That’s true even though legacy admits are usually qualified. Legacy admissions’ defenders point out that legacy applicants have been raised in environments that better prepare them for success. New data suggests that legacy applicants from families in the top 1 percent of earners, were they not considered legacies, would still be five times as likely as non-legacy applicants with the same academic profiles to win spots at selective schools, considering all their other qualifications — such as extracurricular activities, interests and unique life experiences. Meanwhile, legacies from families below the 90th percentile of income earners are about three times as likely. Either way, university officials argue that legacy admissions foster loyalty and community, which encourage alumni donations that can fund scholarships and other programs.
Still, these points do not add up to a reasonable justification for continuing to offer admissions benefits based on applicants’ birth, family financial capacity and willingness to donate. Many of the country’s elite private universities already have enormous endowments and generous financial aid programs, putting them in a strong position to sustain themselves without continuing to bargain away their credibility.
Those that are less wealthy should seek ways to fund their programs that do not involve extracting self-interested “philanthropy” from alumni. State legislatures could increase funding for public universities so they could dispense with legacy policies. Private schools could establish tuition rates that reflect operational needs — including financial aid systems that enable all qualified admitted students to attend. All could investigate whether their spending rates are necessary to fund core teaching and research.
Granted, ending legacy admissions might not dramatically change the overall disposition of many student bodies. The University of California gave up legacy admissions in 1996, and doing so did not result in much additional campus diversity. Nixing legacy admissions policies might be as ineffective at other universities.
But even a small improvement in real or perceived fairness is worth it. Harvard’s legacy admissions policy, which has received heavy scrutiny during and after the Supreme Court’s recent affirmative action case, shows why the status quo is unsustainable. Roughly 70 percent of Harvard’s legacy admits are White, and more than 40 percent of White undergraduates admitted to the university between 2009 and 2014 were legacies. As Harvard’s applicant pool has ballooned, almost doubling in the past 20 years, the share of applications coming from legacies has declined to less than 5 percent of the total. But the percentage of legacy applicants admitted has remained about the same, meaning that a child of alumni who was four times as likely to be admitted to Harvard’s Class of 2000 was nine times as likely to offered a place in the Class of 2017.
There might be partial explanations for this stark picture beyond just pro-legacy scale-tipping in the admissions office. But, as long as legacy admissions policies remain in place, they make universities easy targets.
Harvard is not the only school that should worry about living up to its meritocratic aspirations. Any institution whose goal is to identify and cultivate talent, wherever it lies and whatever its source, should erase legacy status from its admissions equation.