<p>There are certain advantages in admissions if you are Legacy, an underrrepresented minority, or a recruited athlete. However, unlike the first two, everyone knows that the statewide #1 quarterback probably couldnt’ have gotten into Stanford or Harvard without his incredible throw. Most legacies (and especially legacies, since they are the children of Ivy/top tier graduates, and are thus probably pretty smart as a result of simple genetics) and URMs go for academics. Then, when they get accepted, is there any question of whether they would have gotten in without AA/legacy? Many people complain about AA and legacy (more about AA though) and how it hurts non-minorities, but if I was a minority or legacy myself, I don’t know if I would list that. What if, years later, I would have to look around at what I had and ask, “if I wasn’t an URM, would I have all this?” Both AA and legacy basically make students question if they could have gotten in without the advantage. And if the answer to this question is ever no, then that university probably wasn’t for them anyway.</p>
<p>My take is this, being admitted as an URM, legacy or athlete simply opens the door for you and gives you a seat at the table. Once you get through the door, it is up to you to keep your seat at the table or possibly move to the head of the table.</p>