Senate Democrats in the United States Congress proposed a bill a couple of weeks back that would call for increased Pell grants and the reporting of economic data for applicants who are related to alumni of a given university. (Yep, that last zinger was slipped into the bill with the support of Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, who strangely benefited from his status as a “legacy” when admitted to Harvard University.)
Congress should not be legislating the college admissions arena, and by trying to subversively eliminate admissions preferences for legacies, it is indirectly discriminating against these students and potentially disrupting the spirit of previous judicial rulings on college admissions practices.
The principle behind the legislation is that universities should be forced to report the race and economic status of students admitted early or students who happen to be the children of alumni. Supporters of the bill believe that practices such as early decision and preferences for legacies might be eliminated if it is shown that these programs benefit affluent whites in a lopsided manner.
The bottom line is that the college admissions game is full of preferences. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of using race as a factor in admissions decisions; athletes often receive special scholarships and attention in the admissions process. Children of alumni are no different, nor are students who are passionate that a given university is their top choice and choose to apply early decision.
While empirically it would seem that affluent whites benefit the most from early decision and legacy preferences, this generalization should not give Congress cause to legislate the college admissions process. As the earliest generations of minorities and women who “benefited” from affirmative action programs now have children entering or already in college, these students could also be legacies themselves. In the end, each individual school, particularly private universities, should be able to employ a program that works best for them.
At Washington University, no particular preference is given to legacy students or those applying early decision, but it can be viewed as a point of interest for legacy students. According to Nanette Tarbouni, Director of Undergraduate Admissions, the exact percentage of students currently matriculating here who are related to alumni of the University is not calculated directly. On the early decision front, the number of students admitted under this program fluctuates every year, as it could be anywhere from 20 percent of the class to up to 40 percent.
The University’s application for undergraduate admissions is often described as being viewed through a holistic approach. Certain criteria, such as standardized test scores, the high school transcript and extracurricular activities are just a few of the things that are considered when evaluating an application for admission. The result of such a process is a relatively diverse campus community filled with students of varying socioeconomic backgrounds; some of them happen to be legacy students and many are not.
The courts, not congressional legislation, provide the best mechanism to debate and change what some might see as unfair admissions practices. The recent cases brought before the U.S. Supreme Court stand out as examples of how the judicial system can arbitrate these often delicate issues. If someone finds preferences for legacies to be unfair or feels that they were discriminated against because of it, then file a lawsuit and let the court system provide the best redress for such issues.
In the end, tracking this economic data does not seem to provide any salient information to this campus or to many other institutions. As long as preferences exist, Congress should not be selectively and covertly trying to eliminate some while supporting others. The decisions are best made by individual universities and the people closest to the situation, not by a congressman trying to advance a personal agenda.