"LEGACY ADMISSIONS IS increasingly under fire by critics who contend that it caters to children of privilege and harms the equity mission of colleges. And while the process does skew toward more educated families, students should know it’s not a golden ticket.
The case against legacy admissions is that it flies against the notion that the college application process is about merit, and instead, offers advantages to the children of alumni.
Natasha Warikoo, a sociology professor at Tufts University in Massachusetts and author of ‘The Diversity Bargain: And Other Dilemmas of Race, Admissions, and Meritocracy at Elite Universities,’ calls legacy admissions indefensible.
Giving a boost to legacy students, she recently wrote, discounts what others have to offer." …
It’s foolhardy to not give the children of your alumni who support your school and help the school’s rankings by doing so an advantage in admissions. It’s not like every kid wants to go to their parents’ alma mater, and there are no hard and fast rules saying someone else can’t go because a school accepted legacies. Maybe it’s different for public schools, but any private school that turns its back on a qualified legacy applicant deserves the hit in almuni donations they create.
Preferring legacies means that the college is effectively saying that unearned inherited privilege (that is often added to existing advantage) can sometimes override earned merit.
I’m of the opinion at top schools there is legacy and there is LEGACY. The latter being a major donor or a person of major influence ie. a President’s child. For most students it’s fairly inconsequential.
Legacy is an exclusionary practice designed to retain a social hierarchy that has rich white people at the top. That is its purpose. It has historically been used expressly to exclude other groups. The practice of legacy is wholly inappropriate and does not reflect today’s national values. It’s time for colleges to let go of reliance on alumni donations.