A classmate wrote me:
"Legacy admissions are unsupportable and ridiculous."
That is the opinion of most people, I realize. Giving special advantage to "legacy" applicants looks like the perpetuation of privilege. And it is. Children of Harvard graduates are likely to have grown up in relative economic and educational privilege. It also perpetuates privilege of Whites, since historically the demographic makeup of Harvard students skewed more White than the general public.
But there are arguments on the other side. Classmate Stan Werlin and I share the opinion that legacy admissions are harmless. With the huge surplus of extraordinary candidates, anyone admitted is fully qualified and prepared to thrive, so why not pick a class that fosters tradition and ties to the institution?
College classmate Stan Werlin was a "legacy." After college Stan got an MBA at Wharton and then had a long career doing business development at Arthur D. Little, the management consultancy. Now, in retirement, he writes poetry and short stories which have appeared in the Southern Humanities Review, the Los Angeles Review and over a dozen other publications.
.Guest Post by Stan Werlin
 |
| Werlin, current |
Is there any consequential harm done to the entire pool of Harvard applicants when a legacy applicant completely capable of doing well academically and graduating successfully is admitted? It's true that that legacy applicant takes the place of a presumably fully capable non-legacy applicant but I struggle to see why that matters in the context of a pool of thousands and thousands of fully capable applicants, any random selection of whom these days would compose a superb class. My Harvard classmates collectively conduct dozens, perhaps hundreds, of applicant interviews every year, and see incredibly talented applicants - legacy and non-legacy - who are not among those offered admission to Harvard. With an admission rate this year of 3.41%, the competition is beyond fierce. Here's an example: a National Merit Scholar who had her own research published as a coauthor with a professor in her city. She examined irregularities in frogs in an irrigation ditch, tying the irregularities to fertilizer runoff levels. She was charming, popular, active in extracurriculars. Straight-A grades forever. Sorry, said Harvard. In looking at the many factors that we believe colleges consider in their admissions calculus, I posit that there's defensible value in including tradition and continuity among them, even if the value is intangible.
It seems to me that the only legitimate concern about legacy applicants should be if such an applicant is without the academic and other skills deemed necessary by the Admissions Committee but is nevertheless admitted as a benefit of their legacy status. One might then argue that such a legacy applicant undeserving of matriculation deprived a stronger non-legacy applicant of the opportunity to go to Harvard. It would be interesting to see data on legacy admissions that might peel back the onion on undeserving legacy applicants. Good luck with that.
In my own case, my father went to Harvard and Harvard Law School. He donated modestly to Harvard but was in no way a donor whose financial contributions would motivate Harvard to admit me. I had the goods academically and non-academically to be admitted without any legacy influence, but can’t possibly know if my dad's status had any bearing on my April, 1967 acceptance letter. Am I a legacy admission? I don’t feel as if privilege got me in the door. I do feel that I earned admission based on my own record , that as a student I was comparable to the majority of classmates I knew in terms of academic capability (but certainly was not among the many more who were truly incredibly gifted and talented) and that I graduated successfully based on my own doing. But I suppose I’ll always wonder about my admission in that respect.
--- --- ---
Tomorrow I will share my own thoughts. I was not a legacy applicant, but I think the policy of giving modest advantage to people with historic or even financial connection to the institution is not merely harmless; the policy is wise. I focus on the community-building and tradition-enhancing values. I recognize that some people will strongly disagree.
26 comments:
Since diversity can no longer be a consideration in university admissions, I suppose it makes sense, all else being equal, to pick the rich white kid.
This beig a political blog, it would be remiss not to mention our recent Independence Day celebration. We may be polarized, but when it comes to celebrating our freedom, we do it as only Americans can. Over the holiday there were 16 mass shootings across the U.S. which killed 15 people and injured 94. Other countries don’t allow that even on special occasions, so thanks to Republicans and the NRA for making the U.S. so exceptional.
Why should where the parents went to college have anything to do with a current application to a school?
It should NOT be a factor in the admissions process. Junior and Princess can stand on their own two feet. If their family has money, they already have a huge advantage. Let them earn their way in LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.
Of course you will favor legacy admissions if you support classism, aristocracy, social incest and caste systems.
You could be like Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, whose father gave Harvard $1 million in order to get Jared Kushner admitted into the Harvard Law School. Kushner bought his way into Harvard, as did a lot of other rich kids.
Even the British Royal Family has modernized. Charles and Camilla were both divorced. William and Harry married commoners and Harry married a biracial American. It is time for elite American institutions to enter the 21st century.
As discussed in a previous blog, reparations can take many forms. The educational aristocracy should have been dismantled a long time ago.
This discussion, which is somewhat precious on its face, merely points out that this society:
A. Is consumed with status and privilege and,
B. Is inadequate in educating its citizens
Is it conceivable that one day a university education will be required as K-12 is now?
Of course it's complicated, but I find it interesting that about 40% of students do not receive any higher education which is roughly the number who are seduced by the MAGA/De Santis/FOX agenda, which is utterly dependent on a lack of critical thinking.
Correlation, causation or coincidence?
Stan and his perpetual privilege make me gag. Of course it doesn't bother HIM.
How dare anyone propose revoking his Harvard Legacy Privilege Card? Or his white, male privilege card?
Hey Stan, if you were such an awesome admissions candidate, why did you need to use your Legacy Card? Unreal
More than half of the students in the class of ‘26 are people of color, Asian or Hispanic according to Harvard. Seems like they’re as diverse as I would expect them to be: https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics
The current argument against legacy admissions, energized by the Supreme Court decision against affirmative action, seems to be targeted at legacy admissions’ “disproportionate“ representation of white people.
This is one of the basic tenets of the critical social justice (i.e. woke) movement: since black people are about 13% of the US population, anything beneficial that isn’t distributed to them in at least that proportion is a priori assumed to be the result of racial discrimination. Wokeness does not allow for even the consideration of any other possible cause. You will be called a racist and canceled for even thinking outside of that box.
Ivy League schools like Harvard are the pathway into the elites. That’s what really needs to change. The problem isn’t that Harvard has Legacy admissions; the problem is that our elites have legacy admissions.
Rick,
Given the overwhelmingly left-wing bias of the professoriate, it’s unlikely that a large proportion of conservatives would emerge from that actively hostile environment. The fact that some do is a tribute to the strength of their minds and their characters.
The contempt displayed for them by the academic/cultural elites is a large part of the energy driving the MAGA movement. Trump is incoherent in many ways, but he is totally consistent at being a giant orange middle finger raised towards those elites.
Support Trump if you think being angry and hate-filled will get you anywhere in life!
Harvard, Yale and the rest are businesses.
From a business standpoint it makes sense to give better treatment to your best customers.
Help make your donors' children rich and they will keep donating, along with their offspring.
That's capitalism.
Rick: Critical thinking? We don’t need no critical thinking;it’s a mid washing plot by commie dogs!
https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2012-06-27/gop-opposes-critical-thinking/
It's official: The Republican Party of Texas opposes critical thinking. That's right, drones, and it's part of their official platform.
One of our eagle-eyed readers emailed us to point out this unbelievable passage in the RPT 2012 platform, as adopted at their recent statewide conference.
"Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."
I’m the critical thinking impaired dude who managed to post as anonymous re the Austin Chronicle article :-P
It is part of the elite privilege-protection racket. And it has real consequences for individuals, their families and our country. Like it or not, these elitist institutions are very influential. Wake up and smell the ivy.
How anyone can support legacy admissions, particularly at the most elite schools, and call him or herself a Democrat, a liberal, a progressive or simply a fair-minded person is beyond me.
Anyone who claims to be concerned EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, social justice, social mobility, income inequality and all the rest should be opposed to legacy admissions.
As a side note, I have a family member who graduated from Harvard and Harvard Law School after WW II. He got in the right way, no legacy privilege. He may have received "points" for his military service to our country, but that is A-OK in my book.
Legacy Babies vs. Veterans hmm. Does anyone know how many Harvard Legacy babies have served in the military over the past 50 years or so?
Of course trump flips off those dirty “ academic/cultural elites ”. But he’s only showing his envy for people who’ve learned to tie their own shoes before they qualify for Medicare.
The owner of this blog purports to be a liberal Democrat. From time to time, he writes about the anger and frustration of MAGAs toward elites in our country. He also admits, in this blog, that legacy admissions perpetuate economic, social and white privilege.
And yet he supports legacy admissions at the most elite institutions of higher education in our country.
This reminds me of the arguments made in favor of Confederate flags and Confederate monuments. Traditions are very big in the South also.
No names allowed
Meanwhile, "here in Topeka" (as Loretta Lynn sang in 1972), the flies are abuzzin' and people who are white don't seem to go out of their way to make people of color feel welcome. Kudos to Janet Eastman for writing a positive article about this problem:
https://www.oregonlive.com/travel/2023/07/oregon-groups-create-a-path-for-people-of-color-to-feel-safe-on-wilderness-trails.html
However, the fact remains that there should be no need for Oregon groups to create a path for people of color to feel safe in Jackson County. My point is that we need to include all American races and ethnic groups in all aspects of American society both locally and nationally. Otherwise, we don't have "liberty and justice for all." If Jackson County were Harvard, being white in Jackson County would be sort of like getting admitted to first-class citizenship as a "legacy." Here in Jackson County, whiteness bestows privilege. Where did Nataki Garrett go? What is she doing these days? I wish the elites would try harder to expand their ranks, instead of victim blaming. Does Harvard have a quota system for Asians? It denies that it does. A lot needs to change. Do legacy admissions to colleges help or hurt? I don't know. Does that question really matter to most people? Some readers of this blog think elitism is a problem; for such readers, the question of whether legacy admissions helps or hurts should matter a lot. I doubt it matters much to the ones trying to afford Rogue Community College or SOU.A lot of the money to fund RCC and SOU comes from high-tax-bracket taxpayers; a substantial number of them went to elite colleges and universities, but tax dollars don't support RCC and SOU as much as needs be. I'm glad when someone from around here gets into an elite college.
P.S. Jared Kushner got into Harvard College on the strength of his father's donation; he did not attend Harvard Law School.
I also believe legacy preferences are a largely positive thing for a college like Harvard, and I was also a classmate of Peter's (and far from a legacy; neither of my parents went to accredited schools after high school).
One classmate was certainly a legacy: His father was Harvard College and Business School; my classmate, ditto; and his son graduated the College but was turned down by the Business School (had to settle for Stanford). Our classmate laughed and said, "Well, THAT saved me a lot of money!" Meaning he would normally be generous with donations but, holding a grudge, no more would be forthcoming.
When Peter and I entered the College in the fall of 1967, diversity was just beginning, mostly in the form of more kids from public high schools. Not too many years before, I believe something like half the class came from about 20 private schools, like Exeter and Choate.
Of course, we were not as bad as the classes from decades earlier, when "diversity" meant "where you summered."
But Harvard does a masterful job of keeping the alumni community connected and engaged; reunions are fun and well attended, with young children very welcome. Giving a tip to legacy is an important part of that. One irony would be if legacy tips were abolished just as significant numbers of alumni of color are aiming to get their own children into Harvard. Ha! (Reminds me of R. Crumb's Zap Comix and the much put-upon character Anglefood McSpade; as she finds her head once more pushed into a toilet she's cleaning, she protests, "Ah think I's gettin' shit on again.")
At a recent local alumni gathering, I chatted with Claudine Gay, then the Dean of Faculty, now the new president of Harvard (and a Haitian immigrant). She agreed with me that there was virtually no chance of Harvard winning its suit in SCOTUS but my impression was she was confident Harvard would respond in creative and imaginative ways that, I sensed, she actually thought would be not just fine but better.
I'm sure Harvard is well on its way to changing its admissions policies, but I also believe that legacy "tips" (or slight preferences) will be retained because they are vital to the continued strength of the alumni community. As to donors? I think a very small portion of donations is linked to a specific child trying to get into the College; such apparent bribery is, I'm pretty sure, not a big deal or important at all. The overall sense of community is; and for those of us lucky enough to have attended Harvard, it's the alumni community that is the greatest gift we're given.
Ultimately, though, I agree with the comment about the elites. It's scandalous, for example, how few law schools are represented in our top courts. There are hundreds and hundreds of outstanding colleges in the U.S.; a little less focus on Harvard would benefit all.
I got legacy admission into Rogue Community College.
I'm special!
Anyone tempted to give the side-eye to an "affirmative action admission" should also be giving the side-eye to a "legacy admission."
I would be embarrassed to be and to be known as a legacy admission. It is like being the boss's kid, who people frequently despise behind his or her back. At least the affirmative action admission is considered disadvantaged or underprivileged in some way. The legacy admission is based on privilege and being given special treatment because of your mommy and daddy.
Elite schools such as Harvard should not receive any money from taxpayers if they are not willing to treat all applicants fairly. Let the rich, clubby and well-connected alums make up the difference. According to Wikipedia, Harvard has an endowment of over $50 BILLION.
This is why people hate elites. They are exclusive, greedy and they protect their own. It is nauseating, but they think it is just divine.
I really don’t see what all the fuss is about with legacy admission practices. This system has existed for hundreds of years in the trades and crafts. Try to enter an apprentice program and find out that if your dad or uncle was or is in the trade the door swings wide open. The applicant (apprentice) must finish the training. The system is sustaining by the adage “QUALITY in Quality out!”
Two wrongs don't make a right. Are you familiar with the words discrimination, nepotism and favoritism?
Another privilege-protection racket! Do you think that is FAIR?
The Mormon church has a larger endowment, yet it still encourages donations.
At least Harvard gives you something beneficial.
Post a Comment