The Chronicle of Higher Education
January 5, 2011
By Elyse Ashburn
Family connections help you get into college. And a new paper suggests that at highly selective colleges, they may count even more than was previously thought.
A researcher at Harvard University recently examined the impact of legacy status at 30 highly selective colleges and concluded that, all other things being equal, legacy applicants got a 23.3-percentage-point increase in their probability of admission. If the applicants' connection was a parent who attended the college as an undergraduate, a "primary legacy," the increase was 45.1-percentage points.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/article/Legacys-Advantage-May-Be/125812/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Showing posts with label legacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legacy. Show all posts
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Monday, August 4, 2008
Legacy Admits: More Money, Lower Scores
Inside Higher Ed
Aug. 4
Legacy Admits: More Money, Lower Scores
Every year or so, someone takes on the idea of legacy admissions preferences — the advantages some colleges give to applicants who are the children of alumni. John Edwards talked about it when he was a senator. A scathing book in 2006, The Price of Admission, included legacy admissions among a series of practices used at elite colleges to favor the wealthy. When these attacks come, colleges defend legacy admissions in part by arguing that the significantly higher than average admit rates for alumni children don’t suggest unfairness. The argument goes like this: Children of alumni are more likely to have gone to good high schools, to have been encouraged to study hard, and to have been taught at home the value of higher education — so they are likely winning admission largely on their own merits, with maybe just a little tip among relatively equal applicants.
Research released Sunday at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association casts doubt on some of those claims, while drawing attention to the wealth advantages and lack of diversity among legacy admits at one elite institution, Duke University. The claim that alumni children compare favorably to the applicant pool as a whole and thus are admitted largely on their merits isn’t challenged directly. Rather the study compares legacy admits to groups to which they are more similar: other applicants whose parents have gone to college. Among this group, alumni children don’t fare as well, and those in the study entered Duke with lower academic qualifications and didn’t do as well their freshman year (although they recover well from their slightly lower first year grades).
The study was prepared by Nathan D. Martin, a graduate student at Duke, and Kenneth I. Spenner, a professor of sociology there. They obtained information on two recent cohorts of Duke students, with data on various demographic characteristics and academic performance. While the data come from only one institution, the authors note that Duke shares characteristics with other elite colleges in the competitiveness of undergraduate admissions, the loyalty of alumni, and the use of legacy admissions preferences.
Several of the findings back the contention of critics of legacy admissions that the preferences act against diversity and in favor of wealth. Compared to other students who enroll at Duke, legacies are more likely to be white, Protestant and U.S. citizens, as well as having attended private schools. In terms of wealth, legacies are “considerably more affluent” than students whose parents don’t have college degrees and also wealthier than those with parents who went to colleges other than Duke. Specifically, the pre-college household income of legacy students is about $240,000 a year — which the study finds is triple that of students whose parents didn’t earn a college degree and 44 percent higher than the average student whose parents attended college. Being black is associated with an 80 percent decrease in the odds of being a legacy student, the study finds, while being Roman Catholic or Jewish is associated with a 72 percent decrease.
While the study finds that legacy students and others with college parents come from advantaged backgrounds, in which cultural and educational activities were common, legacy averages on measures of academic performance suggest that they are less well prepared than other students whose parents went to college. For example, the average SAT score for legacies is 40 points lower than students with parents who have professional degrees and 12 points lower than students whose parents have college degrees. About 44 percent of legacy students — compared to 32 percent of students whose parents have professional degrees — are below SAT averages for the class in which they were admitted. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/08/04/legacy ]
AAAA Comment: Where’s the Ire?
Underneath the Inside Higher Ed article were only two comments (as of 9:28 am, 8/4/08) when a similar piece written about race-based affirrmative action would have had many. Where is the righteous indignation about this ancient preference program? Where are the expressions of unfairness and discrimination? Where are the victims whose places were taken by these undeserving students who are using their parent’s connections to gain them an unfair advantage at selective colleges and universities? Where are the words “quotas"? Where is the bile? If the words racial or gender preferences had been used instead, there would be a long run of comments about how discriminatory these preferences were. The silence is deafening....It is clear that affirmative action that benefits the wealthy and advantaged is acceptable; affirmative action to benefit the victims of this nation’s race-based history and economy is not. -- SJW
Aug. 4
Legacy Admits: More Money, Lower Scores
Every year or so, someone takes on the idea of legacy admissions preferences — the advantages some colleges give to applicants who are the children of alumni. John Edwards talked about it when he was a senator. A scathing book in 2006, The Price of Admission, included legacy admissions among a series of practices used at elite colleges to favor the wealthy. When these attacks come, colleges defend legacy admissions in part by arguing that the significantly higher than average admit rates for alumni children don’t suggest unfairness. The argument goes like this: Children of alumni are more likely to have gone to good high schools, to have been encouraged to study hard, and to have been taught at home the value of higher education — so they are likely winning admission largely on their own merits, with maybe just a little tip among relatively equal applicants.
Research released Sunday at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association casts doubt on some of those claims, while drawing attention to the wealth advantages and lack of diversity among legacy admits at one elite institution, Duke University. The claim that alumni children compare favorably to the applicant pool as a whole and thus are admitted largely on their merits isn’t challenged directly. Rather the study compares legacy admits to groups to which they are more similar: other applicants whose parents have gone to college. Among this group, alumni children don’t fare as well, and those in the study entered Duke with lower academic qualifications and didn’t do as well their freshman year (although they recover well from their slightly lower first year grades).
The study was prepared by Nathan D. Martin, a graduate student at Duke, and Kenneth I. Spenner, a professor of sociology there. They obtained information on two recent cohorts of Duke students, with data on various demographic characteristics and academic performance. While the data come from only one institution, the authors note that Duke shares characteristics with other elite colleges in the competitiveness of undergraduate admissions, the loyalty of alumni, and the use of legacy admissions preferences.
Several of the findings back the contention of critics of legacy admissions that the preferences act against diversity and in favor of wealth. Compared to other students who enroll at Duke, legacies are more likely to be white, Protestant and U.S. citizens, as well as having attended private schools. In terms of wealth, legacies are “considerably more affluent” than students whose parents don’t have college degrees and also wealthier than those with parents who went to colleges other than Duke. Specifically, the pre-college household income of legacy students is about $240,000 a year — which the study finds is triple that of students whose parents didn’t earn a college degree and 44 percent higher than the average student whose parents attended college. Being black is associated with an 80 percent decrease in the odds of being a legacy student, the study finds, while being Roman Catholic or Jewish is associated with a 72 percent decrease.
While the study finds that legacy students and others with college parents come from advantaged backgrounds, in which cultural and educational activities were common, legacy averages on measures of academic performance suggest that they are less well prepared than other students whose parents went to college. For example, the average SAT score for legacies is 40 points lower than students with parents who have professional degrees and 12 points lower than students whose parents have college degrees. About 44 percent of legacy students — compared to 32 percent of students whose parents have professional degrees — are below SAT averages for the class in which they were admitted. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/08/04/legacy ]
AAAA Comment: Where’s the Ire?
Underneath the Inside Higher Ed article were only two comments (as of 9:28 am, 8/4/08) when a similar piece written about race-based affirrmative action would have had many. Where is the righteous indignation about this ancient preference program? Where are the expressions of unfairness and discrimination? Where are the victims whose places were taken by these undeserving students who are using their parent’s connections to gain them an unfair advantage at selective colleges and universities? Where are the words “quotas"? Where is the bile? If the words racial or gender preferences had been used instead, there would be a long run of comments about how discriminatory these preferences were. The silence is deafening....It is clear that affirmative action that benefits the wealthy and advantaged is acceptable; affirmative action to benefit the victims of this nation’s race-based history and economy is not. -- SJW
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Perspectives: A “Legacy” of Racial Injustice in American Higher Education
Diverse Online
Current NewsPerspectives: A “Legacy” of Racial Injustice in American Higher Education
By Marybeth Gasman & Julie Vultaggio
Jan 22, 2008, 08:59
It’s admissions time again — this month admissions staff at the nation’s elite institutions are cooped up for days, scrutinizing hundreds of college applications. It’s also legacy time again….
Yale has the Bushes, Basses and Whitneys. Harvard has the Astors, Roosevelts and Kennedys. Throughout the history of American higher education, the nation’s most prestigious colleges and universities have employed legacy policies that preference the children of privileged alumni. In fact, during the early 1900s, prominent graduates of the colonial colleges, fearing that their sons would be displaced in admissions processes, forced the hand of college administrators in myriad ways, such as threatening to withhold donations and using their connections with university higher ups to pull strings. Conversely, according to Dr. Marcia Synnott, the “demand of upwardly mobile sons of Jewish and Catholic immigrants” for admission to the nation’s elite institutions initiated “an institutional crisis, involving not only existing limitations of classroom space and campus housing, but also questions of educational purpose — of whom to educate and why.”
In the 1960s, as pressure toward racial integration intensified, acceptance rates rapidly increased for children of alumni — in some cases, to as much as three times higher than that of the past (Duffy & Goldberg, 1998). Given resistance on the part of historically White institutions to enrolling Black students during the civil rights era, legacy policies may have furnished an excuse to reject racial minorities without resorting to the quotas that had been used to exclude Jews and Catholics earlier in the century (Gasman, 2007; Thelin, 2004). As a result, Synnott writes, colleges became “citadels of Anglo-Saxon culture” and developed extensive legacy policies that continue to be used today. The primary consequence, however, lies in the exclusion of groups whose parents did not attend elite institutions of higher education.
First and foremost, it is important to acknowledge the benefits that institutions gain from legacy admissions. Preferential treatment given to legacies keeps alumni happy, has the potential to increase giving, and can strengthen the existing institutional culture. Generally speaking, most colleges and universities aim to have satisfied, generous graduates. However, as Dr. Jerome Karabel argues in his 2005 book The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale and Princeton, advocating for legacy preferences with the goal of increasing alumni donations is becoming less persuasive as endowments soar over $20 billion. Likewise, while many colleges and universities long for an institutional culture rooted in history and tradition, when that culture is built on a tradition of exclusion, perhaps it should be changed. This quote from Synnott (1979) illustrates the issue:
Knowing precisely what they wanted, the prep school crowd created collegiate life. For the most part, they shunned honor grades in order to devote themselves to extracurricular activities: editorships, managerships, and athletic competitions. And not only were they paying customers, but they could usually be counted on to contribute generously both their time and money to alumni activities and fund-raising campaigns (the expectation of future support was less certain from students from lower income families).
Because legacy admits are typically wealthy, White, fourth-generation college students, they offer very little to colleges and universities in terms of racial and ethnic diversity. In fact, over 90 percent of legacy admits are White Protestants, especially at highly-selective institutions (Duffy & Goldberg, 1998; Golden, 2006; Howell & Turner, 2004; Larew, 1991). Thus, legacy admits ultimately reinforce the “high-income/high-education/white profile” (Bowen et al. 2005) of elite institutions and systematically reproduce a culture of racial and economic privilege.
[To read the entire article, go to: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_10519.shtml]
Current NewsPerspectives: A “Legacy” of Racial Injustice in American Higher Education
By Marybeth Gasman & Julie Vultaggio
Jan 22, 2008, 08:59
It’s admissions time again — this month admissions staff at the nation’s elite institutions are cooped up for days, scrutinizing hundreds of college applications. It’s also legacy time again….
Yale has the Bushes, Basses and Whitneys. Harvard has the Astors, Roosevelts and Kennedys. Throughout the history of American higher education, the nation’s most prestigious colleges and universities have employed legacy policies that preference the children of privileged alumni. In fact, during the early 1900s, prominent graduates of the colonial colleges, fearing that their sons would be displaced in admissions processes, forced the hand of college administrators in myriad ways, such as threatening to withhold donations and using their connections with university higher ups to pull strings. Conversely, according to Dr. Marcia Synnott, the “demand of upwardly mobile sons of Jewish and Catholic immigrants” for admission to the nation’s elite institutions initiated “an institutional crisis, involving not only existing limitations of classroom space and campus housing, but also questions of educational purpose — of whom to educate and why.”
In the 1960s, as pressure toward racial integration intensified, acceptance rates rapidly increased for children of alumni — in some cases, to as much as three times higher than that of the past (Duffy & Goldberg, 1998). Given resistance on the part of historically White institutions to enrolling Black students during the civil rights era, legacy policies may have furnished an excuse to reject racial minorities without resorting to the quotas that had been used to exclude Jews and Catholics earlier in the century (Gasman, 2007; Thelin, 2004). As a result, Synnott writes, colleges became “citadels of Anglo-Saxon culture” and developed extensive legacy policies that continue to be used today. The primary consequence, however, lies in the exclusion of groups whose parents did not attend elite institutions of higher education.
First and foremost, it is important to acknowledge the benefits that institutions gain from legacy admissions. Preferential treatment given to legacies keeps alumni happy, has the potential to increase giving, and can strengthen the existing institutional culture. Generally speaking, most colleges and universities aim to have satisfied, generous graduates. However, as Dr. Jerome Karabel argues in his 2005 book The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale and Princeton, advocating for legacy preferences with the goal of increasing alumni donations is becoming less persuasive as endowments soar over $20 billion. Likewise, while many colleges and universities long for an institutional culture rooted in history and tradition, when that culture is built on a tradition of exclusion, perhaps it should be changed. This quote from Synnott (1979) illustrates the issue:
Knowing precisely what they wanted, the prep school crowd created collegiate life. For the most part, they shunned honor grades in order to devote themselves to extracurricular activities: editorships, managerships, and athletic competitions. And not only were they paying customers, but they could usually be counted on to contribute generously both their time and money to alumni activities and fund-raising campaigns (the expectation of future support was less certain from students from lower income families).
Because legacy admits are typically wealthy, White, fourth-generation college students, they offer very little to colleges and universities in terms of racial and ethnic diversity. In fact, over 90 percent of legacy admits are White Protestants, especially at highly-selective institutions (Duffy & Goldberg, 1998; Golden, 2006; Howell & Turner, 2004; Larew, 1991). Thus, legacy admits ultimately reinforce the “high-income/high-education/white profile” (Bowen et al. 2005) of elite institutions and systematically reproduce a culture of racial and economic privilege.
[To read the entire article, go to: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_10519.shtml]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)