Kamieniecki
1
Matthew Kamieniecki
Mr. Blackwell
English 104 Section 007
March 15, 2011
Legacy Admissions
Legacy admissions are a debatable topic in today’s society. Many questions arise when
colleges are so called “discriminative” and “segregated”. How is a university supposed to be
fair? When choosing from thousands of students and running through thousands of applications,
what is the correct and fair admission process a university should take? Prestigious universities
seem to have these questions solved. Universities cannot be fair and allow in every student that
applies and at the same time keep their elite status and supremacy in the college ranks. Legacy
admissions are used to keep that reputation, not discriminate. In “Legacy Admissions are
Defensible Because the Process Can’t be Fair” from The Chronicle of Higher Education by
Terry Shepard and Debra Thomas and in “The Social Logic of Ivy League Admissions” from
The New Yorker by Malcolm Gladwell, the advantages of legacy admissions are discussed. The
opposing approach is taken from “Preserve Universities’ Right to Shape Student Community”
from USA Today and from “Study Finds Family Connections Give Big Advantage in College
Admissions” from The New York Times by Tamar Lewin, where they discuss the cons and
disadvantages of legacy admissions. Discrimination, merit and alumni advantages are the ideas
and topics that are most debatable from legacy admissions and where the most controversy
originates.
Discrimination plays a major role in the controversy legacy admissions presents. In a
USA Today article, the university, Texas A&M, is used as an example. The unknown author(s) of
Kamieniecki
2
this article discuss how criticism of legacy admissions was faced. Texas A&M ended legacy
admissions due to the fact that they were accused of keeping legacy admissions after dropping
affirmative action. According to the USA Today article, affirmative action is a key way for
colleges to not be able to discriminate against minorities and by encouraging this process,
universities like Texas A&M are on their way to getting rid of legacy admissions all together.
Merit is another controversial topic that is brought up when discussing legacy
admissions. Terry Shepard and Debra Thomas present a strong argument in that they discuss
how merit cannot be judged in a fair way. According to Shepard and Thomas there is no
difference when colleges choose between thousands of applicants and when people choose
between hundreds of friends. Their argument shows that colleges have to narrow down
thousands of applicants by characteristics that appear to make a discriminative case towards
minorities. Colleges also have to distinguish between students final GPAs and according to
Shepard and Thomas, “Which shows more merit—an A in an easy course or a B in a much
tougher course?” These are questions that prove to make merit an unfair and unfixable way to
allow students into prestigious colleges.
Malcolm Gladwell and Tamar Lewin both discuss alumni contributions to universities
from different point of views. According to Gladwell, legacy admissions connections to alumni
are a positive thing in the college atmosphere. Gladwell states that Ivy League schools use the
treatment-affect idea to show that, generally, students that go to prestigious colleges who have
similar SAT scores as other students who do not attend those universities are more likely to have
a higher salary down the road. On the other hand, Lewin presents the topic that alumni and
family ties present a huge advantage in college admissions and are not fair to non-alumni
students. In a study presented in Lewin’s article, legacy applicants had slightly higher SAT
Kamieniecki
3
scores and have advantages such a family wealth and/or private school education. These
opposing views from Gladwell and Lewin make alumni admissions a highly debatable topic in
the college admissions process.
Discrimination is a tough topic to discuss and it shows in the USA Today article. The
unknown author of this article is only able to give one example of how minorities are
discriminated against in legacy admissions. The article has a very narrow discussion of
affirmative action and the disadvantages of legacy admissions. With minimal information about
discrimination, the article still presents relative information and uses a specific college in their
discussion. With few examples and a narrow description of the major topic, the USA Today
article does not do a particularly good job of presenting the topic in a way to persuade readers to
agree with the presented opinion.
When putting merit and criteria in the same discussion as legacy admissions, it is hard to
be fair and say that college universities are wrong in their process of admissions. Shepard and
Thomas do a wonderful job of using real life examples in their article. By connecting to the
reader’s emotions, they both are able to heavily persuade the audience to agree with their
opinion. Their use of examples covers a wide range of topics including Supreme Court decisions,
Stanford’s Packard family, and SAT statistics from Middlebury College. Shepard and Thomas
seem to have all the pieces put together in their article, however, when discussing the issue they
are heavily one sided in agreeing with the legacy admissions process. They do not give readers a
chance to hear the other side of the argument. With this being said, Shepard and Thomas’s article
is strong emotionally and is so by using specific and relevant topics, but very one sided.
When discussing alumni’s connections to legacy admissions, people’s opinions are going
to be one of two ways: for or against. In both Gladwell and Lewin’s articles, the authors are
Kamieniecki
4
heavily one sided and only discuss their favorable side of the issue. In Gladwell’s article many
statistics are used to prove his side of the argument. Gladwell discusses surveys taken from
elementary schools between 1948 and 1960 and uses Levi Jackson a black football player at Yale
to prove as examples that alumni are a key contribution to legacy admissions and without them,
prestigious colleges would not be where they are today. What is wrong with Gladwell’s
information is that it is very outdated. Unlike Lewin, where she presents relevant information
from today’s era, Gladwell uses old information to persuade his audience. Lewin uses data from
2007 college admissions and relevant studies and interviews to gain audience’s interest in the
issue. With both sides presenting strong arguments on the topic, alumni contributions is still a
highly debated topic on the issue involving legacy admissions.
In all fairness, colleges should never discriminate in any way. However, when
universities allow athletes into their university based on their athletic ability, they are
discriminating against athletes that are not as talented. When they allow in students that are good
at music they discriminate against students that are not as good in the musical field. When it
comes to race, though, there should be no discrimination. When characteristics are beyond a
human being’s control, there is no room for discrimination. Therefore, discrimination is one part
of the legacy admission issue that must have mixed opinions. It is unfair to say that universities
should totally neglect discrimination. By doing so, athletic, musical, and other advanced
programs within the university would not last. By eliminating some university discrimination,
however, minorities are somewhat given a fair chance to attend the colleges they so desire. With
an approach of a balanced opinion towards discrimination, prestigious universities are able to
have a medium in the legacy admissions process.
Kamieniecki
5
One topic in the legacy admission issue that should not have mixed opinions is merit.
There is no fair way universities can distinguish between different students’ academic ability and
it is unfair to colleges to have to make those decisions. Too many stipulations effect students’
final GPAs, essentially the only factor in their college applications. Asking universities to admit
certain students by criteria is too big a task. The general public should not get angry with
universities when they have to say “no” to the 4001st student and yes to the 4000th student. It
should be understood that when dealing with so many applications a year, colleges should have
the right to say no to certain students in order to keep their prestigious reputation.
The alumni aspect of legacy admissions is one topic that is hard to grasp a hold of and
one that is hard to take on a strong opinion. Sure, colleges need to keep funding up and, yes, by
allowing alumni and family tied students into their university they get extra benefits through
contributions, but does that give them the right to reject non-alumni students? Questions such as
these are why the alumni topic should have mixed opinions. Universities, in their mind, need to
allow alumni students into their campus settings so they can put up newer buildings and have
more funding. In the general public’s eyes, this is discouraging and unfair to non-alumni students
who cannot control who they are brought up by and who cannot control where their parents went
to college. Due to these unfair characteristics and the college’s opinion to continue involving
alumni, this part of legacy admissions will always be debatable.
In conclusion, legacy admissions is a highly debatable issue and one that will never seem
to leave university and college discussions. Shepard, Thomas, Gladwell, Lewin, and USA Today
all give different sides of the issue and present different topics involving legacy admissions. The
statistics, data, emotional topics, and relevancy the authors use create chances for readers to
either choose a side of the issue or have mixed emotions towards legacy admissions. Different
Kamieniecki
opinions originated from different ideas are what make the legacy admissions process such a
debatable topic.
6
Kamieniecki
7
Gladwell, Malcolm. “The Social Logic of Ivy League Admissions.” The New Yorker. 10 Oct.
2005. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 16 Feb. 2011.
Lewin, Tamar. “Study Finds Family Connections Give Big Advantage in College Admissions.”
The New York Times. 9 Jan. 2011. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 28 Feb. 2011.
Shepard, Terry, and Debra Thomas. “Legacy Admissions are Defensible Because the Process
Can’t be Fair.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. 14 Mar. 2003. LexisNexis Academic.
Web. 16 Feb. 2011.
“Preserve Universities’ Right to Shape Student Community.” USA Today. 26 Jan. 2004.
LexisNexis Academic. Web. 16 Feb. 2011.