- Think university admissions are hopelessly corrupt across the board, and that these cases were not “a few bad apples.”
- Are super grumpy about “legacy admission.”
I knew about court cases about affirmative action (including the current one at Harvard), but I got curious as to whether legacy admissions had ever faced a legal challenge, and if so, what was the basis for keeping it.
I found one case that concerned legacy admissions: Rosenstock v. The Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina. This is the relevant bit about legacy admissions:
Plaintiff also attacks the policy of the University whereby children of out-of-state alumni are exempted from the stiffer academic requirements necessary for out-of-state admission. Again, since no suspect criteria or fundamental interests are involved, the State need only show a rational basis for the distinction. In unrebutted affidavits, defendants showed that the alumni provide monetary support for the University and that out-of-state alumni contribute close to one-half of the total given. To grant children of this latter group a preference then is a reasonable basis and is not constitutionally defective. Plaintiff's attack on this policy is, therefore, rejected.
The questions raised here are, in large part, attacks on administrative decision-making, an area where the federal courts have not and should not heavily tread. Plaintiff has not shown a constitutional reason for abandoning this judicial policy.
The court is saying legacy admissions are okay because the university can make money. And it’s not up to courts to change administrative decisions.
Regardless, I kind of suspect that legacy admissions are going to come under increasing pressure because they are, as the pundits say, “a bad look” for universities.
External links
Six of the top 10 universities in the world no longer consider legacy when evaluating applicants—here’s why
What we know so far in the college admissions cheating scandal
No comments:
Post a Comment