Okay, What About Legacy Admissions?

They go against the stated missions of elite universities, but they aren’t racist.

By
293
A Harvard student holds a sign during a rally protesting the Supreme Court’s ruling against affirmative action. (Photo by Craig F. Walker/Boston Globe/Getty Images)

Hi,

Well, I’m back from my limerick-writing workshop in Nantucket. But we can talk about that later. 

I was kind of unplugged for the last few days, but one thing that was hard to miss in the wake of the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling is that there’s this sudden and very intense consensus on the left and right about getting rid of “legacy admissions” in elite universities. 

Of course, Yuval Levin noticed it too. He also came out in favor, albeit with Yuvalian restraint and nuance, of eliminating legacy admissions. 

This content is available exclusively to Dispatch members
Try a membership for full access to every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism.
Start Your Free Trial
Already a paid member? Sign In
293
By
Comments (293)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Akzurm

    If universities choose to get rid of legacy admissions in their quest for greater DEI cred fine by me and I venture so say that option is shared by most conservatives. I do think the only reason the idea became a topic of discussion is because progressives thought conservatives would start clutching their pearls at the very thought (once again proving that progressives just plain know nothing about conservatism).

    That say, it should be purely the choice of the universities and certainly nothing that should involve the Supreme Court.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Stephen Maturin

    I most certainly did not go to an elite college, but you could say that I went to an elite high school. In 1976 my mom moved me and all 4 of my siblings to a private Catholic grade school, which also happened to be the school she went to when she was a kid. When we got to high school age we all went to the one private Catholic high school in town. Compared to most of the other kids at that school we were poor. There were a lot of kids of doctors/lawyers/businessmen there and my dad was just a production line worker in a blue collar job. I was too young to care much about the financial details but I do recall that we got some kind of assistance so we could go there. I'm sure the fact that my mom was an alumnus helped too.

    There were a bunch of kids in my class whose parents had gone to the same school and I imagine their parents went there too. Looking at the enrollment there now there are many familiar family names still attending so you could say there is a legacy of families sending their kids to that school. I think this is a good thing because it is a very good school that probably wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the loyalty that the well-to-do families show to this school. I also know that many of these families have supplied coaches for sports, administrators, and teachers to the private school system in my home town. Having this legacy of interest in this institution has allowed it to exist and serve the community since 1877.

    Collapse
  3. Slowdave1

    I think we should differentiate between the faculty kids preference and former students' kids re: legacy admissions. For one, I suspect that the number of faculty kids seeking admission in any given year is minuscule, likely well less than 1% of applicants. Two, it can be considered a fringe benefit and help you attract the best professors. Former students' kids have neither of those factors in their favor.

    I like the arguments for the other legacy admissions but I'm not sure they really, honestly meet my standards of fairness. These kids already have the advantages of having (elite?) college-educated parents with the financial abilities and other connections that go with that. They can more likely afford private tutors and SAT test prep courses. Isn't that enough?

    I like the idea one commenter made about those kids respecting and appreciating the university and its traditions as I have a similar background (and my kids indeed went to the same university I went to and knew the songs from the crib). I am all for that until I consider the less advantaged kid of whatever race who might be displaced. I am not in favor of more strong arming by the government but would rather see this policy fall away over time due to public pressure and fairness sentiment.

    Collapse
  4. Betsybowditch

    While Asian Americans were discriminated against by Harvard, where the admissions committee viewed them as IT grinds who lacked individual personality, that stereotype has followed them into the workforce as the SJ Mercury News reports:

    Asian and Asian-American workers in Silicon Valley have long faced a gap between their representation in workforces and their presence in leadership positions. At Google, 45% of U.S. employees are Asian, and Asians hold 32% of leadership jobs, the Mountain View company said in its 2023 diversity report.

    According to Menlo Park social media giant Meta’s 2022 diversity report, 47% of its U.S. employees were Asian, and Asian people occupied 29% of leadership positions. San Francisco business-software giant Salesforce reported that in 2022 its workforce was 27% Asian, with 20% Asian leadership.

    In a recent lawsuit against a Silicon Valley employer it was argued “Asians were held to a higher standard. They were not seen as business leaders. They were seen as the perpetual worker bees.”

    As for legacy admissions, twenty years ago an Asian client of mine pointed out GWB was a middling student, proud to be in the Gentleman's C group at Yale, but it didn't matter. I noted his daughter had also gone to Yale, the Bush family alma mater, but she was a National Merit scholar. Being a legacy might have put her over the top but being a strong student was essential to her acceptance. The system is a lot tighter than in the 1960s.

    https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/07/10/20m-lawsuit-claims-anti-asian-bias-at-san-jose-tech-company/

    Collapse
  5. Pjheyer

    Agree with pretty much everything in this post, and you call attention to many important nuances overlooked by the popular zeitgeist. One item that even you miss is the role of federal dollars here. All they have to do is stop taking federal cash and whole issue becomes moot. Makes the case particularly ironic, because of Harvards unique ability to eschew federal dollars and continue to thrive

    Collapse
  6. Fthompsoniii

    Yale is not the 6000 undergrads who happen to be enrolled at the moment….Yale is a broad group of administrators, faculty, current undergrads and grad students, and a giant army of alums aged 22 to 102, a hundred thousand or more, all of whom are interested in the continued success of the institution in the world and one of the ways that their loyalty and identification is rewarded is recognition that their families have traditions that can be served. As a private school, it can recognize and incorporate that interest in its admissions decisions.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Bill Nelson

    Your prediction on Division 1 sports, basketball in particular, not being replaced is incorrect. Look at the possible 1st round draft picks for next year. There are two different organizations that are signing high school kids and they are skipping college. Even high school basketball is under pressure by the AAU type teams that stay together all year. And I suspect that football will follow using the summer passing leagues.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      GW

      This is entirely consonant with my idea to create a version of professional club teams out of the current NCAA framework- its time as an 'amateur union' has come and gone, and the schools could lease their facilities to the developmental clubs, if not sell them outright to the for-profit entities. Schools could get back to Job One of educating a professional workforce at a lower per-capita cost to the student body.
      Needs to happen.

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Martin Hernandez

    You speak too much common sense Jonah, you’re an Alien escaped from Roswell and we will find your mothership and send you back home. Just remember to take me with you, lol.

    Collapse
  9. Mathias

    I am in full agreement on the need to take the time for consideration when any radical change to policy is under discussion. Chesterton's fence comes to mind.

    Furthermore, I am also in agreement on the potentially justified use of legacy admissions. Nepotism is, like so many things, harmless or beneficial in moderation, but deleterious in excess or when adhered to beyond reason. If we were going to preclude any parent from benefitting their offspring when the offspring hasn't earned it, we would have to do away with inheritances. It is an understood principle that when a person works for and attains status or property, they have the right to pass it on to their children; otherwise, how many people would make the effort to achieve riches if their success could only benefit themselves during their lifetimes?

    Now of course, we don't allow hereditary titles to be passed on in this country, because we have no titles. If we did, we would have to tackle the question of whether they should be hereditary, but thankfully the question has been avoided entirely. So we recognize that some forms of status should not be automatically passed on intergenerationally, but other forms of status and wealth are indeed shared by family members, and that cannot and should not be eradicated. We do not live in a perfect meritocracy, nor should we attempt to make one.

    So I am in agreement with you that the universities and other institutions of higher learning should be honest about their preferments and their priorities, and should be allowed to hold those priorities without public outcry.

    Think of a six-year-old girl hammering on the door of the Boys' Clubhouse and demanding to be let in. Now it is certainly not the girl's fault that she doesn't have the qualifications to get in, and she doesn't want to miss out on whatever fun is going on simply because of circumstances beyond her control. But if a well-meaning grown-up intervenes and tells the boys they have to let her in and share their clubhouse with girls, then that grown-up will have destroyed the very purpose of the club's existence: to have a male-only space where not everyone is allowed. If the boys' clubhouse belongs to them, then they should have the right to exclude anyone they want. It may not be fair, but it doesn't have to be. They wanted an unequal place, a place that not just anyone could walk into.

    Similarly, if a college or university decides that one of the qualifications to get in is to have some connection with a previous member, then that is their right. They are under no obligation to provide a place where everyone can attend equally without preferment or favoritism; there already exists such a place: it's called the outside world. What the college or university should not do is to hang out a sign saying 'Welcome to All' and then secretly make their selections from their preferred categories. That would be dishonest.

    All that is one of the reasons why I am in favor of all colleges and universities receiving no public monies at all, and being entirely funded by private grants and donations. By receiving public money, they change their status from 'institute of learning' (or 'exclusive club' if you prefer) to 'employee of the state', and their priorities now must align with the state's interests, not only their own interests.

    So all in all: Great article, Jonah! You knocked it out of the park yet again.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    MattA

    I’m imagining the Gilmore Girls alternate universe where the Ivy League banned legacy admissions and Rory goes to UCONN.

    Collapse
    1. Rmere

      Except, Rory was qualified to be admitted anywhere regardless of legacy!

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        MattA

        Sure, we feel like she should be…. but that’s not what Harvard thought. And then she got into Yale because Richard pulled strings for her, i.e. she was a legacy admission.
        I guess it’s possible that she’d have gotten into Harvard if more spots were open for merit without the legacy students. And if she’d written her essay about how her mom was her hero instead of Hillary Clinton.

        Collapse
Load More