By Pamela Paul / The New York Times
Every time California takes a big step on education, you have to brace yourself: Is this going to lead the country in the right direction, as it did with eliminating racial preferences in college admissions in the ’90s? Or will this send education in the rest of the country over a cliff, as with the “whole language” fiasco of the ’80s?
California’s decision this week to prohibit legacy admissions to private colleges and universities across the state should give reason to cheer. Legacy admissions are the nebulous but sometimes significant bump given to the children of alumni; that je ne sais quoi that might lead an admissions officer to place only one of two similar candidates onto the admit pile.
Legacies are not only one of the least fair elements of college admissions; they are also the least defensible. Asked in public to justify their continued existence, college presidents will offer vague paeans to community building and tradition. Asked in private, they will admit to what everyone already knows: Legacies are about money. Wealthy alumni often give to their alma mater with the tacit expectation that it will propel their borderline offspring over the finish line to Ivy League admission. It amounts to a significant source of fundraising.
In other words, legacy admissions stand in opposition to ideals that most selective colleges and universities profess to espouse: Education as a force for social and cultural progress. Equality of opportunity and American egalitarianism. A significant driver of social and economic mobility for first-generation college students.
Some have referred to legacy admissions as “white affirmative action” and believe its elimination could help foster racial, ethnic and economic diversity. Others have noted that legacy admissions now stand to benefit the minority children of the first generations of affirmative action; some have cause to bitterly note that its demise comes at the very moment their kids stand to benefit. Others say that eliminating legacies won’t make much difference.
But if the larger goal is to make college admissions fairer and consistent with higher education’s core principles, legacy preferences must go. In this instance, California is taking the right kind of lead.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times, c.2024.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
