Universities Weblog

Here's a twist on the legacy admissions debate, courtesy of the L.A. Times. In a recent commentary, the Times reflects on President Bush's denouncement of legacy admissions (even though he benefited from the practice), noting that by admitting children of alumni, universities encourage donations. Those donations, the argument goes, help to fund scholarships that support under-privileged students, many of whom are minorities. As a result, then, "legacy admissions subsidize diversity."

The piece goes on to address the argument that legacy admissions violate the concept of a meritocracy. What is merit, anyway? the author asks. How do you measure it? You can't because "merit in this world is elusive, and the mechanisms for assessing it can be quixotic."

To be perfectly blunt, the author presents a weak case. Defending legacy admissions by claiming that happy alumni will give money to underwrite scholarship aid and make the place more diverse is na–ve. Will alumni not give if their kids aren't admitted? What percentage of scholarship aid comes from these happy folks? Don't many of these scholarships involve restrictions that might in fact disqualify minorities, at least implicitly? Where are the facts to support these assertions?

It's fairly easy to defend legacy admissions, at least at private universities. These institutions have great latitude in choosing whom to admit, and they do take many characteristics into account in that decision. Legacy status is one among several. If that status happens to tip the decision in the applicant's favor, so be it. It's the university's prerogative. Is it fair? Tell me what in the admissions game is.

Did you enjoy this article?