This year in class I will sit next to students the University admitted, in part, because of what their dads did. Their last names were considered with academic achievement and intellectual capability. Their admission into this university -- the policy of legacy preference -- erodes the meritocracy society is supposed to be, decreases the quality of incoming classes and reeks of injustice.
The 2004 Application for Undergraduate Admission requests the colleges attended by every applicant's parents and siblings. Out-of-state applicants whose parents attended the University are considered as in-state students, and Virginian legacies receive an edge, more so if their parents are substantial donors.
Money is speaking here. True, the University adopts this policy to encourage alumni to donate more money in hopes their contributions will bolster their child's admittance chances. Alumni contributions are an important source of funding, though the University should stop stooping ethically to allow money to corrupt a merit-based system of admission. Donors should know that without money influencing admission decisions, their money goes to improving a university with an even brighter student body. The non-pecuniary principle of a true meritocracy should be valued more than the lust for cash.
Pedigree, crucial for the functioning of an antiquated and hierarchical society, is currently important whenever someone fills out an application. It resembles a society where only select families receive the privilege of a college education. Those without a certain birth are destined to the lot of their parents. Say that out of the 19,197 current students, 16,000 of them have two children. In thirty years, 32,000 children in this country can receive priority admission into the University. That is the mark of a closed society that has pulled up the ladder once known as the American Dream.
The ethos of social mobility faces an opponent in the legacy policy, where money sometimes edges out merit.
The United States declared independence because it wanted to break from European feudalism where the parents' status determined the fate of their children. Irrespective of who they were, the United States is supposed to be a place where sweaty ambition can triumph. The sweat of parents should not matter in this nation.
This policy has an inherent (albeit unintentional) bias to undeservedly assist the children of older, white males get into the University. The admissions office denied females and minorities admission until 1970. As a result, the children of single mothers, adopted children, those with unknown fathers, legal immigrants, those with non-Virginian parents, international students and historically undereducated groups find themselves at an immediate disadvantage. Their bloodlines are deficient.
If a company hired its new workers because their parents' or siblings once worked there, this company would not be hiring as talented of a work force than if it was done on pure merit. Inevitably, a competing company would surpass the former because of more qualified workers. Universities are no different. Cronyism breeds sickness.
While hurting socioeconomic diversity, this admissions policy does not put the best possible students in Cabell Hall. Thinking capacity is forever more important than ancestry. A political theory discussion would be much more engaging with students from diverse backgrounds -- not just students whose parents are college graduates.
Cornell University admitted my application, which noted that my grandpa was a Cornell alumnus. I came to regret denoting this. A university should admit me based purely on my own achievements, not those earned by someone else. I thought of another, anonymous applicant whose parents did not attend college but perhaps was more qualified than me. He sat at home sulking, beside his rejection letter. A rejection that Cornell's lust for money and my complicity gave him.
The Admissions Office here at the University needs to deafen the voice of money. Courage will be needed for Dean Blackburn and the University leadership to drop the legacy consideration. Their decision will be easier by knowing that they will take the moral high ground by doing so. In light of the budget crisis, this may seem untenable now, but one day it seemed equally unlikely that the University would ever admit female or minority students -- other exogenous factors. Here, and across this alleged land of opportunities, universities should seek other funding sources that do not rely on what amounts to legalized bribery.
Self-earned merits for admission must be the only merits that matter. As Joshua Chamberlain stated at Gettysburg as the reason to fight for the United States: "Here we judge you by what you do-- not what your father did." Those ideals are being betrayed today.
(Brandon Possin's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at bpossin@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 2 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
