Legacy Admissions offers an advantage – and not just in schools like Harvard: NPR

For years, the admissions office at Harvard University has "tipped" alumni or students whose at least one parent is a graduate of Harvard or Radcliffe, his former sister school.

The size and nature of this "trick" was officially unclear – until a federal judge forces Harvard to share six years of admissions data. This revelation took place before the recent federal trial, in which Harvard was accused of discriminating against US-Asian claimants. The expert analyzes of Harvard data, prepared by both parties to the trial, disagree on many points. but both say that inherited preference can make a big difference. And that's not just the case at Harvard.

Forty-two percent of private institutions and 6% of public institutions consider inheritance as a factor of admission, according to a survey conducted in 2018 by admissions directors. Inside Higher Ed.

At Columbia University, inheritance status may offer a "slight advantage" when similar qualified candidates compete with each other. This is also the case at the University of Virginia.

Other notable institutions include Auburn University, the University of Tennessee, Knoxville University, Indiana, Bloomington, the University of Alabama and Stanford University, based on common data. of each establishment.

But unlike Harvard, we still do not know exactly how each school uses inheritance in its admissions process.

Today, Harvard and other reputable American universities claim to rely on inheritance status in the same way that they use race or other characteristics of the same. students: as a way to foster the creation of a campus and a community of healthy and diverse alumni.

Critics say that the practice tends to favor wealthy white students and that its removal could help students who have more to gain from a prestigious degree.

An inheritance story

The inherited preference goes back a century and shares an interwoven history with a racial preference. In the 1920s, a new cohort of students – many of whom were Jewish and / or immigrants – were seeking places in American universities like Harvard, and the family's history was invoked in the service of aspiring "men." of Harvard ".

Today, four of the top 10 universities in the world (Caltech, Oxford, Cambridge and the University of California, Berkeley) do not explicitly allow inheritance preference in admissions decisions, and some US schools have eliminated their inheritance policies.

Until 2004, Texas A & M University gave bequest seekers a four-point boost on a 100-point scale. But the school ended this practice after being criticized for maintaining its preference for inheritance when it had stopped taking race into account in admissions. The University of California and the University of Georgia also put an end to their legacy preferences after deciding not to consider race.

"If you could not give weight to a group, on what basis could you justify giving it to another group?" Delmer D. Dunn, Administrator of the University of Georgia, said The chronicle of higher education in 2004.

But Harvard takes race into account in admissions and has defended its inheritance policy in many ways. In a statement, Rakesh Khurana, dean of the college, said that one inherited preference could foster another kind of diversity: placing people with Harvard's extensive experience next to those who did not have one.

Some have suggested that multi-generational Harvard wealthy families would also be more likely to pay higher tuition fees and donate more money, which would help keep tuition fees free – or almost – for students. families earning less than $ 150,000 a year.

The Admissions Committee further argued that taking into account the heritage "helps to forge close links between the university and its alumni". A file filed in June indicates that the university relies on former students to "interview candidates" and for "financial support", adding that the University would suffer "substantial costs" – likely in donations – if the policy ended .

But Students for Fair Admissions, the group suing Harvard, retreated, citing several studies that show that the preference inherited from the past does not translate into an increase in donations.

"It's a complex ethical issue"

Today, according to Harvard, alumni account for about 14% of the undergraduate student population.

An analysis commissioned by Students For Fair Admissions found that bequest candidates were accepted at a rate of almost 34% between 2009 and 2015. According to the report, this rate is more than five times higher than the non-bequest rate in Canada. during the same six-year period. : only 5.9 percent.

An analysis conducted in 2013 by the Harvard Institutional Research Office revealed that the inheritance status conferred a 40 percentage point advantage on being accepted, but mainly for students already belonging to the group. most desirable candidates.

In July, Lawrence Bacow, the new president of Harvard, said that many legacy candidates were already in the most desirable pool of candidates.

"Their applications tend to be well assembled," Bacow said. "They have a deep knowledge of the institution. It is therefore a group chosen by itself, which, as a group, by almost all indicators, looks very very good compared to the larger group of candidates.

The critics of the practice are of the same opinion as Bacow – and say that any policy of inherited preference is therefore equivalent to a double benefit for already privileged students.

The idea of ​​giving this group of students any extra privilege strikes Evan Mandery, a Harvard graduate in 1989, as "foolish".

"It's a complex ethical issue – you have to know if adverse birth accidents need to be compensated in the admissions process," said Mandery, a teacher at John Jay College in New York. "But there is no plausible moral claim that birth accidents that benefit you – like being a man, or being a white man, or being a rich white man – should give you further advantage."

The issue of admission preference for alumni was, at best, a secondary issue in the Federal Court trial. But it shows how the practice of "positive action" in college admissions, that is to say intervene to give a "tip" favorable to some students, goes far beyond the efforts universities to promote diversity or correct historical exclusion.