A question for the community:
The Harvard Crimson reported, "The U.S. Department of Education officially opened an investigation on Tuesday into the use of donor and legacy preferences in Harvard University’s admissions processes." <https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/7/26/doe-investigation-donor-legacy-admissions/>
What are your thoughts? Should donors and legacies get preferential treatment in the admissions process of colleges and universities? And perhaps more broadly, a corollary: should/can a university's admissions process be auditable, even transparent?
This comes at time when "a group of economists based at Harvard who study inequality — quantifies for the first time the extent to which being very rich is its own qualification in selective college admissions." <https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/24/upshot/ivy-league-elite-college-admissions.html> They found that students with similar test scores were much more likely to get into the best schools if they came from very rich families than middle or lower income. Again, is this a problem to be remedied, and if so, how?
It's a private institution; let them admit who they wish to admit.
ReplyDeleteNot sure if I would agree with you @Marioc63. As someone else pointed out: "As of 2021, Harvard was receiving approximately $625 million, annually, in grants from the federal government." Not relying on their own funds it seems and if it's from a taxpayer pocket so yes, should be transparent.
DeleteYes. We agree. As long as such private institutions don’t accept taxpayer funds from, for example, the NIH (National Institute of Health). MGH/HMS (Mass General/Harvard Medical School), among others, are known to utilize NIH research grants.
ReplyDeleteSimply by participation in the tax reporting and collection process doesn't anyone claiming a credit, deduction, or exemption effectively utilize taxpayer funds?
DeletePrivate without government funds, do as they wish. See Hillsdale.
ReplyDeleteAccept government funds, blind admission with social security number only.
No race, gender, name, zip code, grade transcripts or any other back door woke gaming nonsense. Live & die by SAT. Merit prevails. No checking the box.
This! And not just in the area of higher education I might add.
DeleteCan you please explain your response. I have seen this before. “This !”
DeleteMaybe you could remove my confusion it does not seem to make any sense.
I know what Alison means ....a meritocracy It applies to business, life et al. A standing rebuke to moral & cultural relativism.
Delete7-25-2023, 11:03PM Poster
Alison, I think your query refers to the use of the single word, "This!" in response to a statement that precedes it. I too have noticed it in just the last two years or so on discussion platforms such as this. My take on it us that it signifies strong agreement with the preceding statement, as in "Precisely", "Well-stated", "My thoughts exactly". Seems to be an internet thing.
DeleteCount me in also on Anonymous 11:03's proviso.
DeleteIf an institution takes money from a US Government funding source, admission has to be completely blind. Only if the institution is wholly private can they choose students by whatever grounds they wish to use.
Getting public money is the red line here and in many other matters.
Yes, by all means, let merit prevail. Give every student equal SAT prep, equal schools, equal libraries, equal computers, equally engaged parents, equal nutrition...and let the best student win.
DeleteThe problem was SCOTUS's attack on Affirmative Action, not Harvard's legacy system. It's a private institution, and its alumni donations make up a huge part of both its scholarships and its maintenance. If it's private, it should admit who it wants. The can of worms was opened up by the Supremes, not Harvard.
ReplyDeleteYes, it's a private institution but it receives money from the federal government. And that fact means they have to follow federal rules, which means Affirmative Action cannot be used to select admittees.
DeleteThe fact that Harvard is a $50 billion hedge fund that runs a school on the side doesn't change that reality that when they take public money for any reason, their admissions have to play by federal rules.
In England it is considered in very poor taste for it to even be discussed. Although I'm sure it occurs, for someone to brag that their son is going to Oxford just like them, is seen as quite boorish.
ReplyDeleteIt is boorish in the USA as well. I have never met anyone who attended an Ivy who did not, upon first meeting, mention their alma mater and repeatedly reinforce it by further dropping the hallowed name and referring to "elite schools" as such. I don't hear people who attended other excellent schools falling into that pattern. Lest you say I am expressing sour grapes, I forsook the Ivy path for the left coast.
DeleteWell, I had 2 guys on my Duck Lease who went to Harvard & Yale.
DeleteThey never discussed it. Learned about years later. Both were class acts.
I knew a Yale grad who, when asked where she attended college, would reply, "back east." (We were in grad school in California at the time.) If pressed, she would say, "in Connecticut." She did her utmost to not mention it.
DeleteSurely those coming from very rich families were also offered unique experiences that those from middle and lower income families didn't receive, and the experiences are likely what made the difference in admissions.
ReplyDeleteIs that fair? I don't know, honestly.
It depends on how one views the role of a university and what type of society one wants to create/live in.
Is a university a cultural institution meant to shape society?
Or is it effectively a job training facility with a bit of personal exploration?
Most people today would probably say it's the latter.
Regardless, there should be more transparency regarding how people are admitted, so at least those of lower and middle income can choose to make informed, familial sacrifices for certain experiences.
Surely those coming from disadvantaged families would have overcome incredible hardships to achieve the same GPAs, test scores, and extracurricular enrichments that those from wealthy and middle income families are able to support, and those experiences demonstrate a higher level of achievement that should make more of a difference in admissions.
DeleteI don't agree that money buys better GPAs and test scores, but certainly having a stable home environment is important for both. The point, however, is that the unique experiences brought by the most privileged students are part of what makes the universities elite.
DeleteFor now, the most elite universities have a mission to remain elite, not raise the poor out of poverty. I'm undecided whether or not that mission is healthy for society.
Again, we can debate about what the role is of higher education, but there is a reason why CalTech and U of Chicago are significantly less socially prestigious than Harvard, Yale, or Princeton.
As of 2021, Harvard was receiving approximately $625 million, annually, in grants from the federal government. That was the tenth highest in the nation. Other private universities in the top ten include Johns Hopkins, Stanford, Columbia, Yale. That is why their admissions process is subject to scrutiny. (Harvard’s endowment stood at $53 billion in 2021).
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court held that using race as a factor in admissions in higher education violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution. Race discrimination is historically subject to the highest level of scrutiny in such cases. In contrast, wealth or indigency are not protected classes in Supreme Court jurisprudence, so any advantage given to wealth in the admissions process need only be ‘rationally related’ to the goals of the policy giving some advantage to wealthy people that might discriminate against people of limited means.
The current Supreme Court would not hold that preferences based on wealth or indigency violate the 14th Amendment, so long as the institution can demonstrate a rational basis for the preference. Alumni loyalty, fueling the university’s endowment, and citing other things unique to the experience of wealthy applicants in terms of life experience might constitute a rational basis for giving a preference to children of alumni. Also, extending such preferences arguably also furthers universities’ goal of need-blind admissions, enabling universities to accept more, not less, economically needy applicants.
That’s what I think based on precedent, the state of jurisprudence today. The current Supreme Court doesn’t have much respect for precedent when it suits the majority’s political goals…but the Court would likely embrace precedent in this case. This results-oriented dichotomy is one of the fundamental reasons the American public has so little trust in the court. I read not long ago that only 25% of Americans have a great deal of confidence in our Supreme Court, whereas in the 1980s, that was closer to 60%.
There is federal case law to the effect that wealth status is a proxy for race. I was involved in a case that hung on that very fact and went to SCOTUS.
DeleteAs a former college admissions consultant who did post-grad work in Constitutional law, I am sympathetic to the recent Supreme Court ruling, but I do not believe legacy admissions in private institutions are the government's business.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I understand your argument, I wonder if you would stick to that comment if Harvard decided to deny admission to all black students. Although it is not identical, it is similar because they are judging others based on the circumstances of their birth (parents are alumni, not something you can change), rather than merit.
DeleteHow is it different from a quota system, i. e. in the past limiting Jewish people or Asian people? It Still will limit diversity in the student population, definitely won't be a microcosm of society.
ReplyDeleteWhile my spouse sometimes wishes we were "very rich," that is fleeting, and we're comfortable. Spouse and I both graduated from the same selective liberal arts institution. The acceptance rate was between 5 and 5.5% the past few years.
ReplyDeleteOur oldest child didn't apply to our place. He was admitted early decision to another university that had a journalism program our institution does not have. Our middle child was waitlisted and ultimately not admitted and chose to attend a large public university over various smaller private schools. Our youngest child did not apply to our alma mater early but was nonetheless admitted in the regular pool. She ended up attending the same public university as her older sister, both because she liked the idea of being with her sister and because the public university has a business school that our liberal arts institution lacks. I think our children knew themselves well enough to choose higher ed institutions that were a good fit for them, and I think the admissions process worked about as we expected.
We had minimal expectations that our children had any advantage because their mom and dad are alumni. I think we were mildly surprised at the choice our youngest daughter made, but she's happy and thriving. I'll take that all day, every day.
I think it's worth noting that there's a difference between what these institutions should do vs. what they're legally allowed to do.
ReplyDeleteAre they legally allowed to give preference to legacy candidates? I'm not a lawyer, but given that it's happening, I guess they can.
Should they? I think that depends on how they see their mission. If they define their mission as providing a great education to a broad population that looks like America, then...no preference for legacies. (Whether or not that is a legitemate mission is a separate question, so please don't flame me and tell me that it isn't.)
If they aren't concerned with representation or equity, then fine...admit all the legacies they want. After all, the result is likely to be increased donations, higher tuition revenue (the legacies are likely to be more able to pay full freight), and more legacies down the line. They'll wind up with a less diverse student and alumni population, but if they're OK with that, well then, they're OK with that.
And even if they don't explicitly favorably weight legacies: as someone pointed out, the offspring of graduates of elite institutions are more likely to have had other advantages that will translate into grades, extracurriculars, etc., which bring advantages of their own.
I'm not a fan of legacy admissions, given the inevitable outcome, but I don't see them going away any time soon. And for what it's worth, the NYT article is a bit silly. Getting into elite universities is easier for kids from very rich families? I'm shocked. I also look forward to future NYT articles with headlines like "Ice is Cold", and "The Sun is Bright".
-Mike
Yes. Your observation about “the paper of record” on the money. That’s why, evidently, they run articles like “How to dress your child for winter,” and, “Toasters we love.” “All the news that’s fit to print” is not about the news.
DeleteIt seems around two-thirds of accepted students are non-legacy. Just to keep things in perspective.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's a small portion to have one third of the student body being for athletes, legacies, relatives of donors and children of faculty and staff.
DeleteWhile donors and legacies undoubtedly play a crucial role in supporting higher education institutions, the question of whether they should receive preferential treatment in the admissions process is multifaceted. Striking a balance between recognizing their contributions and upholding merit-based admissions is essential. If preferential treatment is employed, transparency and accountability are necessary to maintain the integrity of the admissions process and ensure that it remains fair and inclusive for all applicants. Ultimately, universities should prioritize admitting students based on their individual merits, talents, and potential to contribute positively to the academic community.
ReplyDeleteInteresting conversation and comments. I am enjoying the back-and-forth without the inclusion of any rancor. That has been the tradition on this site for many years, and so happy to see it is still lives on.
ReplyDeleteCheers!
Harvard seems to me like a bad test case for whether legacy admissions are worthwhile, and likely strategically so because Harvard no longer has a distinct culture. Neither does Yale, or Princeton, or most of the other Ivy League schools; they've all been rendered generic by meritocracy. The exceptions are Brown, and perhaps surprisingly Cornell. I say surprisingly because most Ivy Leaguers seem to regard Cornell's membership as athletic-only, but anyone who has met a Cornell-trained large animal vet likely gets an accurate sense that they're a unique and special breed.
ReplyDeleteBetter hand harder test cases would be moderately selective colleges with a strong particular identity and culture. What would be lost without Legacies at Holy Cross? At Sewanee? At Wheaton? At St. Olaf? At Oberlin? At Mt. Holyoke? At Hampden-Sydney? I think something would be lost if the culture weren't protected. These are all leading institutions of their specific type, and students and alumni recognize a commonality across generations. If the class of '73 sat down with the new class of '23, they'd find they had a lot in common and were fundamentally of the same type even if separated by 50 years.
I recall a few decades ago being interviewed for admission at Middlebury by an alumni, which seemed to be a standard part of the process. As I remember it, she seemed to want to get a sense of me and whether I'd be a good fit, as well as make sure I understood what life was like in northern Vermont. I hope they still do those sorts of interviews. Paper credentials only go so far in getting a sense of whether someone will be a good member of your community, and I hope Middlebury is still giving kids a good look up and down complete with a talk about the winters before opening the door.
You’re right. You need to be the right fit for Vermont (though the winters are not what they used to be, everyone knows). When I was a senior, wrapping up four years in Vermont, a home grown professor asked our small class in American literature, “so, what do you think of Vermont after four years living here?” One of the flat-landers in the class responded, “your feet are always wet!”
ReplyDeleteAs someone who has served on three university faculties, including service on the selection committee for a medical residency program, I believe a holistic process for selection is both desirable and necessary. Test scores, especially for the SAT and ACT, are not reliable predictors of fit or performance at the undergraduate or postgraduate level. Actual school grades are better, but grade inflation must be taken into account. Colleges and universities should have the right, and should continually strive to find the best means, to select candidates who will likely benefit themselves and the institution.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with legacy admissions is that they tend to be rather overblown: first, the proportion of each class with legacies is quite small, and second, from my experience as an alumni interviewer, these candidates would also get into another similarly highly selective college. But this is where legacies might, in fact, help. I was *not* a legacy at my alma mater, but my best friend's father was, and every time he came up to visit, we would hear stories about the place. It was cultural transmission in its finest, and alumni stood athwart and yelled stop while the college administration tried repeatedly to make this small undergraduate institution more like its larger peers.
ReplyDelete@10:39 Yes, the US-Newsification of colleges, in which they're all ranked in chronological order by the exact same criteria, creates a set of perverse incentives for administrators and devalues what makes different schools unique and special.
DeleteNew England is dotted with cautionary examples of colleges that shed their unique identities - sometimes regional, sometimes religious - and then withered. Why drive several hours into the mountains or woods to go to a little college that can't explain why it's any different from the local UMass/SUNY/CSCU branch at a much lower price? Over the last few decades, hundreds of thousands of students have decided that doesn't make any sense.
Trying to be all things to all people is the road to institutional ruin.
Legacies are interesting for schools. If you think about the days before the GI Bill, schools were smaller. Few people went to college. Admitting legacies was easy. Post GI Bill, Colleges grew—meaning more legacies. Now we have 2-3 maybe even 4 generations of legacies. It’s hard to argue that a leg up even makes sense for these more privileged kids but the numbers make managing expectations difficult.
ReplyDelete