<p>
</p>
<p>Again, I think this misses the point. What stinks here is the use of hereditary privilege, not the qualifications of those who are its beneficiaries. It reminds me of the famous line by former Texas Governor Ann Richards, who said of George W. Bush (or was it H.W., the father?), “He was born on third base and thought he got a triple.” Same with legacy preferences in admissions. Sure, these candidates MIGHT have been admitted to Harvard without legacy preferences, just as the guy born on third base might have gotten a triple if he had taken an honest at-bat like the rest of us. But if some guy is awarded third base on the basis of stats that suggest he MIGHT get a triple combined with the fact that his father got a triple, that’s going to look awfully unfair to the rest of us who actually need to take our at-bat and get a triple to get there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s one of the best arguments I’ve seen for ending legacy preferences. These kids are getting an unfair advantage that works systematically to the detriment of others who may be equally qualified in all other respects but do not have the same hereditary privilege. AND THEY DON’T EVEN NEED IT because by your own admission they’d end up at elite schools anyway!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Another non-sequitur. The injustice, if it is one, is not to the children of hereditary privilege. It is to those who don’t bring hereditary privilege to the table. Until we see some better data as to the real difference in admit rates as between legacies and non-legacies, we can’t really say how much the non-legacies are disadvantaged in this process. The fact that the elite colleges aren’t more forthcoming with this data suggests to me they fear we might not like what we’d see.</p>
<p>I say all this, by the way, as the father of two children who could claim legacy status at two Ivies (well, two HYP-level Ivies, to be honest), one other top-15 private university, and by all measures one of the nation’s top publics, which also uses a legacy preference in admissions. I used to think that was pretty cool. But the more I’ve thought about it, the more I think it’s unfair, unjust, and just profoundly contrary to the principle of equal opportunity which I have always believed to be one the bedrock democratic values we all shared as a nation. Why should my daughters have a leg up in admissions to these schools just because I went there, or their mother went there, or a grandparent went there? Why does that entitled them to a special advantage over an equally bright, talented, and hard-working child of immigrant parents, whose ancestors never had the chance to attend one of these colleges? Or over a kid like I was when I was applying to undergraduate colleges, just a small-town kid from an average high school with one college-educated parent who had managed to scrape his way through the local public university on the GI Bill? Smart, talented and all that, as I think my subsequent academic record has demonstrated. But why does the legacy kid get a thumb on the scale over a kid like that? It makes no sense to me. And it’s not just sour grapes on my part; I was admitted to the only undergrad school I applied to, I was happy to attend and I got an outstanding education there. I don’t think I got a raw deal. I worry that others might.</p>