Legacy preferences

Last updated

Between 2014 and 2019, Harvard University accepted legacy students at a rate of 33%--more than five times the percentage of Harvard University's 6% overall acceptance rate in the same period. Harvard Yard im Sommer.jpg
Between 2014 and 2019, Harvard University accepted legacy students at a rate of 33%—more than five times the percentage of Harvard University's 6% overall acceptance rate in the same period.

Legacy preference or legacy admission is a preference given by an institution or organization to certain applicants on the basis of their familial relationship to alumni of that institution. [3] It is most controversial in college admissions, [4] where students so admitted are referred to as legacies or legacy students. The practice is particularly widespread in the college admissions in the United States; almost three-quarters of research universities and nearly all liberal arts colleges grant legacy preferences in admissions. [5]

Contents

Schools vary in how broadly they extend legacy preferences, with some schools granting this favor only to children of undergraduate alumni, while other schools extend the favor to extended family, including: children, grandchildren, siblings, nephews, and nieces of alumni of undergraduate and graduate programs. [6] A 2005 analysis of 180,000 student records obtained from nineteen selective colleges and universities found that, within a set range of SAT scores, being a legacy raised an applicant's chances of admission by 19.7 percentage points. [7]

Legacy preferences are controversial, as the legacy students tend to be less qualified and less racially diverse than non-legacy students. [8] However, legacy students are economically beneficial to universities, as they are perceived to be more likely to donate to their university after graduation and have parents who are perceived to be more generous donors. [8] Legacy preferences are particularly prevalent at Ivy League universities and other selective private universities in the United States. [9]

History

In the United States, legacy admissions in universities date back to the 1920s. Elite schools used legacy admissions to maintain spots for White Anglo-Saxon Protestants amid fears that Jews, Catholics and Asians were increasingly taking spots at the schools. [10] [11]

A 1992 survey found that of the top seventy-five universities in the U.S. News & World Report rankings, only one (the California Institute of Technology) had no legacy preferences at all; the Massachusetts Institute of Technology also affirmed that it does not practice legacy admissions. [12] Legacy preferences were almost ubiquitous among the one hundred top-ranked liberal arts colleges as well. The only liberal arts college in the top one hundred that explicitly said it did not use legacy preferences was Berea.

Beginning in the 2010s, several top schools ended legacy preferences, including Johns Hopkins University in 2014, [13] Pomona College in 2017, [14] [15] Amherst College in 2021, [16] and Wesleyan University in 2023. [17] [18] By 2024, four states (Colorado, Maryland, Virginia, and California) had banned legacy admissions at universities. [19]

In 2023, the bipartisan Merit-based Educational Reforms and Institutional Transparency Act was proposed in the U.S. Congress to ban legacy preferences. [20]

Current practices

Currently, the Ivy League institutions are estimated to admit 10% to 15% of each entering class using legacy admissions. [21] For example, in the 2008 entering undergraduate class, the University of Pennsylvania admitted 41.7% of legacies who applied during the early decision admissions round and 33.9% of legacies who applied during the regular admissions cycle, versus 29.3% of all students who applied during the early decision admissions round and 16.4% of all who applied during the regular cycle. [22] In 2009, Princeton admitted 41.7% of legacy applicants—more than 4.5 times the 9.2% rate of non-legacies. Similarly, in 2006, Brown University admitted 33.5% of alumni children, significantly higher than the 13.8% overall admissions rate. In short, Ivy League and other top schools typically admit legacies at two to five times their overall admission rates. [23] Among top universities, the University of Notre Dame and Georgetown University are known to weigh legacy status heavily in their application processes. [24]

As of 2020, applicants to Georgetown University with legacy status are twice as likely as non-legacy applicants to be accepted Georgetown University Aerial (35936603645).jpg
As of 2020, applicants to Georgetown University with legacy status are twice as likely as non-legacy applicants to be accepted

A 2019 National Bureau of Economic Research working paper by Peter Arcidiacono found that 43% of students admitted to Harvard College were either athletes, legacies, members of the "Dean's" or "Director's" lists of relations of donors or prominent figures, or children of university employees ("ALDCs"); fewer than 16% of ethnic minority Harvard undergraduate admits were ALDCs. [26] Arcidiacono also found that almost 70% of Harvard legacy applicants were white. [27] A similar study at an elite college found that legacies were almost twice as likely to be admitted as non-legacies and that legacy preferences increased the admission rates for white and wealthy students to the greatest degree. [28]

The advantages that colleges offer legacy students extend well beyond admission preferences. Many colleges have various mechanisms for coaching legacies through the admissions process and for advising them about strategies for constructing successful applications, including notifying legacies of the advantage that they can gain by applying early. Some universities have alumni councils that provide legacies with special advising sessions, pair these prospective students with current legacy students, and generally provide advice and mentoring for legacy applicants. Some universities employ admissions counselors dedicated solely to legacy applicants, and it is common to provide scholarships or tuition discounts earmarked especially for legacies and for legacies to be charged in-state tuition fees when they are out-of-state residents. [22] In cases where legacies are rejected, some universities offer legacy admissions counseling and help with placement at other colleges. Such students are often encouraged to enroll at a lesser ranked school for one or two years to prove themselves and then to reapply as transfer students. Because rankings by U.S. News & World Report and other media take into account only the SAT scores and high school grades of entering freshmen, a college can accept poor achieving legacies as transfer students without hurting its standing. Harvard caters to the children of well-connected alumni and big donors through the "Z-list." Z-listers are often guaranteed admittance while in high school but are obliged to take a year off between high school and Harvard, doing whatever they wish in the interim. [29]

Former Harvard University president Lawrence Summers has stated, "Legacy admissions are integral to the kind of community that any private educational institution is." In the 1998 book The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions, authors William G. Bowen, former Princeton University president, and Derek Bok, former Harvard University president, found "the overall admission rate for legacies was almost twice that for all other candidates." While the preference is quite common in elite universities and liberal arts colleges, it is quite controversial, with 75% of Americans opposing the preference. [30]

Wesleyan University announced in 2023 that it would no longer lend preference to 'legacy' applicants. [31]

Economic impact

Economists are divided over implications of the practice. [32] A 2019 study of leading economists by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business (IGM Forum) found that 76% of economists responding surveyed either "strongly agreed" or "agreed" that legacy preferences crowds out applicants with greater academic potential. [33] The economists were divided as to whether the existence of legacy admissions meant that universities had a less beneficial "net effect" on society than if there were no legacy admissions: 2% strongly agreed, 29% agreed, 40% were uncertain, 19% disagreed, and none strongly disagreed. (10% did not respond). [33] Panelist David Autor commented that "There are clear costs + benefits, But the optics are terrible, which degrades public faith in ostensibly meritocratic institutions." [33] Many economists noted that the effect of legacy admissions (or ending legacy admissions) was difficult to determine, given the unclear relationship (elasticity) between donations and admission of children and the unclear effects of legacy admissions on donations and class size/higher education capacity. [33]

Some studies suggest legacy admissions practices marginally increase donations from alumni, [34] [35] though other analyses have disputed this conclusion. [36]

Demographic implications

Legacy admissions have significant implications for university demographics, often benefiting affluent and predominantly white applicants. Research highlights that these preferences perpetuate existing racial and socioeconomic disparities by granting admission advantages to the descendants of alumni, typically those who have historically had better access to higher education. [37]

The practice has faced increased scrutiny, particularly in light of reduced affirmative action policies in the U.S. According to various sources, universities are being criticized around the country for prioritizing legacy admissions, directly contradicting efforts to diversify student populations and create equitable access. This contrast between the objectives of diversity policies and legacy preferences has prompted debates on the fairness of admission practices. [38]

Legacy admissions have been characterized as a form of racial discrimination that upholds historical exclusion by maintaining systemic advantages. By favoring students whose family members attended the institution, legacy policies continue a tradition that indirectly marginalizes underrepresented communities that did not have the same historical opportunities. [39]

Critics argue that the elimination or reform of legacy admissions could contribute to a more equitable admissions system. Removing these preferences would allow universities to prioritize candidates based on individual merit and achievement, better aligning with broader goals of inclusivity and access. While changes to these policies may face resistance from alumni groups, supporters of reform view them as necessary to address ingrained inequities in higher education. This shift could play a significant role in broadening educational access and fostering a more diverse academic environment.[ citation needed ]

In comparison to other programs

At some schools, legacy preferences have an effect on admissions comparable to other programs such as athletic recruiting or affirmative action. One study of three selective private research universities in the United States showed the following effects (admissions disadvantage and advantage in terms of SAT points on the 1600-point scale):

Although it may initially appear that non-Asian students of color are the most favored of all the groups in terms of college admissions, in practice, widespread legacy preferences have reduced acceptance rates for black, Latino, and Asian-American applicants because the overwhelming majority of legacy students are white. According to a 2008 study, Duke's legacies are more likely to be white, Protestant, American citizens, and private high school graduates than the overall student body. In 2000-2001, of 567 alumni children attending Princeton, 10 were Latino and 4 were black. Similarly, a 2005 study reported that half of the legacy applicants to selective colleges boasted family incomes in the top quartile of American earnings, compared to 29% of non-legacy students. [41] In 2003, Texas A&M—which no longer practices legacy admissions—enrolled 312 white students and only 27 Latino and 6 black students who would not have been admitted if not for their family ties. [42] Since 1983, there have been formal complaints to the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) that Asian-American applicants are being rejected in favor of students with lesser credentials. [43]

In 1990, the OCR determined that Harvard had admitted legacies at twice the rate of other applicants, that in several cases legacy status "was the critical or decisive favor" in a decision to admit an applicant, and that legacy preferences help explain why 17.4% of white applicants were admitted compared with only 13.2% of Asian-American applicants during the previous decade. The OCR also found that legacies on average were rated lower than applicants who were neither legacies nor athletes in every important category (excluding athletic ability) in which applicants were judged. [44]

In the 1990s, the University of California's Board of Regents voted to ban the use of affirmative action preferences throughout the system, and legacy privilege was abandoned across the University of California system soon after. [45]

The Supreme Court upheld race-conscious admissions policies in its 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision, involving the University of Michigan's law school. The only significant criticism of legacy preferences from the Court came from Justice Clarence Thomas, the sole member of the Supreme Court who grew up in poverty. [46]

While the majority of Americans have been shown to strongly oppose legacy admissions, its beneficiaries hold key positions in Congress and the judiciary, protecting this practice from political and legal challenge. [47]

Effect on alumni donations

While many schools say that a main reason for legacy preferences is to increase donations, [48] at an aggregate (school-wide) level the decision to prefer legacies has not been shown to increase donations. [49] However, in some instances, while alumni donations may go up if a child is intending on applying, donations fall if that child is rejected. [50]

In 2008, alumni donations accounted for 27.5% of all donations to higher education in the U.S. [22]

Criticism

Because private universities in the U.S. rely heavily on donations from alumni, critics argue that legacy preferences are a way to indirectly sell university placement. Opponents accuse these programs of perpetuating an oligarchy and plutocracy as they lower the weight of academic merit in the admissions process in exchange for a financial one. Legacy students tend to be the white and wealthy, contributing to socioeconomic inequality.

Supporters of the elimination of all non-academic preferences point out that many European universities, including highly selective institutions [51] such as Oxford, Cambridge, UCL and London School of Economics do not use legacy, racial, or athletic preferences in admissions decisions. [52] [53]

There are also legal arguments against legacy preferences. In public schools, legacy preferences may violate the Nobility Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution by creating a hereditary privilege and discriminating on the basis of ancestry. [54] Legacy preferences in both public and private universities may be illegal under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (now codified in Section 1981 of the U.S. Code).

Distribution of GPA in college major by legacy status Capture d'ecran 2023-02-11 213711.png
Distribution of GPA in college major by legacy status

At Harvard, legacies have higher median SAT test scores and grades than the rest of admitted students. [36] According to The Atlantic , "While some research indicates that legacy admits go on to earn lower average grades than their peers, plenty are strong applicants." [36]

In a paper published in Economics Letters , economist James Monks compared the academic performance of legacy students to that of non-legacy students from 27 private and selective colleges. Monks finds that legacies perform at least as well as their nonlegacy counterparts. [55]

In admission data reviewed by The Daily Princetonian in 2023, the student newspaper found that legacy students had a higher GPA than non-legacy students except at the highest income levels, and were more likely to go into non-profit work after admission, and less likely to go on to graduate school. [56]

See also

Related Research Articles

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that involved a dispute over whether preferential treatment for minorities could reduce educational opportunities for whites without violating the Constitution. It upheld affirmative action, allowing race to be one of several factors in college admission policy. However, the court ruled that specific racial quotas, such as the 16 out of 100 seats set aside for minority students by the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, were impermissible.

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action in student admissions. The Court held that a student admissions process that favors "underrepresented minority groups" did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause so long as it took into account other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant. The decision largely upheld the Court's decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), which allowed race to be a consideration in admissions policy but held racial quotas to be unconstitutional. In Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), a separate case decided on the same day as Grutter, the Court struck down a points-based admissions system that awarded an automatic bonus to the admissions scores of minority applicants.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Harvard College</span> Undergraduate college of Harvard University in Massachusetts

Harvard College is the undergraduate college of Harvard University, a private Ivy League research university in Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States. Part of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard College is Harvard University's traditional undergraduate program, offering AB and SB degrees. It is highly selective, with fewer than four percent of applicants being offered admission as of 2022.

Numerus clausus is one of many methods used to limit the number of students who may study at a university. In many cases, the goal of the numerus clausus is simply to limit the number of students to the maximum feasible in some particularly sought-after areas of studies with an intent to keep a constant supply of qualified workforce and thus limit competition. In historical terms however, in some countries, numerus clausus policies were religious or racial quotas, both in intent and function.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1996 California Proposition 209</span> Referendum banning affirmative action

Proposition 209 is a California ballot proposition which, upon approval in November 1996, amended the state constitution to prohibit state governmental institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education. Modeled on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the California Civil Rights Initiative was authored by two California academics, Glynn Custred and Tom Wood. It was the first electoral test of affirmative action policies in North America. It passed with 55% in favor to 45% opposed, thereby banning affirmative action in the state's public sector.

Early decision (ED) or early acceptance is a type of early admission used in college admissions in the United States for admitting freshmen to undergraduate programs. It is used to indicate to the university or college that the candidate considers that institution to be their top choice through a binding commitment to enroll; in other words, if offered admission under an ED program, and the financial aid offered by the school is acceptable, the candidate must enroll at that institution and withdraw all applications to other institutions. Applying early decision brings a greater statistical chance of being accepted.

An admissions or application essay, sometimes also called a personal statement or a statement of purpose, is an essay or other written statement written by an applicant, often a prospective student applying to some college, university, or graduate school. The application essay is a common part of the university and college admissions process.

Early action (EA) is a type of early admission process offered by some institutions for admission to colleges and universities in the United States. Unlike the regular admissions process, EA usually requires students to submit an application by mid-October or early November of their senior year of high school instead of January 1. Students are notified of the school's decision by early January instead of mid-March or May 1.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">College admissions in the United States</span> Aspect of education

College admissions in the United States refers to the process of applying for entrance to institutions of higher education for undergraduate study at one of the nation's colleges or universities. For those who intend to attend college immediately after high school, the college search usually begins in the eleventh grade with most activity taking place during the twelfth grade. Applications to many schools are due in October or November of senior year for Early Decision or Early Action, or in December or January of their senior year for Regular Decision, though the timeline may vary depending on the universities, some having an earlier deadline due to the fact that the admissions process may weigh in more on transcripts. Students at top high schools may often begin the process during their tenth grade or earlier. There are considerable numbers of students who transfer from one college to another, as well as adults older than high school age who apply to college.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Affirmative action in the United States</span>

In the United States, affirmative action consists of government-mandated, government-approved, and voluntary private programs granting special consideration to groups considered or classified as historically excluded, specifically racial minorities and women. These programs tend to focus on access to education and employment in order to redress the disadvantages associated with past and present discrimination. Another goal of affirmative action policies is to ensure that public institutions, such as universities, hospitals, and police forces, are more representative of the populations they serve.

<i>The Price of Admission</i> 2005 book by Daniel Golden

The Price of Admission: How America's Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges - and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates is a 2005 book by Daniel Golden, a recipient of the Pulitzer Prize in journalism. The book criticizes admissions at elite American universities, including preferences given to the wealthy, children of celebrities, and legacy applicants. It also documents discrimination against Asian-Americans in the admissions process.

Richard D. Kahlenberg is an American writer who has written about a variety of education, labor and housing issues.

Development cases are a set of preferences in university and college admission, particularly in college admissions in the United States, separate from merit, athletic, racial and legacy preferences, whereby applicants from wealthy families are more likely to be granted admission to selective universities based on large donations made by family.

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court held that race-based affirmative action programs in college admissions processes violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. With its companion case, Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court effectively overruled Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), which validated some affirmative action in college admissions provided that race had a limited role in decisions.

Richard Henry Sander is an American legal scholar. He is the Jesse Dukeminier Professor in Law at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law and a critic of affirmative action. Sander is primarily known for producing the mismatch theory.

Edward Jay Blum is an American conservative legal strategist who opposes classifications and preferences based on race and ethnicity.

Fisher v. University of Texas, 579 U.S. 365 (2016), also known as Fisher II, is a United States Supreme Court case which held that the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit correctly found that the University of Texas at Austin's undergraduate admissions policy survived strict scrutiny, in accordance with Fisher v. University of Texas (2013), which ruled that strict scrutiny should be applied to determine the constitutionality of the University's race-conscious admissions policy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Asian quota</span> Type of racial quota

An Asian quota is a racial quota limiting the number of people of Asian descent in an establishment, a special case of numerus clausus. It usually refers to alleged educational quotas in United States higher education admissions, specifically by Ivy League universities against Asian Americans, especially persons of East Asian and South Asian descent starting in the late 1980s. These allegations of discrimination have been denied by U.S. universities. Asian quotas have been compared to earlier claims of Jewish quotas, which are believed to have limited the admissions of a model minority from the 1910s to the 1950s. Jewish quotas were denied at the time, but their existence is rarely disputed now. Some have thus called Asian-Americans "The New Jews" of university admissions.

Peter Arcidiacono is an American economist and econometrician. After receiving his Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1999, he has taught at Duke University. He became a fellow of the Econometric Society in 2018.

Discrimination of excellence is the violation of formal equality of opportunity and meritocracy, which reward merits of individuals and overachievement. Discrimination of excellence due to violation of formal equality of opportunity can be caused by different reasons, including legacy preferences, nepotism, substantive equality, affirmative action or random luck.

References

  1. ↑ "High Time to End Legacy Admissions". The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved January 18, 2022.
  2. ↑ Blumberg, Yoni; Martin, Emmie (April 7, 2019). "Harvard's freshman class is more than one-third legacy—here's why that's a problem". CNBC. Retrieved January 18, 2022.
  3. ↑ Hyon, Elliott (January 2, 2025). "The Movement Against Legacy Admissions Is Expanding to More States and Universities". Teen Vogue .
  4. ↑ Soave, Robby (June 29, 2023). "Of course legacy admissions should follow affirmative action to the grave". Reason.com. Retrieved July 1, 2023.
  5. ↑ Kahlenberg, Richard D. (2010). "Introduction". In Kahlenberg, Richard D. (ed.). Affirmative-Action for the Rich: Legacy Preferences in College Admissions. New York: The Century Foundation Press. p. 1. ISBN   978-0-87078-518-4.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  6. ↑ Golden, Daniel (2010). "An Analytic Survey of Legacy Preferences". In Kahlenberg, Richard D. (ed.). Affirmative-Action for the Rich: Legacy Preferences in College Admissions. New York: The Century Foundation Press. p. 73. ISBN   978-0-87078-518-4.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  7. ↑ Golden (2010) , pp. 74–76
  8. 1 2 Castilla, Emilio J.; Poskanzer, Ethan J. (2022). "Through the Front Door: Why Do Organizations (Still) Prefer Legacy Applicants?". American Sociological Review. 87 (5): 782–826. doi:10.1177/00031224221122889. ISSN   0003-1224. S2CID   252458129.
  9. ↑ Bhatia, Aatish; Miller, Claire Cain; Katz, Josh (July 24, 2023). "Study of Elite College Admissions Data Suggests Being Very Rich Is Its Own Qualification". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331.
  10. ↑ Saul, Stephanie (July 13, 2022). "The Quiet Fight to Keep Legacy Admissions". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved July 13, 2022.
  11. ↑ COE, DEBORAH L.; DAVIDSON, JAMES D. (2011). "The Origins of Legacy Admissions: A Sociological Explanation". Review of Religious Research. 52 (3): 233–247. ISSN   0034-673X. JSTOR   23055549.
  12. ↑ Peterson, Chris (June 25, 2012). "Just To Be Clear: We Don't Do Legacy". MIT Admissions. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved February 10, 2020.
  13. ↑ Daniels, Ronald J. (January 18, 2020). "Why We Ended Legacy Admissions at Johns Hopkins". The Atlantic . Retrieved October 23, 2021.
  14. ↑ Murphy, James S. (October 23, 2021). "College Admissions Are Still Unfair". The Atlantic . Retrieved July 19, 2023.
  15. ↑ Anderson, Nick (July 16, 2023). "Pressure mounts on colleges to ditch 'legacy' admissions factor". The Washington Post . Retrieved July 19, 2023.
  16. ↑ Fortin, Jacey (October 20, 2021). "Amherst College Ends Legacy Admissions Favoring Children of Alumni". The New York Times .
  17. ↑ Bohannon, Molly (July 19, 2023). "Wesleyan University Ends Legacy Admissions—Joining Other Selective Schools". Forbes . Retrieved July 19, 2023.
  18. ↑ Patel, Vimal (July 19, 2023). "Wesleyan University Ends Legacy Admissions". The New York Times . Retrieved July 19, 2023.
  19. ↑ Alfonseca, Kiara (September 30, 2024). "California bans legacy admissions in all colleges, universities". ABC News. Retrieved October 1, 2024.
  20. ↑ Eric McDaniel (December 27, 2023). "This bipartisan Senate duo wants to end legacy college admissions". NPR.
  21. ↑ "The curse of nepotism". The Economist. January 8, 2004.
  22. 1 2 3 Schmidt, Peter (2010). "A History of Legacy Preferences and Privilege". In Kahlenberg, Richard D. (ed.). Affirmative-Action for the Rich: Legacy Preferences in College Admissions. New York: The Century Foundation Press. p. 59. ISBN   978-0-87078-518-4.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  23. ↑ Golden (2010) , pp. 73–74
  24. ↑ "Which US Colleges Accept Most Legacy Students? Notre Dame, Yale - Bloomberg". Bloomberg News . March 21, 2019.
  25. ↑ "End Legacy Admissions". The Georgetown Voice. January 31, 2020. Retrieved January 18, 2022.
  26. ↑ Camille G. Caldera (October 23, 2019). "Legacy, Athlete, and Donor Preferences Disproportionately Benefit White Applicants, per Analysis". The Harvard Crimson.
  27. ↑ Arcidiacono, Peter; Kinsler, Josh; Ransom, Tyler (December 22, 2020). "Legacy and Athlete Preferences at Harvard" (PDF).
  28. ↑ Castilla, Emilio; Poskanzer, Ethan (March 14, 2023). "Through the Front Door: Why do Organizations (Still) Prefer Legacy Applicants". American Sociological Review. 87 (5): 782–826. doi:10.1177/00031224221122889. S2CID   252458129.
  29. ↑ Golden (2010) , p. 75
  30. ↑ Kahlenberg, Richard D. (September 29, 2010), "Elite Colleges, or Colleges for the Elite?", New York Times
  31. ↑ "Wesleyan University: Top US college says it will end 'legacy' admissions". BBC News. July 19, 2023. Retrieved July 21, 2023.
  32. ↑ Castilla, Emilio J.; Poskanzer, Ethan J. (October 2022). "Through the Front Door: Why Do Organizations (Still) Prefer Legacy Applicants?". American Sociological Review . 87 (5): 782–826. doi:10.1177/00031224221122889. S2CID   252458129.
  33. 1 2 3 4 "College Admissions". IGM Forum. April 30, 2019.
  34. ↑ Meer, Jonathan; Rosen, Harvey S (February 1, 2009). "Altruism and the Child Cycle of Alumni Donations" (PDF). American Economic Journal: Economic Policy . 1 (1): 258–286. doi:10.1257/pol.1.1.258.
  35. ↑ "The Pointless End of Legacy Admissions". The New Yorker. November 23, 2021. Retrieved January 18, 2022.
  36. 1 2 3 Pinsker, Joe (April 4, 2019). "The Real Reasons Legacy Preferences Exist". The Atlantic. Retrieved January 18, 2022.
  37. ↑ "Who uses legacy admissions?". Brookings. Retrieved November 3, 2024.
  38. ↑ Oladipo, Gloria (October 27, 2024). "US universities are struggling to increase diversity. Are legacy admissions part of the problem?". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved November 3, 2024.
  39. ↑ "Legacy Admissions: An Insidious Form of Racial Discrimination". Columbia Undergraduate Law Review. October 12, 2022. Retrieved November 3, 2024.
  40. ↑ Espenshade, Thomas J.; Chung, Chang Y.; Walling, Joan L. (December 2004). "Admission preferences for minority students, athletes, and legacies at elite universities". Social Science Quarterly . 85 (5): 1422–1446. doi:10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.00284.x. Pdf.
  41. ↑ Golden (2010) , p. 77
  42. ↑ Schmidt (2010) , p. 67
  43. ↑ Schmidt (2010) , pp. 61–62
  44. ↑ Schmidt (2010) , p. 62
  45. ↑ Schmidt (2010) , p. 65
  46. ↑ Schmidt (2010) , p. 66
  47. ↑ Golden (2010) , p. 71
  48. ↑ Kathrin Lassila (November–December 2004), "Why Yale Favors Its Own", Yale Alumni magazine, archived from the original on December 2, 2010
  49. ↑ Chad Coffman; Tara O'Neil; Brian Starr (2010), "Chapter 5: An Empirical Analysis of the Impact of Legacy Preferences on Alumni Giving at Top Universities" (PDF), Affirmative Action for the Rich, Century Foundation Press, ISBN   978-0-87078-518-4
  50. ↑ Meer, Jonathan; Rosen, Harvey S. (2009). "Altruism and the Child Cycle of Alumni Donations" (PDF). American Economic Journal: Economic Policy. 1 (1): 258–86. doi:10.1257/pol.1.1.258.
  51. ↑ "10 Universities in the UK with the Lowest Acceptance Rates". Global Scholarships. August 21, 2019. Retrieved July 19, 2021.
  52. ↑ "Oxford hopefuls urged to ditch the flute and work hard". BBC News. August 27, 2010. Retrieved July 1, 2011.
  53. ↑ "Does the University of Oxford have better admissions policies than elite U.S. universities?". Baltimore Post Examiner. January 16, 2015.
  54. ↑ Larson, Carlton. “Titles of Nobility, Hereditary Privilege, and the Unconstitutionality of Legacy Preferences in Public School Admissions”, Washington University Law Review, Volume 84, page 1375 (2006).
  55. 1 2 Monks, James (April 1, 2000). "The academic performance of legacies". Economics Letters. 67 (1): 99–104. doi:10.1016/S0165-1765(99)00207-4. ISSN   0165-1765.
  56. ↑ "How do Princeton's legacy students stack up to their peers? We looked at the numbers". The Princetonian. Retrieved September 3, 2023.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.