Earned athletic skill should be matched with earned academic skill and the rest of what holistic wants. Recruited is the trump card folks should worry about, when athletics is the primary selling point for admission to an academic institution.
Legacies still have to match. Whether or not some colleges insist on scholar athletes, we know recruiting hooks are a problem. Terribly so, at some very top publics.
The point of the article was that legacies get a significant admission boost over those who weren’t. So, if the stats are correct, it’s not a true “match.” A 160 point SAT advantage is huge. And that’s for a status gained completely by who you happened to be born to, rather than by athletic skill a student has developed over years.There’s so much about the college admissions process that is blatantly unfair, and I find it hard to understand arguments from people who don’t understand that this is one of them. If we want a society where everyone has, at minimum, an equal shot to succeed, and college is supposed to be the place where that can happen, don’t put up these kinds of barriers to access that favor students who already have plenty of advantages.
So if we eliminate athletic recruiting, what would be the argument for keeping legacy preference at public universities?
The problem is that regardless of what criteria is used, a pure meritocracy in admissions cannot be achieved. Athletic skills are purely earned? Do all kids ave access to the same level of coaching, training, and access to facilities? Academic chops are all earned? Do all kids have access to great schools, academics, tutors, and admissions consultants?
@Rivet2000 Of course a pure meritocracy can’t be achieved. Students from low SES and poor schools are handicapped from the start. But legacy preferences are barriers that are a blatant help to those who most don’t need it, making the process even more unfair than it should be.
Meritocracy is not in the cards. I agree. So the debate is in the process and all we are really hearing is issues with the process from the student side. This is CC after all. Two points:
First, what are the benefits of legacy admits from the University point of view? I think there may be several: yield, retention, graduation rate, and donations (in real dollar mounts). Yield because of motivation fueled by proud parents.Retention and graduation rates because the university assumes that children of alumni have benefited from their parents education (at that university) and the careers they were able to achieve because of it.
Second, the impact of legacy consideration tracks with the a schools graduates over time in effect supporting a universities long term cultural direction. If you look at today’s alumni populations I would guess that they look very different in many ways to what the population did 30 years ago.
Do I have any studies that supports this? No. But it seems reasonable.
See, these arguments always drive me nuts.
My own experience is that legacy doesn’t add points.
The flaw in all these kinds of arguments is the fact that once an applicant is deemed to be academically qualified (i.e., they can graduate, which includes probably about two-thirds of the applicants to a place like Harvard, which would mean about 25,000 kids, enough to fill the class 15 times over), they’re admissible. Then, it becomes all about the value of the applicant to Harvard, and that can manifest itself in many different ways.
A future Fields Medal winner is not inherently more valuable to Harvard than a star recruited quarterback; a Native American valedictorian of a high school on a reservation in South Dakota isn’t necessarily worth more to Harvard than Malia Obama; an already-published African-American novelist isn’t necessarily something Harvard wants more than the classicist child of a billionaire Harvard graduate who’s donated a building; a virtuoso contrabassoonist isn’t a lock for a spot over a political activist who’s had major visible impact. And there are all sorts of people who are almost as strong as these people on the same dimensions, plus others as well. Finally, there are far, far more applicants with perfect stats than can be admitted, even if Harvard wanted a class made up entirely of perfect stats kids. Every aspect matters, and is weighed, once you clear the academic bar, and the chosen mix varies every year depending on what Harvard needs, or thinks it needs, and who shows up.
There is no ranking system that can assign a position to every applicant to Harvard, such that Harvard can admit numbers 1-2,000 and be satisfied that they’ve got the perfect class. They build the class based on who they think is going to have the greatest positive impact on Harvard, now and later, as measured in all sorts of ways, and have to satisfy a lot of constituencies in doing that.
All of which is to say: no one is admitted just for being a legacy. They need to have a lot more than that - after all, Harvard denies the vast majority of legacy applicants. Anyone whose most distinguishing characteristic was that they were a legacy wouldn’t be admitted, because Harvard needs other things and couldn’t waste a spot on such a person.
One of the reasons that top colleges prefer legacies is because they are more likely to succeed in that college both academically, professionally and socially. These kids already know what the school is like and have invaluable insider information from their parents in terms of how to navigate and take advantage of school resources and offerings, both academic and non-academic resources. Also they are well-prepared for the rigor of a top school.
When i was at Penn it was obvious that the legacy kids held a huge competitive advantage in terms of the knowledge they had about the place and its resources.
That knowledge is good. Most kids, despite being top performers, can’t truly match themselves. There’s a perception that the bulk of high stats/rigor applicants are solid, but much more than stats and a flashy EC or two matters. Nor is “passion” it.
Not all legacies are wealthy or what CC sees as privileged. The link author has an axe to grind and as far as I can see, no admissions experience to speak from. So it adds up to what?
Regardless who the author is, you all seem willing to complete dismiss the statistic information that was the foundation of the article, disputing the “just a tiebreaker” argument:
"1. Just a tiebreaker
Elite colleges claim legacy preferences only come into play for close calls, by providing a feather on the scale. But research from Princeton University’s Thomas Espenshade shows that legacy status provides a boost equal to scoring 160 points higher on the SAT (on a scale of 400-1600). Similarly, former Princeton University President William Bowen and colleagues wrote that, within a given SAT-score range, being a legacy increased chances of admission to a selective institution by 20 percentage points.
In 2011, Harvard University researcher Michael Hurwitz found that legacy preferences mattered even more. Looking at fall 2007 applicants to 30 elite schools, his analysis, concluded that legacy preferences of all kinds increased chances of admissions by 23 percentage points. More important, “primary legacy” candidates (sons and daughters, as opposed to siblings, nephews, nieces or grandchildren) saw a whopping 45 percentage point increase in the chances of admission."
Silly me, just wishing that each kid had an equal shot, at least in admissions, regardless of their family background.
^ I agree about value of inside information. Legacy kids have the advantage of familiarity with school culture, resources, alums, and traditions–all of which helps to articulate a fit with the school. If you grow up getting the alumni magazine mailed to your house every month and hearing your parents and their friends tell stories, you’re going to absorb some of the the institutional identity. Plus the parents know their alma mater and their kid——and can help play matchmaker between institution and personality. This is a tacit advantage independent of any preference on admissions side.
None of these things are beyond reach of outsiders, but outsiders have work harder to reach same level of understanding.
That assumes the SAT score alone – not GPA, not regional/national awards, not amazing accomplishments, not essays that really make the kid stand out – is what they are considering.
I’m not saying that legacy preference isn’t unfair. I think it can be a bigger leg up than people like to admit, depending on the school and whether or not you apply ED (and if ED at that college gives you a significant leg up even if you aren’t a legacy–that’s certainly reflected in the stats book at my kid’s HS, much more so than I realized.) It’s just hard to measure precisely.
“…research from Princeton University’s Thomas Espenshade shows that legacy status provides a boost equal to scoring 160 points higher on the SAT (on a scale of 400-1600)”
Not.
He didn’t examine applications. Rather, stats of matriculated kids (at some unnamed colleges.) He freely admits the limits of this study, says no one should draw conclusions about preferences.
CC can’t define merit or meritocracy for colleges. Your better bet is to research what they want from you, not assume match is just what you want.
Original article: “In recent years, about as many Harvard students have come from the top 1 percent of families by income as the bottom 60 percent”
This is Harvard telling public schools that they need to do a better job. Don’t shoot the messenger, fix the schools.
Once again, what public purpose does it serve for public universities to use legacy preference in admissions?
While academic or athletic achievement is typically done with the support of others, it is not completely unearned like legacy status. Even with the support of others, the student still has to earn some of his/her achievements.
Also, the argument that a pure meritocracy is impossible does not mean that it is desirable to make college admissions less meritocratic by favoring unearned characteristics that are mainly held by those who already have more advantages than most others.
Where you stand depends on where you sit. From a University perspective I believe that incorporating legacy status in a holistic evaluation benefits the university as does many other measures. Additionally, as the alumni population evolves it becomes a positive feedback loop as described in my second point.
'Once again, what public purpose does it serve for public universities to use legacy pref’erence in admissions?
Just like with a private school, the legacy is more likely to accept admission, thus increasing the yield of the public school, thus raising its ranking. It can make the alum happy, and a happy alum is more likely to vote for increased funds for public universities, buy football tickets, donate money (other than tuition). Hmm, just like a private school.
Why shouldn’t a child of a public school grad want to go to mom and dad’s school just like a private school kid wants to go to Yale or Penn?
This is false. You might be best served by not commenting on studies you never read in the future. For someone who talks constantly about research, you evidently haven’t done your own. From Espenshade,