> Skip to content
FEATURED:
  • Student Success Resource Center
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
ADVERTISEMENT
cult-of-smart-full-bleed.jpg

Ending Legacy Admissions Won’t End Inequity

Getting rid of them would do almost nothing to improve socioeconomic diversity.

The Review
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Show more sharing options
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
  • Copy Link URLCopied!
  • Print
By  Catharine B. Hill
October 20, 2021

In a recent Chronicle Review essay, Ronald J. Daniels, president of the Johns Hopkins University, describes legacy admissions as a zero-sum game that privileges applicants who already have an advantage in life at the expense of those who don’t. President Daniels, like the recent #LeaveYourLegacy campaign, calls on top colleges to commit to ending the practice. But that effort is misguided. Legacy admissions are bad from a public-relations perspective, but ending them would do almost nothing to improve socioeconomic diversity at these institutions or increase lower-income students’ likelihood of being admitted.

We’re sorry. Something went wrong.

We are unable to fully display the content of this page.

The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network. Please make sure your computer, VPN, or network allows javascript and allows content to be delivered from c950.chronicle.com and chronicle.blueconic.net.

Once javascript and access to those URLs are allowed, please refresh this page. You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one, or subscribe.

If you continue to experience issues, contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com

In a recent Chronicle Review essay, Ronald J. Daniels, president of the Johns Hopkins University, describes legacy admissions as a zero-sum game that privileges applicants who already have an advantage in life at the expense of those who don’t. President Daniels, like the recent #LeaveYourLegacy campaign, calls on top colleges to commit to ending the practice. But that effort is misguided. Legacy admissions are bad from a public-relations perspective, but ending them would do almost nothing to improve socioeconomic diversity at these institutions or increase lower-income students’ likelihood of being admitted.

The problem is that more-selective colleges enroll a large number of students from higher-income brackets. For many highly selective institutions, chances are that if the legacy applicant is passed over, the student who takes the spot will have the same profile in terms of academic preparation and extracurricular experience. The only difference is that they won’t have alumni parents. If legacy status no longer matters, an Ivy League university will simply admit the children of another Ivy’s alumni.

The academic preparation of applicants from higher-income families who have invested significant time and money in their children — their real advantage — suggests that an end to legacy admissions might only change which student gets admitted to which top institution. If a college wanted to admit a more socioeconomically diverse student body, there are lots of other students they could bump to do so — athletes, for example, or higher-income students without alumni parents. Legacy admissions are not preventing them from doing so.

How much public support should institutions receive if they are rejecting students because of an applicant’s income?

The truth is that very few selective colleges are need-blind. Instead they tend to be need-sensitive (or need-aware) in the admission process. This means they take the financial need of applicants into account when making admission decisions, rejecting some students because of their low family income. If those colleges are prevented from admitting a legacy student who doesn’t have financial need, they will, given their limited funds, find a non-legacy student who likewise doesn’t need financial help. For this large group of selective colleges, ending legacy admissions would have little impact on their socioeconomic diversity.

If a legacy-admissions policy is unacceptable because it privileges students from higher-income families, why wouldn’t it follow that a need-sensitive admissions policy is also unacceptable? Need-sensitive admissions quite explicitly advantage higher-income families, as colleges reject low-income candidates who may be more qualified academically but more expensive to educate because they can’t afford full tuition. To argue against legacy-admission policies while supporting need-sensitive policies is nonsensical: That places the focus on whether some higher-income students are disadvantaged relative to others, because, say, their parents went to Stanford and they want to go to Harvard. These are not the equity implications that matter most.

ADVERTISEMENT

6501 appiah baretto
Martin Leon Baretto for The Chronicle

Colleges that are need-sensitive argue that they don’t have the resources for financial aid that would allow them to go need-blind. It is true that greater spending on financial aid means less resources to spend on academic and extracurricular programs, which are in turn important in attracting applicants and retaining faculty and staff. But consider that the available resources of these institutions are supported by public policy and taxpayers. We must recognize the public benefit of making a college education available to students, independent of their families’ ability to pay. How much public support should institutions receive if they are then rejecting students because of an applicant’s low income? Admissions offices have effectively been empowered to answer this question and decide who gets access to these public subsidies.

What we should really be asking is whether the higher-education system in America is meeting the goals of public policy.

Illogically, the practice of legacy admissions is getting more attention while need-sensitive admissions is not. What we should really be asking is whether the higher-education system in America is meeting the goals of public policy and, if not, what we can change. Inequality in resources and spending per student across higher education has increased significantly in the last four decades, as the rich institutions have gotten richer, family incomes have become more unequal, and state governments have cut back on supporting public higher education. Private, nonprofit colleges currently spend about two to four times as much on educational and related costs per student than do public two-year colleges.

To improve postsecondary educational attainment in America, wealthier institutions should do more to help students with financial need, including spending more on student aid. Policy makers should increase support for modestly funded institutions that educate a large share of low- and middle-income families. President Daniels and I are in agreement on this. Ending legacy admissions might feel like a moral victory, but we shouldn’t claim that it will address the concerns about the limited socioeconomic diversity at these elite institutions. Instead, doing so is likely to have little impact at all.

A version of this article appeared in the October 29, 2021, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Catharine B. Hill
Catharine B. Hill is managing director of Ithaka S+R and president emerita of Vassar College.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
    Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
  • The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
    The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
    Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
  • Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
    Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2023 The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin