Legacy preferences
[6] A 2005 analysis of 180,000 student records obtained from nineteen selective colleges and universities found that, within a set range of SAT scores, being a legacy raised an applicant's chances of admission by 19.7 percentage points.
[24] A 2019 National Bureau of Economic Research working paper by Peter Arcidiacono found that 43% of students admitted to Harvard College were either athletes, legacies, members of the "Dean's" or "Director's" lists of relations of donors or prominent figures, or children of university employees ("ALDCs"); fewer than 16% of ethnic minority Harvard undergraduate admits were ALDCs.
Because rankings by U.S. News & World Report and other media take into account only the SAT scores and high school grades of entering freshmen, a college can accept poor achieving legacies as transfer students without hurting its standing.
[29] Former Harvard University president Lawrence Summers has stated, "Legacy admissions are integral to the kind of community that any private educational institution is."
[33] Panelist David Autor commented that "There are clear costs + benefits, But the optics are terrible, which degrades public faith in ostensibly meritocratic institutions.
Research highlights that these preferences perpetuate existing racial and socioeconomic disparities by granting admission advantages to the descendants of alumni, typically those who have historically had better access to higher education.
According to various sources, universities are being criticized around the country for prioritizing legacy admissions, directly contradicting efforts to diversify student populations and create equitable access.
By favoring students whose family members attended the institution, legacy policies continue a tradition that indirectly marginalizes underrepresented communities that did not have the same historical opportunities.
Removing these preferences would allow universities to prioritize candidates based on individual merit and achievement, better aligning with broader goals of inclusivity and access.
[citation needed] At some schools, legacy preferences have an effect on admissions comparable to other programs such as athletic recruiting or affirmative action.
One study of three selective private research universities in the United States showed the following effects (admissions disadvantage and advantage in terms of SAT points on the 1600-point scale): Although it may initially appear that non-Asian students of color are the most favored of all the groups in terms of college admissions, in practice, widespread legacy preferences have reduced acceptance rates for black, Latino, and Asian-American applicants because the overwhelming majority of legacy students are white.
Similarly, a 2005 study reported that half of the legacy applicants to selective colleges boasted family incomes in the top quartile of American earnings, compared to 29% of non-legacy students.
[42] Since 1983, there have been formal complaints to the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) that Asian-American applicants are being rejected in favor of students with lesser credentials.
[45] The Supreme Court upheld race-conscious admissions policies in its 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision, involving the University of Michigan's law school.
[46] While the majority of Americans have been shown to strongly oppose legacy admissions, its beneficiaries hold key positions in Congress and the judiciary, protecting this practice from political and legal challenge.
Opponents accuse these programs of perpetuating an oligarchy and plutocracy as they lower the weight of academic merit in the admissions process in exchange for a financial one.
