The End of Legacy Admissions: Progressive or PR Move?
On October 20, Amherst College discontinued its preferential admissions toward legacy students. This means that those who had parents or siblings attend the school will now receive the same admissions evaluation as an individual who did not have family attend Amherst. At Amherst, around 11% of students come from legacy families. (National Collegiate Athletic Association). Many of the students who hold legacy status are still high-achieving and maintain the academic standards of the school. Regardless, this change in policy sends a symbolic message to the public about Amherst’s stance on educational equity that serves as a nudge of encouragement for other top schools to follow suit.
For first-generation and non-legacy college students to be given the same evaluation as those with legacy status is a sizable policy-based step coming from the sphere of elite private universities. Amherst, along with other top schools like Johns Hopkins University and Pomona College, are beginning to display a pattern of eliminating legacy. A major problem that legacy enrollment perpetuates is educational opportunity circulating within the hands of mainly rich, white families. Therefore, first-generation college students, typically from marginalized communities, are prioritized behind legacies. This widens the wealth gap between white individuals and marginalized socioeconomic groups. Additionally, eliminating legacy enrollment indicates that prestigious institutions are acknowledging elitist and exclusionary practices that serve to keep marginalized communities from achieving exceptional education. Without recognizing these barriers, racial stereotypes are intensified, such as the belief that rich white people are more capable than lower-income students and students of color.
At Wesleyan, legacy applicants have double the chances of getting admitted compared to a non-legacy prospective student. The application process color codes and categorizes applicants based on their legacy to ensure that those applicants are thoroughly considered (Steinberg). Given Wesleyan’s commitment to inclusivity among its student body, why is legacy status still such an advantageous factor in the application process? While there may be active efforts on campus to create an equitable space for people of color, they only create equity for those students who manage to get through the taxing admissions process. As a result, the pool of students to whom Wesleyan aims equitable programs toward is inherently unequal in nature.
Even with the elimination of legacy enrollment as an effort to diminish educational disparity, Amherst’s action is fairly ineffective. In addition to the mere 11% of legacy students at Amherst, Division III athletes comprise up to 32% of the student body. Of those athletes, 79% identify as white (National Collegiate Athletic Association). In a study across 30 selective colleges in the United States, it is estimated that athletes are given a whopping 48% increase in acceptance rate (Bowen and Schulman). Not to mention, student-athletes tend to come from higher-income families who have the resources to invest in a competitive sport (Desai). If Amherst is genuinely interested in tangible educational reform, reducing unfair admissions practices that benefit this area of the student body is more effective. While discontinuing legacy admissions is a step in the right direction, it’s really just throwing a PR-friendly bone to satiate surface level demand without having to intrinsically tackle systemic issues within college admissions.
A larger problem that preference to athletes denotes is the emphasis that elite educational institutions place on intercollegiate athletic performance. As an educational institution, the standards for being accepted based on academic merit need to be prioritized over athletic performance. Schools providing preference to athletes due to their potential to improve the school’s Ivy League or ‘Little Ivy’ status demonstrates the apathy toward integrating academically inclined first-generation and minority students. Taking such an action requires commitment from the institution, but would be one of the most effective things a school could do to take equity into serious consideration. However, upholding privilege and prestige still maintains an iron grip on admissions to elite institutions.
Generally speaking, Amherst’s move of ridding itself of legacy admissions is a positive step toward equitable higher education. However, it would be incredibly performative for this to be the only step. Legacy admissions are a diminishing factor in college admissions, but there are other areas of the admissions process that serve as barriers to prevent qualified and diverse students from attending. We can’t afford to shower institutions with praise for baby steps toward equitable education. While wealthy athletes and white students shine, academically outstanding minority students have fallen into a cycle of receiving insufficient education, decreasing their chances of a successful career. Once the student bodies of competitive universities across America start to comprise significantly more lower-income students and students of color, schools like Amherst will receive truly deserved applause.
Sources
Dan Santow. Dan Santow has written for Metropolitan Home. “An inside Look at College Admissions.” Chicagotribune.com, 28 Aug. 2018, https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2002-09-15-0209130397-story.html
Desai, Saahil. “College Sports Are Affirmative Action for Rich White Students.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 2 Nov. 2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/10/college-sports-benefits-white-students/573688/
Murphy, James S. “College Admissions Are Still Unfair.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 23 Oct. 2021, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/amhersts-legacy-announcement-wont-end-inequity/620476/