forbes.com
Legacy Admissions Decline Amidst Growing Scrutiny
A new report from Education Reform Now reveals that legacy admissions are declining sharply, with only 24% of four-year colleges considering it in 2025, down from 49% in 2015; five states have banned the practice, and public and expert disapproval is widespread.
- What are the key factors contributing to the decline of legacy admissions in US colleges and universities?
- The use of legacy admissions in higher education is facing increasing scrutiny, with a 2022 Pew Research Center survey revealing that 75% of Americans oppose considering legacy status in admissions. This sentiment is echoed by 88% of admissions directors and 58.4% of Brown University students. Consequently, legacy admissions are declining; only 24% of four-year colleges now consider it, down from 49% in 2015.
- How do the findings on the relationship between legacy admissions and donations challenge the arguments in favor of the practice?
- The decline in legacy admissions is driven by several factors: growing public disapproval, legal challenges like the Supreme Court's decision ending affirmative action, and legislative action in five states banning the practice. Studies refute claims that legacy admissions increase donations, further weakening the practice's justification. This is linked to a broader push for equitable college admissions.
- What potential future legislative or policy changes could further impact the use of legacy admissions, and how might this affect college applicants?
- The future of legacy admissions appears uncertain. While Ivy League universities remain resistant, increased legislative action, such as the potential for expanded endowment taxes penalizing legacy preferences, may force their hand. Students should not rely on legacy status for admission, focusing instead on building strong, independent applications.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the debate around legacy admissions predominantly through the lens of critics. While it mentions arguments in favor of legacy admissions, the overall tone and emphasis strongly suggest that the practice is fundamentally unfair and should be abolished. The headline (if there was one) and introduction likely emphasized the negative aspects of legacy admissions, setting the stage for a largely critical narrative.
Language Bias
The article uses some loaded language, such as describing legacy admissions as "inherently unfair" and "systemic advantages." While these terms reflect the prevailing criticism, more neutral language could offer a more balanced perspective. For instance, instead of "inherently unfair," the article could use "contested" or "criticized." Similarly, instead of "systemic advantages," a more neutral phrasing such as "existing advantages" or "preferential treatment" could be used.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the criticisms of legacy admissions and the actions taken against it, but it could benefit from including perspectives from universities that strongly defend the practice. While it mentions the arguments of these universities, a more in-depth exploration of their reasoning and counterarguments would provide a more balanced view. Additionally, the article doesn't explore potential unintended consequences of eliminating legacy admissions, such as impacts on fundraising or the potential for a shift in the overall student body demographics.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic eitheor framing of the issue. It portrays legacy admissions as either inherently unfair and needing elimination or as a necessary practice for fundraising. The nuances of the debate, including potential compromises or alternative solutions, are largely absent. This limits a more complete understanding of the complexity of the issue.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses the decline of legacy admissions in higher education, a practice that disproportionately benefits affluent students with family ties to the institution. Eliminating legacy preferences promotes fairer access to higher education, reducing inequalities based on socioeconomic status and family background. The increasing legislative actions and public disapproval further support this positive impact on reducing inequality in access to higher education.