Legacy preference in college admissions has become a hot topic of late. John Edwards, a senator from North Carolina and a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, has been a strong and consistent critic of such programs, calling them “a birthright out of 18th-century British aristocracy, not 21st-century American democracy.” Recently, Texas A&M University announced that it was discontinuing the use of alumni-based preferences in admissions.
Legacy preference gives selected students an undeserved advantage. According to CNN.com, these practices are a throwback to the 19th Century, when they were an attempt to limit the enrollment of Jewish students. In the interest of fairness and combating social injustice, the University should end its practice of legacy preferences in admissions.
Alumni-based admissions only further social divisions. Graduates of better schools will have more resources to give to their sons and daughters — from sending them through a better school system to paying for SAT courses. Legacy preferences make it easier for the privileged to get into college, and harder for disadvantaged students to be accepted. Additionally, this practice is biased against minorities, who were barred from many elite schools until just a generation ago. If a student’s father or grandfather was banned from attending a school, it’s just unfair to give a benefit specifically to people whose ancestors weren’t discriminated against.
Many use affirmative action and legacy preferences in the same breath, usually in the context of condemning the latter. It is true that both are advantages given to applicants other than merit, but there are many significant differences between the two practices. Affirmative action programs give preference to those who have been historically discriminated against. Likewise, affirmative action gives an advantage to those who may make unique contributions to a university community; experts and studies have consistently asserted the benefits of a diverse student body.
On the other hand, legacy students don’t necessarily have any particular perspective to contribute, and they haven’t been the victims of established and institutionalized discrimination. Rather, these students already have a leg up on their fellow students, and it makes no sense to give them another. It’s certainly consistent to support affirmative action and oppose legacy admissions.
One argument for legacy admissions is that giving preference to the sons and daughters of alumni cultivates a climate of support for a university. That is, students of alumni are more likely to appreciate the various benefits of a school, and will contribute more to the university. This idea is absurd. A student who’s the first in his or her family to attend college would be just as likely, if not more likely, to appreciate the benefits of a college degree and a community of higher education.
The more common justification for legacy admissions is that it encourages alumni giving. The worry by many is that if children of alumni aren’t given an advantage, there will be less incentive for alumni to donate money. This argument certainly carries more weight now, with the University more reliant on alumni giving than ever before. In the end, however, financial concerns cannot trump fairness. Legacy admissions are unjust, plain and simple. Schools don’t have any interest in seeing a student body with a considerable number of legacy students, let alone a compelling one.
Alumni-based admissions give preference to those who need it the least. The practice impedes, not furthers, the achievement of equality; it just assures that those with societal and economic power have an additional advantage. Giving preference to legacy students is nepotism in the worst sense of the word, and it’s far past time that the University reexamine this admissions practice.