<p>In today's Wall Street Journal (Monday, July 17, 2006 p B1) there is a very frank interview with Princeton's President Tilghman. I would have posted the link, but you have to have a subscription to see the online version. </p>
<p>Here is a clip:
WSJ asks "Why does Princeton give admissions preference to alumni children, who tend to be from wealthier families?</p>
<p>Ms. Tilghman: We are deeply dependent on the generosity of our alumni each and every year. They not only give, but they act as volunteers in the annual giving campaign. They are extremely important to the financial well-being of this university.</p>
<p>WSJ: And wouldn't they continue to be even if you didn't give their children preference? </p>
<p>well i dont like what she has to say about alumni status and all that, but at least she tells the truth. Everyone else would deny it but its still true everywhere</p>
<p>some hard numbers: for the class of 2009, princeton accepted 36% (179/498) of all legacy applicants, compared to just 11% of all applicants, legacies included. while that may seem like a substantial disparity (and in some ways, it really is one), remember that the children of princeton alumni - like the children of alumni of other elite universities - tend to come from families that value education extremely highly and that give their children every opportunity and advantage to excel. in short, legacies tend to be fairly well qualified as a group. even then, only a third get in.</p>
<p>Just to be a child of an alumni , I am sure does not help all around. I am sure though that those alumni that give big donations to the school, no matter how stupid the child is , they are going to get accepted.</p>
<p>Some schools are much more "into" legacies than others. Generally, private universities care more (do publics care at all?) and the older the university, the better.</p>
<p>Actually there is another angle to the legacy admissions.
While most of us worry about getting into good universities, it is not all one-way. The univs (Ivys included) have to worry about making the numbers, too. Let us they gave out admission letters strictly based on academic merit, they probably will have most lcasses unfilled. That is a big loss. So they play the lottery game just as we students play (reach, match , safety, etc.) For the private univs, legacy applicant is more of a safety. The parents know the "brand" name, the kid has a more favorable view. So provided the kid has reasonable stats, the univs accept him because he/she is likely to enroll.
The whole admission process has evolved over the years to what it is now. There are so many finely balanced factors.</p>
<p>I still haven't made up my mind about legacy admissions. It's probably a matter of 'who's ox is being gored' because I'd would do a summersault if my eastern Ivory Tower alma mater admitted my child when the time comes. However, just prior to the 2004 Presidential campaign, I heard a quite evocative anti-legacy speech from then Senator John Edwards, a UNC-Chapel Hill alumnus. His words encouraged me to re-evaluate my own thoughts about what equality of opportunity truly means. It shouldn't be just slogans, especially when one contemplates giving up a personal privilege.</p>