Many colleges give an admission boost to children of previous graduates, called legacy preference. Some have called this practice unfair. What do you think?
What do you think the reasons are behind this practice?
I don't think it is fair. I'm sure the reason is to snag more alumni contributions but that doesn't make it right.
My DD graduated from a top-of-the-line university that has a legacy preference for direct descendants of graduates, in fact currently there are a higher percentage of legacees than ordinary applicants. It pretty well closes the door to applicants who do not have those parental alumni connections. My DGD (DD's niece)with a top SAT score, lots of leadership experience and class Valedictorian, couldn't get into that college and had to "settle" for UNC Chapel Hill. It's hard to compete when the playing field isn't level.
I don't think that legacy preferences are necessarily unfair. A legacy student is more likely to actually accept the admissions offer and show up, less likely to transfer out and likely to have family financial support for their education. In other words, they are a good bet for the school. Schools can end up with major problems if they admit too few (or too many) students to their Freshman class or if too many students accept but then don't actually show up in the Fall. Early admission can also give you the same kind of preferential advantage at some schools.
Also, if you really want to attend a school (particularly if you were waitlisted, but anytime you meet the stated minimum requirements), my dad - a college professor - recommended calling the admissions office the first day of orientation. It would be very likely that fewer students than the school could handle would have shown up and so there would be openings. Of course, financial aid might be difficult at that point.
Julie
Frankly, I don't believe in favoring the kids of alumni, perhaps the siblings, just because it really hurts to get a No from the school who accepted your older sister 2 years earlier.
My son was rejected from my alma mater, despite the statistics saying he was twice as likely to get in as someone without an alumni parent.
I wondered though.... do schools differentiate between large contributing alumni and alumni who contribute little or none? Sounds like they do based on the Yale guy's quote about having rejected more children of some category of alumni donors. So he knew the statistics not just based on alumni, but on big buck alumni versus not. As though Yale really needs any more money in their alumni fund. Seriously?
But just in general -- do you even want, as a student, to think that you got your spot at a very competitive college because of your mom or dad? I don't think so.
You are not alone. College admission legacy preference is a hotly debated issue. Not all colleges use it as part of their admissions decision. The ones that do each give it different weight.
Could you be more specific about what made you think that Yale differentiated between alumni who donate large amounts of money and those who do not? I am not finding anything in the article that would lead me to believe that. Can you point me to the quote?