One might think that America’s best universities would be intent on recruiting the top minds in the nation, but that’s often not the case. Instead, many highly-ranked private schools provide special preferences for anything but stellar academics. Brace yourselves: If you want a place at one of America’s elite universities, the answer may not be to study hard and get good grades, but rather to be born into the right circumstances – i.e., to be of the right race, religion, socioeconomic background, legacy status, or athletic ability.
Affirmative action – or just plain racism?
Not long ago, Harvard was charged with ethnic discrimination against Asian applicants. The following article discusses this issue at great length and suggests that the accusation is indeed well-founded. It additionally reveals a pattern of discrimination against gentile whites (Euro-Americans), as well as arbitrary favoritism toward Jewish students. Harvard employs an affirmative-action program to ensure that it has an abundance of ethnic minorities, but in the process knocks out some of its would-be best and brightest. How good can America’s top-rated university be if it’s not even meritocratic?
The Myth of American Meritocracy: How corrupt are Ivy League admissions?
Here’s another article in the same vein:
Asian-American Claims Harvard, Princeton Denied Admission Based On Race
Helping the downtrodden – but at what cost?
Take these Ivy League admission statistics. At Brown, for example, “17% of the admitted students are the first generation in their families to attend college.” While I’m all for rags to riches, I struggle to believe that a sixth of Brown’s top applicants would be without a single college-educated ancestor. And while I’m not opposed in the slightest to providing impoverished or poorly educated people with Ivy League opportunities, the reality is that there are only so many open spaces each year, so we have to ask what’s best for society as a whole. Does it make sense to exclude a top-notch student with a solid academic track record and clear potential, just so a student with little to no family history of academic success can have a crack at an elite education? In my view, this is downright idiotic, and reveals how disconnected our top private schools are from the general society.
Legacies and entitlements
Then there’s the preference for legacy applicants – that is, students whose parents and/or grandparents attended the same university. One article, entitled “Affirmative Action for the Rich,” highlights the massive advantage conferred upon such students: “Ivy League and other top schools typically admit legacies at two to five times their overall rate. As overall admission rates have declined, the power of legacy preference at some elite institutions has increased substantially. For instance, Princeton admitted 41.7 percent of legacy applicants in 2009 — more than 4.5 times the 9.2 percent rate of nonlegacies.” Similarly, this article states that at Yale, “in recent years legacies have been admitted at about three times the rate of non-legacies” While it makes good financial sense for universities to recruit legacy students, as they are statistically more likely to donate than their non-legacy counterparts, it nonetheless reflects that these supposedly “world-class” institutions are focused on something other than the individual merit of each applicant.
Curing cancer, or batting a ball?
Take a look at this article, which states: “At Ivy League schools, sports candidates are four times more likely than other applicants to be accepted, according to Reclaiming the Game: College Sports and Educational Values, a book co-authored by William G. Bowen, a past president of Princeton University. Robert Malekoff, a former associate athletic director at Harvard University and past women’s soccer coach at Princeton, concurs.”
While such a preference wouldn’t be much of a surprise at an average school, it’s shocking to think that some very bright students could be losing valuable academic opportunities so that more mediocre minds can throw, bounce, kick, or bat a ball. While I am in full support of promoting athletic achievement, it shouldn’t take precedence over academics. And given that space is quite limited at our top universities, what does it say about the priorities of these schools when they favor students who excel in sports, but usually don’t get on very well in the classroom?
The Ivy Lie 
While there are plenty of reasons to not attend an Ivy, the argument here is a bit faulty. On one hand, you state that the academic focus is harmed by the increased chance of admission by being in the first generation attending college, whereas on the other, you state that it is harmed by legacy status. While I don’t disagree that they could be argued as irrelevant for admission, they are different ends of the same spectrum. No one can be a first generation and have legacy status.
“Does it make sense to exclude a top-notch student with a solid academic track record and clear potential, just so a student with little to no family history of academic success can have a crack at an elite education?”
Ok, let’s say no, but then, the other candidate that has an automatic family history of academic success (legacy), therefore should be admitted? The complaints are conflicting.
(Personally, I agree that the legacy system is very flawed, but if that’s the case then, it seems silly to also attack the first generation admission boost as well. At then end of the day though, a bit of that legacy money does go toward financial aid and research facilities, so in the end, I think it’s dumb but some of the ends justify the means.)
A school’s faulty admission procedures, doesn’t mean they are necessarily not focused on academics once the student has already been admitted. Pretty much all of the applicants including those rejected are intellectually capable of attending these schools (I really didn’t think anything was very difficult to pass through my time at an Ivy), so they pick qualities that while not necessarily perfect, help distinguish the candidates. I’d agree that admissions is not perfect, far from it, it is very flawed, but there are simply more qualified candidates than spots available, and some arbitrary, unjust qualities are definitely considered.
If my background is wanted, here’s my honest story: I was admitted to Penn as a transfer student into the sophomore class. I was rejected out of high school. I’m of East Asian descent. My sister went to Penn for medical school, so I most likely had legacy admission status, and quite frankly, she is probably the reason I got in. I’ll be the first person to admit that. Again, I personally agree that there are many reasons not to attend an Ivy, but the ones listed here regarding admission don’t add up to the university not focusing on academics.
That being said, I do like other posts in your blog, Clayton.
Thanks for writing, and apologies for the belated response. To respond to a few of your comments:
“Ok, let’s say no, but then, the other candidate that has an automatic family history of academic success (legacy), therefore should be admitted? The complaints are conflicting.”
What I was driving at is simply that I disagree with any form of quota or favoritism toward students if it threatens to eliminate high-caliber students in favor of less capable applicants. I think this applies to preferences both for legacies as well as first-generation college attendees. And I don’t think that legacy status necessarily implies a history of success; actually, all it indicates is that a person’s parent or grandparent managed to gain admission and graduate. It really says nothing about the student applying – his father might’ve been a straight-A student, but if the applicant is a slacker with lousy grades, there’s no reason he deserves a preference over any other applicant. As for first-generation college grads, I don’t think it’s fair to assume that if they have low test scores, poor grades, etc. that it’s because no one else in that student’s family went to college. Consequently, again I don’t think it makes sense to play favorites in this case. Each and every student should be considered purely on individual merit, and primarily academic merit at that.
“At then end of the day though, a bit of that legacy money does go toward financial aid and research facilities, so in the end, I think it’s dumb but some of the ends justify the means.”
I totally agree. It certainly appears that the main motivation for legacy admissions is financial in nature, and from that perspective it makes good sense, but I still disagree with the principle of it.
“A school’s faulty admission procedures, doesn’t mean they are necessarily not focused on academics once the student has already been admitted.”
At face value, this is true, but what does it say about the values of a university which admits a lot of students who don’t necessarily demonstrate that much intellectual potential? Then again, there could be a disconnect between the attitudes of admissions committee and the rest of the university, so in that sense, you do have a point. I think I’m going to rename the title of this post.
“Pretty much all of the applicants including those rejected are intellectually capable of attending these schools”
I would tend to disagree with this statement. My observation at Duke, particularly of the athletes, was that many of them were quite poor academically, and I heard some admit that their coaches had encouraged them to choose an easy major such as sociology to ensure that they would graduate and not flunk out. It seems like most of the Ivies aren’t famous for their sports teams, so I’m guessing the preference for athleticism is weaker there than that some other schools (including Duke), but in my opinion, that’s the way it should be at an academically elite university.
Your argument against affirmative action assumes that a student who is poor, has no college-educated family members, or comes from a less elite high school is somehow automatically less qualified than one whose background has none of those characteristics. It assumes that less privileged students are admitted on the basis of affirmative action alone. I’m not sure how many times it needs to be reiterated that the beneficiaries of affirmative action are admitted based on just as wide an array of qualifications as any other student. They are not more likely to be admitted than “better” candidates simply because of their less privileged status alone.
No, I don’t assume that every affirmative-action student is unqualified – rather, that most are less qualified than their non-AA counterparts.
“They are not more likely to be admitted than “better” candidates simply because of their less privileged status alone.” Sorry, but no. That’s precisely the idea of AA: to admit students who are underprivileged or underrepresented (ethnically, religiously, or otherwise) who would not have gotten in if judged by normal standards.
If they don’t fit that bill, i.e. if they would have been admitted irrespective of ethnocultural or socioeconomic status or other special categories (athletics, etc.), then they aren’t affirmative action students – they’re in the other pool, that is, the regular applicants.