Legacy Admissions—Classist and Classless (2024)

New York is currently considering canceling affirmative action for rich, white people, also known as "legacy admissions."

If the bill passes, New York schools that continue to engage in this racist, classist practice will have to cough up 10 percent of their tuition revenue, which would in turn go toward low-income students through the state's Tuition Assistance Program.

Immediately is not fast enough—we should do this yesterday.

I say this as a college advisor who has helped many students—including many wealthy ones–get into numerous prestigious universities: It's time for this nonsense to stop.

The practice of legacy admissions was initially instituted about a hundred years ago with the goal of keeping my old tribe, the Jewish people, from getting into elite universities. Essentially, it was the antisemitic poll tax of higher education.

Fortunately, the antisemitic goals involved have largely subsided. But that doesn't mean that legacy admissions don't continue to favor white, upper-class elites with special standing. Consider:

—In 2022, legacy students made up 16 percent of early decision applicants at UPenn, yet 25 percent of those granted admission for that round.

—Harvard had a 3.2 percent admissions rate overall in 2022, but for legacies it was 34 percent. For donors it was even higher: 42 percent of their kids got in. (So if dad went there and donated a building, you're in good shape.)

—Generally, about 15 percent of students across the Ivy League are legacy admits.

—A study published by The New York Times last year found that legacy students are four times as likely to get into an elite school as students with the same test scores. If they come from the richest 1 percent of families, they become five times more likely; if they're part of the richest 0.1 percent, they're seven times as likely.

Now, I'm sure that Republicans like Ron DeSantis, who decry DEI as some sort of diabolical plan by liberals to undermine America by seeking out—heavens to Betsy!—diversity—must recognize that legacy admissions are antithetical to a belief in a merit-based society. I'm certain they'll be jumping on this cause any day now.

It's not like Republicans have benefited from legacy admissions in any way. Maybe we can ask their presidential candidate, Dirty Donald (UPenn/Wharton class of '68) about it. Or his son Don Jr. (Wharton class of 2000). Or Ivanka (Wharton, 2004). Or Tiffany (UPenn, 2016).

Or George W. Bush, who surely deserved to go to Yale, just like daddy.

To be fair, Malia Obama enrolled at Harvard in 2017, and it's likely that mom and dad going there (and dad being president) probably didn't hurt.

Malia was actually a rare exception in a way, since the study published in The New York Times also indicated that 70 percent of legacy admits are white. That's unsurprising, of course, when you consider that much of the purpose of legacy admissions is as it always was: to preserve a privileged class and a white hegemonic base.

Now some have argued (rather unconvincingly) that we should preserve legacy admissions because they do a favor for the lower class people admitted into elite universities by allowing them to fraternize and network with those from upper class families. They claim that legacy admissions policies do not keep lower class applicants out, since the upper-class applicants somehow aren't actually competing with them. This is, of course, ridiculous on the surface, and even more ridiculous when you dive down below the surface too.

Universities have a limited number of seats available. If you're giving preference to legacy admits, you're naturally closing other people out. Also, the notion that you're providing access to the wealthy and well-connected is itself preposterous. It presumes, first off, that you wouldn't get plenty of wealthy and well-connected students at these elite schools without legacy admission policies, and, obviously, you still would.

In fact, the wealthy make up an enormously disproportionate amount of the students at elite colleges to begin with: At five Ivy League schools—Dartmouth, Princeton, Yale, UPenn, and Brown—more students come from the top 1 percent than the bottom 60 percent. I'd say that makes them pretty upper class heavy, wouldn't you? Across the nation, the more elite a university is, the more you can expect it to be dominated by the upper class.

This false, pro-legacy argument also ignores the fact that students benefit more from going to school with other smart, talented students who may go on to found creative new ventures, or rise in society due to their actual abilities, rather than due simply to who they know.

Some also argue legacy admissions create a stronger sense of community. Equally bonkers. A strong sense of community is created because all the students who are there want to be there and deserve to be there, not because some had to fight hard to get there and others were delivered there in a golden chariot.

We already have enough nepotism in our society. New York should pass this law and other states should follow suit. Or maybe file suit. Either way is fine.

Ross Rosenfeld is a political writer and educator based on Long Island. Follow Ross on Substack.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.