Will the US Eliminate Legacy Admissions?

Image By: The New York Times

In June 2023, the United States Supreme Court made the landmark decision to strike down race-based affirmative action in higher education in the case Students For Fair Admissions vs. Harvard. While debate about the use of race-conscious admissions practices has existed for the last half-century, a different type of affirmative action has sparked newer controversy. Amidst public outcries that legacy admissions practices serve as “affirmative action for the wealthy,” many top institutions are being forced to reckon with a practice that is a critical factor in their admissions processes. 

what are legacy admissions?

Legacy preferences are a practice in university admissions where institutions have a predilection for admitting children of alumni. These practices originated in the 1920s, when admissions officers sought to exclude Jewish students from elite American universities. Not wanting to rely exclusively on exam scores to determine admission, they constructed admissions systems with legacy preferences to keep their student bodies white, Protestant, and wealthy. Universities tried to eliminate the practice in the post World War II era in the spirit of making admissions processes more egalitarian, but were met with intense opposition from alumni. The practice has remained largely unchallenged up until recent years.

According to SFFA vs Harvard, applicants with legacy status are up to eight times more likely to be admitted to elite institutions; for example, between 2014 and 2019, Harvard admitted 33.6% of legacy applicants, as compared to 5.9% for non-legacy students. Wealth is a significant factor in this process, given the fact that legacy applicants whose parents are in the top 1% economic bracket have up to a 40% advantage compared to non-legacy applicants with similar test scores. According to a 2023 study led by Harvard and Brown researchers, of the top 12 universities in the United States, higher admissions rates for wealthy students can be attributed to either legacy status, access to elite extracurriculars, and athletic recruitment. The study found that legacy admissions policies are the largest contributing factor to the overrepresentation of high-income students at highly selective universities, with high-income legacy students being 5x more likely to be admitted than peers with similar qualifications. Notably, applicants that have legacy at one school are no more likely than their peers to gain admission to other elite institutions, demonstrating that they do not have overall stronger applications or credentials. 

These benefits often serve to perpetuate privilege across generations, given that upon graduation, students from schools with legacy preferences disproportionately make up those in professional leadership positions in the United States. While only 1% of Americans attend the country’s top 12 universities, the graduates make up over 10% of Fortune 500 CEOs, a quarter of the Senate, half of Rhodes scholars, and three-quarters of Supreme Court justices over the last century. These schools are clearly a pathway to accessing the American elite; therefore, their admissions practices are of importance to everyone. 

federal involvement

Following the Supreme Court decision, the United States Department of Education opened a civil rights investigation into legacy admissions at Harvard University to determine whether Harvard’s admissions decisions discriminate against Black, Hispanic, and Asian applicants in favor of wealthier white applicants that are less qualified. President Biden has supported this investigation, stating that legacy admissions expand “privilege instead of opportunity.” Separately, senators from both the Democratic party have recently introduced a bill seeking to prohibit federally funded universities from giving preference to children of legacies or donors. The legislation would amend the Higher Education Act by preventing accredited universities from giving preferential treatment to applicants based on their connection to alumni or donors, and is supported by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other prominent organizations. Proponents of the bill believe it is likely to receive more support than it would have in the past, due to a growing number of young, anti-establishment figures in both political parties. However, the bill still lacks Republican co-sponsors and would require more support in order to pass through Congress.

likelihood of elimination

While the Supreme Court cannot take on the legacy admissions issue because it involves private parties and disparate impact claims, the Department of Education has the ability to order universities to alter their admissions practices if they want to keep receiving federal funding. However, arguably every factor considered in the admissions process— standardized testing, personal character, high school prestige— favors some racial groups over others, which was evident in the SFFA vs. Harvard case, meaning it would be difficult for civil-rights regulators to find that legacy admissions specifically have a disparate impact. Additionally, legacy preferences are lawful as long as they are legitimately justified, which universities can do by claiming they foster an intergenerational community, are necessary for fundraising, and that they help protect universities’ yield rate. Ultimately, these legal hurdles mean that for the foreseeable future, universities will likely be able to continue determining their admissions practices at their discretion.