In the new world of higher education, we find ourselves at a quite unusual juncture: where an institution may not discriminate against an individual based upon their race or ethnicity within the admissions process, and where someone with the right familial connections has an increased likelihood of being admitted.
While some may believe that this contradiction is reconcilable, it simply is not.
Legacy admissions–also known as legacy preference–refer to a current practice within many universities across the country where applicants with close familial connections (e.g., siblings, parents, and grandparents) are given a preferential advantage within the admissions process.
Proponents of legacy admission assert that the practice fosters a sense of community and loyalty within families, and state that benefactors of this practice are much more likely to donate to the institution, or even provide more extensive infrastructure to future alumni-networks.
Yes, while I agree that a sense of community on campus is paramount, it should not be at the expense of a certain group of people being put ahead by simple birthright.
Cornell must be transparent with legacy numbers
Cornell has refused to give any data besides describing what percentage of each class are considered legacies since 2013, where the number sat at around 15% – much higher than our fellow Ivy counterparts.
The next question that’s increasingly hard to answer is how much does one’s legacy status impact his chance of admission. Again, Cornell has refused to publish any data that would show this impact nor any data on how many students would be considered under this category in recent years. But, when it came to race-based admissions, President Pollack was all too keen to establish a task-force on the basis of preserving the crumbs of affirmative action.
Furthermore, it’s increasingly difficult to have an open dialogue on the relevance or merits of this antiquated policy when there are no relevant statistics or transparency on the issue. When one party divulges little to no information on a topic of this importance, I suspect it’s due to dubious reasons. But, I urge the administration to prove me wrong and vow to release all relevant information in regard to admissions to the public on an annual basis.
A Conservative’s View
Conservatives should champion access to higher education that promotes competition and achievement, rather than a predetermined condition. As a conservative, I believe that people should be rewarded for their hard work, talent, and effort. It is for this reason that I believe that all prospective students and Cornellians should have a level playing field when applying for higher education.
To give credit where credit is due: Republicans have recently begun coming around to the idea of a total ban on legacy admissions, with Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) denouncing the process and endorsing legislation to ban the practice for universities across the country.
They’re looking for a way to improve the footprint of Harvard, let’s make sure that all admissions are based on academic scores, and not just eliminating affirmative action, but let’s look at the legacy programs.
Senator Tim Scott
But, conservatives should finally unite around this issue and leave no room for the perception of hypocrisy: that no predetermined factor should give you any leg up nor disadvantage when applying for college.
As a first-generation student, I can say that my acceptance to this school was one of the greater achievements of my life: to work hard and attend an Ivy League university, and be among the best of the best.
And, I urge all interested parties to look at one of Ezra Cornell’s most influential quotes when founding this great institution: “I would found an institution where any person can find instruction in any study.” And, to maintain his founding promise, we must make sure that truly any person may attend Cornell, with no qualifiers based on birth or race. And it’s for this reason that legacy admissions have to go.
