The recent end of affirmative action sparked countless debates about the college admissions process, from the merits of class-based affirmative action to the role of the college essay. Yet no subject has received more mixed attention than legacy admissions.
In a special project, The Daily Princetonian charts the debates about legacy admissions, drawing on different arguments for and against the practice from its inception to the present day.
Tracing the debate across time
Though reignited by the Supreme Court ruling, the debate over legacy admissions has raged on for years. The practice originated in the early 1900s, as elite schools began to see more qualified immigrant applications, particularly Jewish ones. In response to an influx of qualified Jewish applicants, legacy admissions arose. Peter Jacobs characterized legacy’s inception in Insider in 2013:
Modern justifications for legacy admissions have often relied on the argument that the policy today acts as a “tiebreaker” between two equally qualified applicants. In a interview for the Philadelphia Inquirer last year, University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 noted:
Opponents of legacy admissions have cited the high percentage legacy students make up in a class and the fact that a higher proportion of legacy applicants are admitted. Admissions data from Harvard, revealed by the affirmative action case, showed that between 2010 and 2015, legacy applicants had an acceptance rate of 33 percent (compared to the overall rate of 6 percent). The Class of 2022 at Princeton had a legacy admission rate of 31.7 percent. In the same ‘Inquirer’ interview, Eisgruber stated that “12.5 [percent] of students are children of alumni.”
The effect of legacy on race
A long-held criticism of legacy admissions is that it has continued in its original mission: keeping elite universities white. In her 2022 Washington Post article, Associate Professor of African American Studies at the University of Texas at San Antonio Jasmine Harris stated:
In the wake of affirmative action being overturned, advocacy groups are suing Harvard over legacy admissions, citing how a significant proportion of legacy students are white students. Their lawsuit includes the same argument:
Eisgruber has cited the increasing diversity of Princeton’s alumni to suggest that legacy applicants are becoming more diverse as well. As he said when discussing legacy admissions:
In a 2018 op-ed to the Washington Post, Harvard alumna Ashton Lattimore supported the end of legacy admissions, but also made the point that it would end before the first generations of Ivy Leaguers of color would get the same privilege granted to past white classes:
Latimore continues, however, by noting that she would still do away with legacy admissions:
A necessary economic evil?
Back when she was a senior at Princeton, now-columnist for the Washington Post Catherine Rampell ’07 described legacy admissions as a question of loyalty — and by extension, money:
Other accounts have challenged how necessary legacy preferences are to Princeton’s financial success. In a column for the ‘Prince,’ former Head Opinion Editor Rachel Kennedy ’21 argued in 2019 that Princeton has more than enough money:
Many have contested whether legacy admissions serve as good motivations to donate. Writing for The Atlantic, Joe Pinsker breaks down a study tracking alumni giving from 1998 to 2008 at the top 100 universities in the United States:
Gatekeeping elite circles or increasing entry?
When discussing his school’s decision to end legacy admissions in a 2020 piece for the Atlantic, President of Johns Hopkins University Ronald J. Daniels described higher education as a ladder for underprivileged students. Since many legacy students come from more affluent backgrounds, Daniels notes that their place is a missed opportunity for social mobility:
Writing a response in RealClearEducation, then-senior at NYU Anthony DiMauro claimed that it’s the connections made at elite schools that truly creates this social mobility, and legacy admits contribute to the connections made:
Do legacy students & families increase school spirit?
Beyond their potential for social mobility, a common argument is that legacies can create a stronger, more enthusiastic community. In a 2019 column for the Daily Pennsylvanian, student Agatha Advincula made the case for legacy students as carrying on traditions:
In a response in the ‘Prince’, Kennedy reflected on the joy of experiencing Princeton with family members who attended the school. Yet Kennedy argues that despite that, schools should do away with legacy admissions:
Undermining or representing the system?
Many view legacy admissions as antithetical to the meritocratic nature of college admissions at elite colleges. The editorial board of The New York Times says as much:
Yet scholars like Daniel Markovits, a law professor at Yale, find fault with meritocracy in the first place, not something to aspire to:
Shamus Khan, Professor of Sociology and American Studies at Princeton, argues in a recent guest contribution to the New York Times that the current system will benefit the wealthy no matter whether or not legacy is admitted.
This project was compiled by Community Opinion Editor Lucia Wetherill, a rising junior from Newtown, Pa. She is studying in the School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA), with certificates in Global Health Policy and Latin American Studies. She can be reached at lw2158@princeton.edu.
Read More
Reform first-year orientation: Less structure, stronger connections
Cathleen Balid“Core and FYRE Events make it difficult for freshmen to explore campus or forge connections among their new peers. To address this issue, Princeton should restructure orientation programming to prioritize building freshman peer-to-peer engagement.”
“Core and FYRE Events make it difficult for freshmen to explore campus or forge connections among their new peers. To address this issue, Princeton should restructure orientation programming to prioritize building freshman peer-to-peer engagement.”
We must dispel the myth of Princeton’s economic diversity
Raf Basas“Princeton’s administration must implement a class-based affirmative action system to create a domestic student population which is socioeconomically representative of America. In the meantime, effectively serving the nation and humanity involves a realistic understanding of the world’s socioeconomic dynamics — and it starts with us recognizing that Princeton’s population, when compared to the nation as a whole, is not economically diverse.”
“Princeton’s administration must implement a class-based affirmative action system to create a domestic student population which is socioeconomically representative of America. In the meantime, effectively serving the nation and humanity involves a realistic understanding of the world’s socioeconomic dynamics — and it starts with us recognizing that Princeton’s population, when compared to the nation as a whole, is not economically diverse.”
Pathologizing men is unproductive. We should invest in better men-focused spaces
Nicholas Manetas“The lack of avenues for men to talk about masculinity is not an excuse for problematic behavior. But when discussing the challenges facing men involves pathologizing them and blaming their struggles on their own toxic masculinity, we suggest that masculinity is inherently problematic and cannot be expressed in a healthy way.”
“The lack of avenues for men to talk about masculinity is not an excuse for problematic behavior. But when discussing the challenges facing men involves pathologizing them and blaming their struggles on their own toxic masculinity, we suggest that masculinity is inherently problematic and cannot be expressed in a healthy way.”
