SINCE the beginning of this month, Texas A&M University has been embroiled in a controversy over its practice of "legacy" admissions, an admissions criterion that favors applicants if they have a blood relative who attended the university. The uproar began over race-based issues, in that legacy status favored Caucasian prospective students over minority applicants. Although minority legacy students were also awarded additional admissions consideration, there are statistically fewer minority alumni. Texas A&M decided on Jan. 9 to end its legacy program ("A&M's president Gates ends Aggies' legacy program," HoustonChronicle.com, Jan. 9). Although this decision was preempted and mainly motivated by race-based pressure, the impetus for this decision should have come primarily from the university's desire to maintain a solely merit-based admissions system. Other universities, especially public ones, should consider dropping their admissions policies favoring legacy applicants.
The Texas A&M legacy admissions system awarded four points on a 100 point admission scale for applicants who had a parent, grandparent or sibling who had attended the university. There were roughly 1,650 to 2,000 applicants an year who are awarded these legacy points. It is estimated that the "legacy program was the difference for six blacks and 27 Hispanics in 2003, and three blacks and 25 Hispanics in 2002... But in 2003, 312 whites were admitted who wouldn't have been without their alumni ties. In 2002, that figure was 321" ("Legislators slam A&M over legacy admissions," HoustonChronicle.com, Jan. 3).
In response, Texas A&M's acting assistant provost for enrollment Frank Ashley claimed that "[He] wish[ed] [he] had the numbers for how many applicants with legacy points don't get in. There are roughly as many of them." Although these both sides can offer sizable numbers of students who were either admitted or not based on legacy issues, the more prominent complaint should be that legacy was a deciding factor at all. There is no way that a system awarding points towards admission based solely on ones blood relations can be fair or worthy of merit, and because of that, Texas A&M should have discarded this admissions policy regardless of the effects it had on minority admittance.
Here at the University, legacy standing does play a part in admissions. According to Dean of Admissions John Blackburn legacy, applicants from out-of-state are considered as in-state. For in-state prospective students, legacy status is also taken into consideration as part of the application. Admittance rates from legacy in-state students are slightly higher than non-legacy students by 3 to 4 percent. Dean Blackburn stated, however, that whether an applicant is a legacy or not, the selectivity for the University is at the same level.
It is understandable why a university would want to make legacy status a part of its admissions criteria. Even though such programs were begun as a sort of "grandfather clause" in attempts to limit the admittance of Jews and minority students to universities, admitting legacy students does have its benefits ("Legislators slam A&M over legacy admissions," HoustonChronicle.com, Jan. 3). First and foremost, it increases the possibility that the blood relative of the student who was admitted will donate to the university. Also, it is good word of mouth publicity and speaks highly for a university to have members of an alumnus' family who want to attend the university based on the recommendation or tradition set by his older relatives. Although a university may benefit by these aspects of maintaining legacy admissions, it should be worth the damage to a university's fair recruiting practices.
Regardless of what the reason or the benefits of having legacy admissions may be, institutions across the nation should consider discarding them. They are simply a completely non-merit based criterion in admissions of students that a university claims are being recruited on their academic, personal, and test-proven aptitude.
Public universities in particular should consider discarding any sort of legacy criteria they may include in their student selection process. Although it may not be fair, a private university is owned by itself or by its trustees and receives its income from its own means. Ultimately, this provides them the liberty to make their own decisions no matter how controversial they may be. Public institutions on the other hand gain a percentage of their income from taxes which are paid by citizens whose children deserve a fair shot at getting into the institutions that their parents' tax dollars are supporting. For many students, in-state institutions are their only affordable option to gain a college education. Ultimately, to the inherent exclusivity and unfairness involved, legacy admissions policies should be discontinued in all public universities, and should be considered for removal by the boards of private universities as well.
(Alex Rosemblat's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at arosemblat@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Signing off from the 135th term
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAt the end of our term, we thought it fitting to share with you which of our 28 editorials have been our favorites.
WILLIAMS: From deepfakes to ChatGPT, AI can ruin us
By Ryan Williams | 5 days agoIt is crucial for us to reevaluate our personal reliance on AI and begin understanding how it acts as a problematic shortcut.
ELJAZZAR: Advising changes are a step toward student success
By Farah Eljazzar | December 10, 2024With the long history of student complaints regarding advising in the College, it is commendable that the University administration is committed to responding to student concerns and prioritizing student academic well-being.
