Amherst getting rid of legacy preference
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
So if it's already fantastic, why do they need to get rid of legacy preference to improve racial diversity? Half the people who went to Amherst from my high school class a generation ago were AA (prep school in MA, so there were several kids admitted to most of the elite schools). Now their kids can't benefit from legacy, even though white people always have? |
Anonymous
That's like arguing all elite universities in Europe were designed for white people.... some people need to get a grip on the reality that American history is extremely, heavily white. These days the major big donors at most of the elite colleges tend to be more Jewish than the stereotypical WASPs of old so the idea that some old money family is trying to hold on to privilege through legacy admissions also doesn't hold, and hasn't had validity since probably the 1990s. And as a sign of the times, non whites are also increasingly becoming prominent as big donors. My view on getting rid of legacy preference is that it will have minimal impact on the demographics of the student body. The children of the very connected and prominent donors (regardless of race) will always find a way to get admitted. It's the generic upper middle class kid without serious hooks beyond that parents were alums and may have donated a bit over the years who will be replaced by - other upper middle class kids with slightly better hooks. Is it fairer? Dunno. I will say, however, knowing how crapshoot admissions is these days and the weakening of legacy factors, I've stopped donating and most likely will never donate again. What for? Will that have a cumulative factor on alum donations down the road? The major argument for keeping legacy admissions alive for so long was never about perpetuating some kind of bogeyman white supremacy that only exists in left wing minds, but to keep the alum donations rolling in and the notion of multigenerational loyalty to a school that, once again, kept the donations rolling in. Who do you think paid for all the fancy buildings of old and today? Alum donations, that's what. So the colleges do have a vested interest in keeping those donations coming in. |
Anonymous
|
Amherst has been at the leading edge of this stuff for many decades.
Banned fraternities in the 80s because they were resistant to gender integration By late 80s, would give applicants of color free trip to western mass to visit on a special recruiter or admitted students of color weekend (I had several friends that chose Amherst because of this) Substantially expanded minority recruitment and financial aid over the years My alumni report indicated that last years class was majority students of color and had something like 30-40% first generation students So I’m not surprised they did this, but I’m a teeny bit bummed my kids will get no preference over the other UMC white kids from DMV whose parents went to Harvard or Williams or Stanford or whatever…. But then also I remember the legacy kids being some of the most irritating at Amherst I do wonder how it will impact alumni donations. I give every year but I often wonder why and whether my money should instead go to a non profit that helps kids in low performing school districts or something. I agree in principal with Amherst’s decision to prioritize giving an education to kids that otherwise might not get such a good one….but I also wonder if that same rationale should apply to my donation dollars. These small schools have something of a “we are family” feeling and if Amherst is saying they are not going to give that any weight, alumns might also feel that they aren’t going to privilege Amherst over other institutions looking for donations. |
Anonymous
|
I think it’s the right thing to do. My guess is peer institutions will follow suit.
The next equity move would be to get rid of the sports admit process. (Rich kids who play field hockey or lacrosse negotiating with the coach and claiming a spot junior year or early senior year). I’m not sure they have the guts to do that, though. |
Anonymous
| First, good decision and believe others who are similarly situated will follow suit. Second, a little surprised they announced this right before ED1 apps are due. May take a hit from alum. If I was an alum and had a senior, I would have wanted my DC to know this decision last spring, not ten days before the ED1 deadline. Has anyone heard of buzz within this cohort? |
Anonymous
| +1. Nothing like contempt for the alumni. |
Anonymous
| Not surprising. Legacy preference is one of the biggest forms of "affirmative action" in college admissions, and often serves to perpetuate inequality. If an alum's kid is qualified, great--they'll get in or not just like anyone else. Perhaps their personal connection will give them a leg up on demonstrating enthusiasm for the school or whatever. But why should an alum's kid get a bump? |
Anonymous
| I'm wondering if there will be insurgent candidates the next time their board is elected. I can't imagine the bulk of alumni are happy about this. |
Anonymous
| Will donors still be given a preference? I’ve never understood legacy if the family doesn’t donate, but if they do, I kind of get it. It builds donor loyalty. Wonder if their donation rates go down? Endowments had a great 2021, but that’s no guarantee for the future. |
Anonymous
|
Backdoor admissions via large donations will always be open. Legacy or not.
But yeah, my guess is that given longer life expectancies and a wider array of former students, there are now too many graduates to give their kids legacy preference. And given Amherst's small size, if you continue to give a preference for legacies you'll just fill the school with the same families. |
Anonymous
Your qualification point only makes sense if all qualified kids get in. If they have 100 equally qualified kids for every spot (making it essentially a lottery), it makes some sense to give a legacy preference for equally situated kids (eg UMC white kids from DMV coming from public schools with equivalent applications—if you have 100 of those that are equally qualified, any reason not to take the alum’s kid? Because it encourages the alum’s $$$ to keep rolling in to support all those scholarships. I know lots of parents who have switched loyalty to their KI|D’S school once they have a kid at a different college and they start going to those parent days and graduations (which, let’s admit, are basically just sales pitches for donations). |
Anonymous
Irradient Society member here with over 20 years of giving to Amherst. I’m a little bummed my kids won’t get an admissions boost from it anymore, but I completely support the decision and will continue to give at the same level I did before. |
Anonymous
This seems clear to me. The student population who are parents and grand parents (so roughly from 30-70 years ago) was more white than the student body/application group today. The argument seems to be 1) it doesn't make that much of a difference, because legacies are super qualified and probably would have been admitted anyway, and 2) it's important to keep up traditions. If 1 is true, than 2 doesn't matter. If 2 is true, then 1 is false. I've already written to my college, which competes with Amherst, to encourage them to follow suit. |
Anonymous
And why should people who can't afford the school get financial aid? |
Anonymous
Agreed but you can't have it both ways, can you? Do you want preference for everyone or no one or just yourselves? |