Face Off: Should schools give admissions preference to legacy students?
This week, readers debate whether it is fair to give preferences to applicants whose parents are alumni of the university
In 2022, Harvard University’s overall acceptance rate was 3.2 per cent, but the average admit rate was about 34 per cent for legacies. Photo: APEach week, two readers discuss a hot topic in a parliamentary-style debate that doesn’t necessarily reflect their personal viewpoints.
If you are interested in joining future Face Off debates, fill out this form to submit your application.
For: Vijay Narayanan, 16, Island School
Legacy admissions are preferences given by universities to students based on their familial connections with the school. While the tradition is prevalent in many countries, it is quite widespread in the United States.
Opponents of legacy admissions argue that granting preferential admission can interfere with a policy of fair admission practices as it plays unfairly against deserving students who may not have the same advantages. Even so, the benefits of legacy admissions outweigh the drawbacks.
According to an opinion piece by Steven B. Gerrard, a professor at Williams College in the US, legacy students are usually not compared to non-legacy students or students of a lower family income. They are compared to students who are equally privileged and have the option of attending other exclusive schools.
This destroys any notion that the admission of a legacy student prevents a less-privileged student from attending the university.
Secondly, legacy admissions incentivise alumni to make considerable donations to the school. This allows them to maintain their reputation for a high standard of education. Alumni from these schools are involved with their alma mater even after they leave, allowing them to grow a strong sense of belonging within these communities. This motivates them to give back to their schools.
Take the example of Kenneth Griffin, the CEO of Citadel and a Harvard legacy student who has donated more than US$500 million. This exorbitant sum allows Harvard to streamline its admissions process and improve its international image further, continuing a positive chain reaction of inspired alumni who give back to the school regularly.
Moreover, the donations from legacy students pave the way for admission of non-legacy students. It can give colleges the financial freedom to grant scholarships that make it possible for less fortunate students to learn. Their attendance, in turn, makes it possible for their children and other students to pursue their academic dreams, creating a positive cycle of learning and contribution.
Legacy admissions have their fair share of flaws. However, abolishing the practice altogether could have devastating consequences for future students. We should critically evaluate individual aspects of this process and the doors they open for future students.
Face Off: Should universities get rid of applications fees?
Against: Valerie Shek, 14, The Independent Schools Foundation Academy
Admissions preference for legacy students may seem appealing, as it fosters a sense of tradition and continuity within the school community. However, schools should not give admission preferences to those with legacy status. Not only can it create an unequal playing field for applicants, but it can also have an impact on student diversity.
Firstly, having a preference for students whose parents attended the school creates unequal standards for others looking to attend the university. Legacy admissions reinforce the social hierarchies by disproportionately benefiting wealthy students and sustaining systemic discrimination.
There has been a concerning increase in legacy students in each cohort. According to The Harvard Crimson, legacy students made up 36 per cent of the 2022 class at Harvard University. This undermines students’ efforts, creating an environment that favours privilege over potential. This shows how prioritising legacy admissions creates an uneven playing field that values familial connections rather than academic achievements.
Additionally, it lessens the opportunities available to under-represented and underprivileged groups. Hence, legacy admissions may negatively affect student diversity.
There would be fewer slots available for deserving applicants from diverse backgrounds when a sizeable portion of the seats are set aside for legacy students who are predominantly white. Given that diverse student bodies should be a focus for higher education institutions, schools must re-evaluate the importance of legacy admissions.
Lawyers for Civil Rights filed a lawsuit against Harvard University in July 2023, arguing that minority students were unfairly disadvantaged by the legacy admissions system, which violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. According to the lawsuit, legacy admissions unjustly favour applicants who are white, but as of yet, the US Supreme Court has not made a ruling on the case.
Research done during the case Harvard vs Students for Fair Admissions shows that the acceptance rate for legacy applicants at Harvard was 33 per cent between 2010 and 2015. The overall acceptance rate during the same period was only 6 per cent.
Though legacy admission systems can build strong family memories and foster tradition, they can create highly uneven and biased criteria for many disadvantaged students.