For more than a half century, America’s elite universities have made room for the children of their loyal alums. But the extensive use of the policy has now been brought into embarrassing relief by a U.S. Department of Education study and a new Harvard grad who won’t let the story die. The federal study stems from complaints by Asian-Americans that some colleges were discriminating against them in favor of less-qualified white students. In response, the department reviewed Harvard’s undergraduate admissions for the classes of 1983 through 1992. Its conclusion: Harvard routinely accepts athletes with lower academic qualifications than other students. And in perhaps the biggest preferential admissions program of them all, Harvard gives special consideration to children of alumni, who tend to be white and affluent.
The DOE also concluded that the policy was not discriminatory. Yale, Dartmouth, Stanford and other prestigious schools have admitted that they, too, give preference or a “tip” to children of alums. In the past, Harvard and other top schools have insisted that the legacy preference was used only as a “tie-breaking factor,” says John Larew, outgoing editorial chair of the Harvard Crimson. The DOE’s report dispels that myth. For instance, the report quoted comments written by Harvard admissions officers considering the relative worth of various applicants. “Without lineage, there would be little case. With it, we will keep looking .,” or “Dad’s . connections signify lineage of more than usual weight.” The report also noted that on average, the combined SAT scores of legacies who won admittance were 35 points lower than other students. And while only 16.9 percent of all those who apply to Harvard are admitted, alumni children were admitted at a 35.7 percent rate. “Suddenly the fabled tip for legacies looks more like a big shove,” says Larew.
In the June issue of The Washington Monthly, Larew writes that the legacy preference was first used in the 1920s when increasing numbers of Jews began outscoring WASPs on the Ivies’ entrance exams. Later the Ivies discovered geographical diversity as an admissions goal; Larew, from West Virginia, thinks he benefited from that practice. Today the policies are widespread. Legacies typically make up 12 percent of Harvard’s freshman class. The University of Notre Dame has an outright legacy quota: 25 percent of each class. Even a public Ivy like the University of California, Berkeley, gives preference to children of alums by admitting them - and billing them - as in-state students.
The legacy preference isn’t likely to end soon. Alumni give money; legacy admissions help keep them in the fold. (As it happens, such donations help fund scholarships for the needy.) But not all alums are created equal. Privately, admissions officers say that the children of big givers have an extra advantage. No surprise, just a reminder that the myth of the campus as pure meritocracy is just that - fantasy.
