There are millions of young people mired in debt from college loans. Moreover, we may be educating the wrong people for the wrong things. The greatest bottleneck in the labor market is the shortage of people in skilled trades. Yet investment in public colleges and vocationally-oriented community colleges is going down and tuitions are going up.
But that wasn't the big news of the week. The news was Harvard admissions policy. The Supreme Court just disallowed one element of the selection criteria for Harvard and the University of North Carolina. That was the boost Harvard gave to some racial groups when the institution sought a racially diverse and inclusive student body. The Court left alone the selection boost for children of major donors and for student athletes. What really touched a nerve was "legacy preference," the boost given to children of alumni. It looks like privilege, pure and simple. Americans don't like it. We are supposed to be a meritocracy of ability.
Adrienne Simmons contacted me after reading my post. I had said legacy admissions had a purpose and value. They were an element of building community in an institution. She had a different view.
Adrienne Simmons is a retired health care administrator. She volunteers in the ASPIRE mentoring program, an Oregon-wide program that matches volunteers with high school juniors and seniors to mentor the student in developing a plan for education and training beyond high school. Her mentees have included recent immigrants to the U.S., the first in the family to go to college, and homeless students.
As someone who volunteers at one of our Southern Oregon high schools to help students with post-secondary education, I am very interested in the issue of legacy students.
I agree that college admissions to selective schools aren't "fair" because there are no clear criteria. It's not just test scores and GPA. The schools are crafting each class with unknown criteria. Evidently you caught Harvard's eye as someone who was academically prepared to succeed and would provide a different perspective as a farm kid from Medford.Some schools are in such dire financial straits they can't afford to admit students unless they can pay the full cost or close to it. This isn't the case at Harvard. In June of 2021 (the most recent data available) Harvard had $53.2 billion in its endowment. (U.S. News and World Report Sept. 13, 2022)Even with these incredible riches, Harvard admits only 17% of its students who are low-income and are eligible for Pell grants. This compares with the national average of 34%; 51% of Pell grants go to students whose families make less than $20,000 annually. While Harvard admits half as many students who are low-income compared with the average, it does have plenty of space for legacy students. CNBC.com reported that 36% of the class of 2022 was legacy according to the Harvard Crimson.A young low-income student I mentored many years ago was admitted to a selective college. When she was an undergraduate, her classmates expressed their disapproval for spending tax dollars on food stamps. She spoke up in class and asked "do you want people like me and my brother to go hungry?" I hope that left an impression on her classmates. She went on to get her PhD from an Ivy league school and became a tenured professor at a small college where many students are immigrants, first-generation, and low-income. She gives them hope that they too can achieve an influential position and create a more just country.
I, too, will persevere with my belief. It is the same belief of the Harvard Crimson editorial board in its editorial "High Time to End Legacy Admissions. I look for the day when Harvard joins Caltech and MIT who no longer consider legacy status.When there is a choice between the continuity of giving preference to legacy students and the opportunity to give students the opportunity for an education that might mean they have the pedigree to make a meaningful difference in our country, it's not a hard decision.
6 comments:
Amen, sister
36% !!! There is No Way that taxpayers should be subsidizing schools with legacy admissions. It truly reminds me of our "Founding Fathers" "owning" enslaved people. The are happy with the system because it works for them. Isn't that special.
Anonymous drives home the Guest Post with a really valid point, revealing the Hypocrisy writ large if the Majority of SCOTUS. They left the Legacy rules in place because it worked for them (possible exception, Clarence Thomas, the Affirmative Action recipient who just voted to deny yhat help to anyone else) and they are comfortable with that being the case.
The probllem with U.S. colleges and universities isn't their admission policies, but their cost. The UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network releases an annual ranking of the happiest countries in the world. It comes as no surprise that the happiest countries have free (tax supported) education and universal healthcare. Republicans call that evil socialism. To them, happiness is a warm gun. Consequently, the U.S. is ranked #16 on the scale.
Harvard should change its motto to "Not the Best and the Brightest" or "Who's Your Daddy."
It seems like the legacy question has heated up due to the student debt decision. Do Do private universities abuse this policy and who decides? Does it really effect discrimination on non-legacy admissions or is it measured? To the extent that these schools get public funds should play into the discussion.
I think it's accepted that public funded schools are a societal value. Private schools are businesses, so it's a business decision whether they accept public funds for students who wouldn't normally be able to pay. Obviously, this becomes a conflict of interest.
There is also the open question whether a two or four year higher education is now a necessary requirement for full participation in the society. It should be noted that if a student completes a Master's program and chooses to go further that much of the cost can be subsidized, and if we advance more students it would impact that system as well.
No simple answers here, and complicated by Republican indifference to poverty and disadvantage.
It may be that a college degree being more valued than a trade skill degree was wrong headed. Both should be valued and both should be subsidized by society. We all profit from skilled labor being in our country.
Reality is the rich are going to look out for their own. Harvard legacy makes sense as it allows the rich to mingle with other rich. That has been going on sense the time of the pharaohs.
Post a Comment