Not all donors have potential college age kids who want to go to that college and would be admissible with development hook but not otherwise. Some big donors are satisfied by naming things like buildings or academic or administrative units. Some may even prefer to be anonymous or just listed along with ordinary donors.
4 Likes
Depending upon the size of the donation, benefit may accrue for generations, not just immediate children.
4 Likes
MIT seems to have no problem getting donations, despite sending an explicit letter to alumni that legacy is not considered when their children apply.
8 Likes
There are many different hooks that can be granted to large donors, including help in admissions, naming rights to departments/schools/professorships/fellowships/scholarships/buildings/stadiums, shared projects and research to name a few. Even MIT has many of these.
People donating large sums often expect some outcome/result/participation/crĂ©dit⊠thatâs generally fair for their contribution.
5 Likes
No one seems to be defending legacy admissions without reservation. And, even for those who are concerned about fundraising, itâs reasonable to assume major donors will still have a leg up thereby limiting the financial impact of such policy. Therefore, there is no reason why every college shouldnât follow Wesleyan and end legacy preference. This new policy is on the right side of history and bravo to Roth and the Trustees. Yale, the ball is now in your court - and the answer isnât âwe will form a committee in September to analyze the issue.â
2 Likes
Several colleges have noted that legacy brings a sense of community and continuity to their campuses. And at schools where legacies have higher test scores coming in and higher gpas upon departing than similar SES students, I understand why they may prefer to keep it. Legacies are also themselves more likely to donate to the college, and legacy admission is beginning to reflect the more diverse nature of college classes in the 1980-2000 era. There are plenty of URM grads who would like their children to benefit.
3 Likes
Of course, if the legacies are actually academically stronger, then they do not need a hook / boost / or preference to get admitted.
1 Like
In holistic admissions they do, since we know that academics arent the sole criteria for admissions. Just as geographic diversity or musical ability or whatever is a factor, legacy can be too. Not a decisive factor, but a factor.
I expect student newspapers will investigate their own legacy students where feasible and publish their own reports. Princetonâs student paper did so-the School itself has followed the data on its own for many years, but the paper confirmed its own findings.
7 Likes
Cynics who would say that now that legacy will have to be extended to more than the progeny of white men, itâs time to get rid of it.
I donât think itâs all that simple, and extending the privilege only to major donors will exclude many of them, but it may protect more of them than the FGLI alums.
Not saying this is a reason to keep legacy, but this is a messy ball of wax.
3 Likes
Of course, legacy status is an unearned (by the applicant) attribute that correlates to existing advantage (sometimes quite large advantage for legacies at highly selective colleges), unlike most other things that may be considered. A preference for legacy is basically adding privilege to what is likely existing advantage â not exactly in line with the idea that applicantâs personal merit and achievement should be the main factors in college admissions.
But the number of such is far less than the number of non-legacy URMs who, on average, have fewer advantages.
4 Likes
Donations by alums may be an indicator of engagement, but financially they arenât crucial, or even material, to the most elite schools, which will determine the fate of legacy admissions everywhere. If Harvard, or a college of similar statue, drops legacy admissions one day, other colleges would almost certainly follow (or have to follow). That day is near.
2 Likes
But the number of such is far less than the number of non-legacy URMs who, on average, have fewer advantages.
[/quote]
Yes, but every demographic cohort of applicants is going to have far fewer legacies than non-legacies, not just URMs. If the student bodies of the 1980s and 1990s had demographic profiles equal to the demographic profile of todayâs broader population, then the legacy policy would not assist one group over another. But if they didnât, then a legacy policy would presumably be bad for URMs today.
But maybe not. If the elimination of affirmative action reduces the number of URMs at colleges relative to where they were before 2023, then is it possible that eliminating a legacy preference might reduce URMs? I am making up numbers here for purposes of an example, but if 20% of the alumni are URMs, than 20% of the legacy admits should be URMs. And if overall URMs decline to 12% post-2023, then the legacies would have a higher proportion of URMs than the non-legacy population, at least until the children of the post-2023 admission classes begin to apply.
The above is an over-simplification, but is it possible that some version of this may impact whether a college decides to eliminate legacy now vs seeing how it plays out over the next few admission classes?
2 Likes
Many of the factors in admission are âunearnedâ by the applicant. Race, ethnicity, FGLI status, geographic diversity. Personal merit and achievement arenât the sole criteria at present regardless of legacy preference.
5 Likes
Any student who achieves Ivy-worthy grades/scores while overcoming the societal obstructions that hinder students in those classes has âearnedâ the right to attend such schools.
8 Likes
Maybe, but there is no requirement that one has actually encountered societal obstructions and even if there were, the number of students encountering obstructions greatly exceeds the number of slots available to applicants.
And what are âIvy-worthy grades and scoresâ anyway? The answer appears far different for some groups than others, per the Harvard case.
Edited to comply with TOS
Yay Wesleyan!!! Great move!
7 Likes
Holistic admissions means lots of factors are used to achieve a diverse class. Some of those factors are outside the applicantâs control. Legacy may be one factor that contributes, in a different way, to institutional priorities for a class.
Back to Wesleyan-anyone have insight as to why so few legacies attend? More of a fit question?
Natural athletic ability is also unearned, along with attributes such as height, coordination, flexibility, and speed. No matter how much effort the majority of kids put forth, they wonât be good enough to play a sport in college. And the boost for recruited athletes is bigger than legacies.
Iâm not sure how much difference ending legacy admissions makes if highly rejective schools just start admitting each otherâs legacies. They arenât going to accept more low SES kids and fewer highly privileged kids. I think ending preference for legacies is a change that makes people feel like the process is more fair, but is it? It would be better to address the reasons why the cost of four year college is so high.
1 Like
Once you go down that road, it doesnât end. Applying the same logic, natural intellectual ability is also unearned. No matter how much effort is applied, some people can just never get a 1500 or higher on the SATs.
8 Likes