Legacy preference in college admissions benefits wealthy white applicants over others. It allows the children of alumni to gain admission based on their ancestry rather than individual merit. This favors those of higher economic status and restricts opportunities for lower-income and minority groups. While legacy preference may help university fundraising, there is little evidence it substantially increases donations. It originated from anti-immigrant and anti-Semitic attitudes. Critics argue legacy preference violates principles of merit-based admission and equal opportunity established by the US constitution and civil rights laws.

1. Running Head: LEGACY PREFERENCE
Legacy Preference: The Legal and Unequal Opportunity for All
Lauren Griffin
Loyola University Chicago
December 16, 2016

2. LEGACY PREFERENCE 2
Legacy preference is often overlooked as a factor in college admissions, resulting in
restricted opportunities for lower economic classes and minority groups. What is legacy
preference in college admissions? The concept is best summarized by Richard Kahlenberg
(2010) as:
An attempt to benefit wealthy whites: legacy preferences are admissions practices
reserved for children of alumni. Like racial preferences, preferences for legacies can be
criticized for being based on ancestry rather than individual merit, yet they offer none of
the countervailing benefits of affirmative action, such as remedying past discrimination
or promotion of educational diversity. (Nor it turns out, do they boost college fundraising
substantially. The legacy preferences were born of anti-immigrant and anti-Jewish
discrimination impulses (p. 1).
After the tumultuous decades of economic strife and world war, parents wanted a better life for
themselves and their children. The path to prosperity and a comfortable life made attending
college compulsory. Ultimately, this fueled the Golden Age of Higher Education through the
1970s. The timeframe addressed in this paper begins with the founding fathers, the late 1770s
through 2016. Admittedly, this is a broad spectrum, but it captures the grand narrative quite
well. My personal interest in this subject, was inspired by my undergraduate admissions
experience. As a semi-first generation college student, I was intrigued by how limited I was in
my own search for the “right” college. I define semi-first generation as one parent graduated
from college and the other did not attend or graduate. In my experience, my father graduated
from a tertiary college and my mother attended community college for one year. My college
search was extremely overwhelming and not necessarily rooted in past experience. Rather, it
placed significant emphasis on geographic location or distance from home and belief in the

3. LEGACY PREFERENCE 3
university’s Jesuit mission. My search and admissions status did not include legacy preference
and I did not consider school with reputations for legacy preference. To the best of my
knowledge, my college admission decision was based on high school academic performance,
extracurricular activities, standardized test scores, and a statement of purpose.
In the founding of the United States, Thomas Jefferson worked tirelessly to rid the New
World of nepotism in favor of merit (Kahlenberg, 2010, p. 4). Legacy preference is a social
justice issue in higher education because it dismisses the merit of individual applicants. As a
result, legacy students who may not qualify for programs, are offered places in universities above
their ability to succeed. Yet, their admission to an elite university increased their chances for
higher earnings than traditional applicants. Applicants in the main applicant pool who are either
waitlisted or denied, choose to attend a less elite school which sets the foundation for future
career potential and earnings.
The Articles Reviewed
The articles reviewed provide historical context, critical analysis, and the impact of
legacy preference in admissions. First, I reviewed Daniel Golden’s article titled, “Family Ties:
Preference for Alumni Children In College Admission Draws Fire --- Policy, Aiding Mainly
Whites, Gets Embroiled in Debate Over Affirmative Action --- Critical to Schools' Donations.”
Golden’s article was published in 2003 in the Wall Street Journal. The article summarizes the
concept of legacy preference and identifies several personal stories from Harvard to Georgetown.
Golden articulates the advantages for whites as well as the reasons colleges continue to
implement preferential admissions strategies.
The second article reviewed presented data from 30 elite schools in a well-structured and
detailed report by Michael Hurwitz. Hurwitz published his report in 2011 and uses logic to

4. LEGACY PREFERENCE 4
present stunning comparisons between non-legacy and legacy applicants to prove that legacy in
admissions matters (Hurwitz, 2011, p. 480). Hurwitz (2011) separates his research into four
research questions to better articulate the impact of legacy advantages, academic abilities,
selectivity, and the process of early admissions (p. 486).
Finally, the third source utilized to analyze legacy preference in college admissions is a
compilation of essays in a book titled, “Affirmative Action for the Rich” edited by Richard D.
Kahlenberg. In a series of studies, Kahlenberg and others offer more insight to the highly-
contested yet often overlooked topic. This book argues that affirmative action with regard to
race takes center stage and thus the legacy status is forgotten.
Daniel Golden compiles statements from a variety of elite university administrators to
give a glimpse of why legacy status is a preferred method in the university selection process, and
why it isn’t necessarily illegal or unethical. “Because it isn't racially discriminatory on its face,
the preference for children of alumni may be less vulnerable than affirmative action to legal
challenge. But politically, the fates of the two preferences appear intertwined (Golden, 2003).
Inspired by the University of Michigan’s admission policies, Golden (2001) extracts facts from
several universities to draw a comparison to racial affirmative action. For example, the
University of Georgia's outlawed racial preferences in 2001, and a voter initiative undid racial
preferences in California in 1996 for all state universities (Golden, 2001). There is a risk of
losing significant donor funding when eliminating the alumni or legacy preference. Golden
(2001) enforces this risk with the statistic that 28 percent of private donations can be attributed to
alumni giving. Long term financial support is often the key motivation for institutions, like
Harvard, to continue their admissions practices. Because money is driving force rather than
academics, this often leaves the “legacies” feeling insecure and doubtful about their admission to

5. LEGACY PREFERENCE 5
an elite school. Similar feelings are present for minorities with regard to their ability to perform
well academically at their chosen institution. The system in place at nearly 90 percent of top
universities including: University of Michigan, Yale, and Harvard rewards those with means in
place and excludes merit-qualified applicants (Golden, 2001).
The second article by Michael Hurwitz takes another factor into consideration for the
discussion of legacy status; increased competition. As undergraduate college becomes more or
less necessary, the rise in applications makes applicant competition fierce. Applicants must
constantly differentiate themselves in order to have a shot at acceptance. Progeny of wealthy
alumni are accompanied with benefits such as the ability to pay for school, the possibility of
future donations, and a more likely opportunity to maintain excellence in academic reputation
(Hurwitz, 2011).
The final literature item reviewed is a book edited by Richard D. Kahlenberg. The book
is a list of essays devoted to the topic of legacy preferences. The books offers in-depth studies to
the success of alumni funding campaigns and provides examples from Notre Dame to University
of California Berkeley. Kahlenbergs and others provide clear examples from the founding of our
nation through today to prove why legacy practices are legal and run effectively in modern
admissions practices.
Common Themes
A common thread among all of the articles is a promise to deliver on a strong mission
through the maintenance of excellence in academics. Similar to most higher education topics, it
is imperative to look back at history and see where legacy preference began. The Founding
Fathers wrote the constitution with the hope that heredity would not influence opportunity. The
end goal was to honor merit in place of nepotism, and to reward hard work by eliminating

6. LEGACY PREFERENCE 6
favoritism. Next, the articles reviewed made a point to mention the impact of sizable
endowments on university success. Large endowments at elite universities tend to utilize legacy
preference in their admissions practices. Finally, each article mentions the benefactors of legacy
preference. There is strong evidence throughout the articles that prove the lack of diversity as a
result of legacy preference. Additionally, there is a trend for admitting students who do not
academically qualify for placement in certain colleges. As a result, legacy students underperform
and the dropout rate is slightly higher than the overall matriculated student pool.
With Liberty and Justice for Some?
Legacy preferences come under scrutiny and have been tried in US courts. One of the
first politicians to question legacy preference was Senator Bob Dole (Golden, 2003). Dole
requested the Office for Civil Rights to investigate the legality of legacy preference, according to
the 1964 Civil Rights Act, calling it an “unfair advantage.” (Golden, 2003). Though the office
found no illegal nature in legacy preference, Harvard’s admissions team has taken a more
personal role in reviewing application. The Dean of Admissions reported shortly after the
examination that legacy status was more or less a tie-breaker and legacy students were often
qualified to apply to Harvard’s undergraduate programs (Golden, 2003). Though it doesn’t break
a law according to The Civil Rights Act of 1964, other proposals for fair treatment have been
drafted since the founding of the United States.
Steve Shadowen and Sozi Tulante wrote an essay, included in “Affirmative Action for
the Rich,” that challenges the legality of legacy admissions preferences. Shadowen and Tulante
argue that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution and the Civil Rights Act
of 1866 (Kahlenberg, 2010, p. 173). Defenders of legacy preference remain confident in their
stance because the Equal Protection Clause does not include private entities, only the

7. LEGACY PREFERENCE 7
government (p. 175). However, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was enacted after the Civil War and
includes admissions decision for both public and privates institutions. The 1866 also called for
all citizens to have the same fundamental rights, and rejected the view that citizenship should be
based on lineage. (Kahlenberg, p. 176). This is often misconstrued to believe that the Founding
Fathers wrote the equality of men was limited to white men and heredity privileges were
eliminated for a select few.
The writers of the US Constitution and following acts for congress were intended to
create equal opportunities and eliminate oligarchical practices, but some ambiguous terms often
meant revisiting our past to amend phrases and ideas. This ambiguity has impacted the way
applications are reviewed and has left room for legacy preference to exist.
The Importance of Endowments
College administrators are quick to justify the reasons for having legacy preference
policies in place. The primary reason for maintaining legacy preference is financial in the form
of future donation dollars, but also to ensure tuition payments are paid in full (Kahlenberg,
2010). It can ultimately create a culture of rewarding those who went before and fostering long-
lasting traditions. Administrators argue that the financial support from alumni can help subsidize
the cost for applicants in need of financial assistance (Kahlenberg, 2010, p. 78). Hurwitz’s 2001
study supports this conclusion as well. Alumni are responsible for growing endowments that
eventually translate into financial aid packages the school is able to provide for needy students
(p. 492). Alumni are tasked with annual funding and charitable donations which can result in
higher rankings for academic excellence, alumni engagement, and campus upgrades.
Notre Dame is a prime example for unusually high legacy enrollment (Kahlenberg, 2010,
p. 78). Their enrollment marketing and alumni relations offices have added a personal touch to

8. LEGACY PREFERENCE 8
the legacy narrative through nostalgic tales that fuel loyalty toward their football program. It has
resulted in recognition for being the first Catholic school to surpass $1 billion in endowment
funding and over 75 percent matriculation rate for legacy student (Kahlenberg, 2010, p. 79).
Alumni are fully aware that money talks and their money may boost chances for their sons and
daughters admission status. Therefore, the timing of their annual or preliminary gift as well as
the amount is crucial. In fact, a study conducting at an unnamed university revealed alumni with
offspring are 13 percent more likely to contribute to the university annual fund than those
without children (Kahlenberg, 2010, p. 81). As a result, college annual fund teams are tasked
with high volume phone-a-thons during application season.
The impact of alumni is not limited to monetary donations. The Dean of Harvard
admissions, William Fitzsimmons, defended the practices of legacy preference by stating;
“Harvard alumni volunteer an immense amount of their free time in recruiting students, raising
money for their financial aid, taking part in Harvard Club activities at the local level, and in
general promotion of the college. They often bring a special kind of loyalty and enthusiasm for
life at the college that makes a real difference in the college climate and makes Harvard a
happier place” (Golden, 2003). Essentially, Crimson alumni are devoted at repurposing and
branding the Harvard name resulting in extra points during the application screening for legacy
students. In addition, they are a confirming the historical reputation of excellence for future
generations of Harvard families.
Unfit for Elitism
Official legacy preference admissions practices came out of the early twentieth century
(Golden, 2003; Hurwitz, 2011, Kahlenberg, 2010). Admission policies that favored legacy
students grew out of the desire to admit wealthy Protestants and limit the enrollment of Jews

9. LEGACY PREFERENCE 9
(Golden, 2003). Today admissions numbers affect all minorities groups from Asians to Latinos.
Minorities on campus often feel isolated and uneasy compared to their white classmates. These
feelings of polarization and isolation are not unique to minorities. Similarly, legacy students feel
uncomfortable with the fact they may have been admitted based on their parents status rather
than their own merit (Golden, 2003).
Sara Sedgewick was interviewed during her freshman year at Harvard. Sara’s Harvard
lineage spans five generations. Despite her strong high school academic performance, her test
scores were less than the average admitted student and brought on insecurity in how classmated
may view her place in the class (Golden, 2003).
The biggest hurdle legacy applicants experience is the standardized test, which is often an
obstacle to admission for the average applicant (Kahlenberg, 2010, p. 76). Their legacy status, as
noted by the Dean of Harvard Admissions, is the tiebreaker (Golden, 2003). Once enrolled in
college legacy students are best classified as average students (Kahlenberg, 2003, p. 76). If the
applicants were admitted and scored significantly lower on their SAT, they were more likely to
drop-out of college (Kahlenberg, 2003, p. 76).
Conclusion
“Of all the aspirations that make up the American Dream, perhaps the most important is
the opportunity to go to college” -- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senator Tom Carper, and
Governor Tom Vilsak. (Ladewski, 2009)
Higher education literature by Brubacher and Rudy (1997) reveal the ultimate goal of
attending college for the poor and ambitious youth was to elevate into professional classes (p.
39). Students attend college today with similar goals and aspirations; to study the sciences with
the hope of being a doctor or to learn finance and manage a bank. A glimpse at legacy

10. LEGACY PREFERENCE 10
admissions practices from the founding of our nation through present day reveal significant
inequalities that continue prevent progress. Although the arguments presented by alumni and
university administrators were compelling, they ultimately confirm there is more innovation
needed in the university discernment process. The laws of our nation were written with the
intention of equality for all, but left much to be interpreted and amended. Legacy students are at
risk of criticism from peers who may have better accolades for admission. Non-legacy students
are in a disadvantageous position by not being offered admission to an elite school that can fast-
track them to higher earnings. It perpetuates the disparity between social classes. These studies
may be complete, but there are solutions yet to be written. It will be interesting to see if, in the
futre, elite universities risk amending their policies to diversify their student population, or
continue their practices to save their reputation.

11. LEGACY PREFERENCE 11
References
Brubacher, J. S. , & Rudy, W. (1997c). Higher education in transition: A history of American
colleges and universities (4 th ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. p. 39
Golden, D. (2003, Jan 15). Family ties: Preference for alumni children in college admission
draws fire --- policy, aiding mainly whites, gets embroiled in debate over affirmative
action --- critical to schools' donations. Wall Street Journal,l Retrieved from
http://flagship.luc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/398853911?account
id=12163
Kahlenberg, R. (2010). Affirmative action for the rich : Legacy preferences in college
admissions. New York: Century Foundation Press.
Hurwitz, M. (2011). The impact of legacy status on undergraduate admissions at elite colleges
and universities. Economics of Education Review, 30(3), 480-492.
Ladewski, K. (2010). Preserving a Racial Hierarchy: a legal analysis of the disparate racial
impact of legacy preferences in university admissions. Michigan Law Review, 108(4),
577-601.