A parallel question is now being posed to admissions officers in regard to the policy of admitting “legacies.” These “tips,” as they are called, are used by elite schools to encourage alumni loyalty and assist in raising funds. Even if such legacies were banned or discouraged due to outside pressures and attention, colleges will still be able to find ways to identify relatives of alumni or donors through essays, interviews, letters and recommendations.
Legacy students might be more likely to write an essay that mentions specific aspects of a school’s history or campus traditions. They might be less likely to use the Common Application and more able to write a school-specific essay. They might also be more likely to visit in person and mention that they have parents who attended.
Legacies made up 15% of the 2019 Harvard class. If Harvard eliminated preferences based on race and legacy and for children of donors, faculty and staff, and gave a larger boost to socioeconomically disadvantaged students of all races, legacies would have declined from 15% in the status quo to 4%, according to an expert report filed in the case.
But the campaign against legacy admissions, thought to be an aspect of the push for diversity and against "privilege," cannot be squared with efforts to get rid of standardized tests—since elimination of clear and reliable measures will give admissions officers more wiggle room to select the mix of students they want.
Whatever you want the next freshman class to look like, the only way to ensure accountability on the part of colleges is by insisting on measurable standards of academic performance.
James Piereson is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Naomi Schaefer Riley is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and at the Independent Women’s Forum.