study of 30 elite institutions found that the children of undergraduate alumni (“primary legacies”) were, on average, 45.1% more likely to get in.</p>
<p>An earlier study by Princeton’s Thomas Espenshade found that the legacy advantage was equivalent to a 160-point swing on an SAT score. </p>
<p>That’s not a tiebreaker between equally qualified applicants; it’s a massive advantage."</p>
<p><a href=“Legacy Kids Have an Admissions Advantage”>Legacy Kids Have an Admissions Advantage;
<p>Every time an elite public institution such as UVA rejects a qualified candidate in favor of a birthright applicant, it perpetuates the ability of the educational elite to maintain an advantage over those who are not legacies. MIT, Texas A&M, the University of Texas and other schools purposefully dropped this taxpayer funded assistance to those students who are already so financially advantaged that their grandparents were attending elite colleges in the 1960s. As an MIT admission director said on its blog: “I personally would not work for a college which had legacy admission because I am not interested in simply reproducing a multi generational lineage of educated elite.” </p>
<p>I agree with you that legacy preference is inappropriate for a public university that is supposed to provide opportunity and meritocracy. But it is not too hard to figure out why legacy preferences exist, particularly in states where historic political leanings have not emphasized opportunity for the disadvantaged.</p>