Last week, the Senate of my home state, Virginia, voted unanimously to prohibit public colleges and universities in the Commonwealth from giving preferential treatment to applicants related to alumni or donors. A similar bill is working its way through Virginia’s House of Delegates.
The legislation would make Virginia the second state, after Colorado, to ban legacy preferences. Senators Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Todd Young (R-Ind.) have introduced similar legislation in Congress.
Unanimous agreement on any bill is rare in today’s polarized political climate, perhaps even suspicious. With some legislation there is more than meets the eye. In this case there might be less.
Legacy preferences have come into scrutiny in the wake of the Supreme Court decision outlawing racial preferences in the case involving Harvard and UNC-Chapel Hill. That is a good thing. I have previously described legacy preferences as a kind of transfer of property, similar to country club membership being passed on to the next generation, a characterization subsequently quoted in a New York Times editorial.
Legacy preferences are far less defensible than racial preferences. That explains the unanimous vote. One can certainly question racial preferences, but they were devised for a laudable goal, intended to redress past discrimination by increasing access to previously underrepresented groups. In contrast, legacy preferences serve to protect privilege. What public official, even those who have benefitted from legacy preference themselves, is going to defend the practice?
Giving preference to legacy applicants is questionable for any college or university, but the practice is particularly pernicious at public universities, which are supposed to serve all the residents of their state. I say this recognizing that cuts in state funding for higher education have led many flagship public universities to seek out-of-state students as a means of bringing in revenue.
So the bill has a worthy purpose. I find myself wondering, however, especially in light of the unanimous vote, whether it is nothing more than feel-good political theater.
Both legacy preferences and racial preferences impact a small number of institutions. At the vast majority of colleges and universities, any applicant judged qualified for admission is admitted. It is only at a certain level of selectivity where admission becomes zero-sum, where admitting one applicant means that another qualified applicant loses a slot.
A report in December from the National Center for Education Sciences reported that 578 institutions consider legacy status in the admissions process, but only about ten percent of those admit fewer than 25 percent of their applicants. At most colleges giving preference to legacy applicants does not disadvantage other applicants.
In Virginia there are only three public universities potentially selective enough for legacy preferences to have significant impact in admission. One of those, Virginia Tech, announced last fall that it would no longer consider legacy status in its admission process.
That leaves William & Mary and the University of Virginia, the two most selective publics in the Commonwealth, both considered to be “public Ivies.” In the wake of the Supreme Court decision on race-based admission and the subsequent scrutiny on legacy admission, U.Va. removed legacy status as a box to be checked on its application, but did add an essay allowing applicants to write about a “personal or historic” connection with the university and how that may have influenced them.
William & Mary released a statement that its competitive admissions process includes consideration of “indicators of an individual’s propensity to enroll.” Legacy status is one of those factors, as is seeking an interview or visiting campus. That suggests that W&M sees legacy status as a potential measure of demonstrated interest.
During my nearly 40 years as a college counselor, those two schools have been among the most popular choices for my students, and I have never seen legacy status provide a huge boost at either of them. U.Va. has always considered out-of-state legacy applicants as if they were in-state students, but I have never seen a “bump” for in-state legacies. At one point there was a process at U.Va. for political cases and students with connections that operated outside the admissions office, but I don’t see any evidence that it continues today. If legacy applicants receive any consideration at either place, it is at the margins.
The hidden issue, of course, is the “preferences for me, but not for thee” mindset. At one private college I’m aware of, alumni would complain about the college admitting risky applicants (which it did a great job successfully educating), only to want to make an exception for weak applicants from their own families or friends’ children. I also remember hearing about a powerful state legislator who threatened to cut one university’s state funding if it didn’t admit a weak but connected applicant who happened to be a constituent.
Will the same legislators who unanimously voted to outlaw legacy preferences practice what they preach and no longer exercise political clout by advocating for politically-connected applicants? That may be the real legacy that needs to be abolished.