In 2019, the college admissions scandal made headlines. An investigation exposed fifty of the country’s most influential and wealthy families for paying millions in bribes to secure spots for their children at America’s top schools. The college admissions scandal struck a nerve in the hearts of the American public. People couldn’t stand that wealthy students could skip the hard work and buy their way in.
The scandal revealed the truth about the inequitable system of college admissions. In this case, the authorities administered justice, and the implicated families were held accountable. Yet, the American higher education system continues to harbor an insidious, widespread form of corruption that favors wealthy, white students: legacy admissions. While proponents of legacy admissions assert that it provides valuable financial resources to universities, the practice should be discontinued as it negatively impacts access to education, fostering racial and socioeconomic inequality.
As a high school student currently applying to college, the notion that some students deserve preferential treatment due to familial connections angers me. The entire process of applying to college feels overwhelming to me, and it’s the same experience for thousands of students. We sacrifice our time and energy for the chance to get into our dream school. Legacy preferences reinforce systemic inequity and leave hundreds of thousands of students like me fighting an uphill battle to get into our dream schools.
A common argument in favor of legacy admissions is that they are essential for maintaining funding. In 2015, USC broke the record for alumni donations, with USC Today reporting that 42% of undergraduate alums donated to their alma mater. Alumni provided hundreds of millions of dollars to build better facilities and endow scholarships. When you consider how important alumni donations are, it starts to make sense why legacy preferences are so important to these elite universities.
Here, USC’s argument is clear: alumni would be less likely to donate if their kids weren’t given undue preferential treatment in admissions over similarly qualified students.
In reality, legacy admissions have little to no impact on the financial solvency of these prestigious universities. Gabrielle Starr, President of Pomona College, which stopped considering legacy in 2017, stated that “alumni had not stopped giving since the decision.” Pomona exemplifies how alumni will continue to give, even when legacy admissions are removed, and this isn’t just a one-off example.
The Century Foundation found in a 2010 study of the top 100 colleges, “no statistically significant evidence that legacy preferences impact total alumni giving.” Since giving remains unaffected, the financial justification for legacy admissions crumbles under scrutiny.
The evidence is very clear: legacy admissions benefit wealthier applicants and compound the benefits of generational wealth and social privilege. Stanford Magazine reports that “the percentage of alumni children admitted to Stanford is roughly three times the overall percentage of acceptance.” The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) finds that legacy preferences explain 30% of the gap in elite college attendance rates by income. These preferences are responsible for more inequality in higher education than any other factor. In practice, legacy admissions effectively act as a form of affirmative action for rich, white applicants that colleges aren’t currently challenging despite their claims that they value equity.
Legacy admissions also negatively impact education opportunities for students of color and first-generation students. When legacies are given preferential treatment in a zero-sum game where only some people can be admitted, it harms historically disenfranchised groups. The Institute for Higher Education Policy reports that at selective universities without legacy preferences, 14% of the undergraduate class was black, but at institutions considering legacy status, the class was only 11% black. Since legacy applicants are disproportionately white, the continuation of these policies entrenches racial privilege within our higher education system. The continuation of legacy admissions also negatively impacts first-generation applicants because many of these students have parents who obtained their degrees abroad or didn’t have the opportunity to attend college. In this way, legacy promotes nativism by giving an advantage in higher education to students whose parents were born in this country.
In an era of heightened competition and importance for college admissions, eliminating legacy admissions is necessary to level the playing field for first-generation, low-income, and minority students. With the current system, marginalized groups face an inequitable higher education system that demands urgent action. The college admissions scandal pulled back the curtain and sparked widespread public outrage. The persistence of legacy admissions should provoke similar reactions, as it undermines the fairness of American higher education. The American dream is built on meritocracy, and to preserve it for future generations, equity must triumph and legacy must be abolished.
