We all realize how hard it is to get into Brown. Each of us here went through a grueling process and were each validated by being accepted. However, some applicants have an easier time being admitted than others: sons and daughters of alums were offered admission at a rate about three times higher than the rest of last year's pool.
It is important to understand that legacy status does not guarantee admission to Brown. Admission officials insist that "legacies," the children of Brown and Pembroke alumni, only get preference in a tie between candidates of otherwise equal qualifications. But alumni children are certainly not three times more likely to be qualified than other applicants.
Furthermore, they claim that legacy applicants often have stronger academic credentials than other applicants do and would be accepted at higher rates if there were no legacy preference at all. They come from highly educated households, the argument goes, where books, reading and cultural life are all emphasized; these students tend to have more exposure to intellectual matters.
However, even if we grant that legacy applicants are more qualified on average, how can we as an institution justify rewarding this elite group with an even greater edge in the process? Granting preferential admissions into a prestigious university to the fortuitously born is antithetical to the ideal of a level playing field. If legacies are indeed more likely to be well-educated, and since there's an excellent reason they would want to attend their father or mother's alma mater, why not eliminate the legacy system and let applicants sort themselves out?
Abandoning legacy admissions would give qualified non-legacies an equal opportunity at admission. I have no doubt that a large proportion of legacies would still get in. But even now, if Brown really did consider legacy status only as a tie-breaking factor, the policy still gives the already advantaged a leg up on those who struggled without it. Remember, most parents of legacies attended Brown before the University even made a pretense of democratic admission. This policy excludes what the admission office recognizes as otherwise fine applicants based solely on being born in the wrong family. It seems unreasonable to continue a policy that makes unnecessary and unfair distinctions between applicants.
However, like so many at Brown, this policy will not be changed for one reason: money. The claim goes that people develop an allegiance to the institution that strengthens over generations. We rely heavily on alumni donations, and rejecting a reasonably well-qualified legacy applicant cannot only end support from the parents but also damage relations with other alumni.
If Brown insists that it needs to offer the perk of legacy admission in order to promote loyal gift-giving among alumni, then we are engaged in a position that I think is factually suspect to start with and morally dubious if true.
Nevertheless, I imagine that many of our most generous donors and active volunteers are rarely disappointed in the admission process. In addition, many colleges and universities, and I imagine Brown, also pay special attention in the admission process to other candidates whose parents or other relatives are likely to make large donations, sometimes known as "development cases" or candidates on "the president's list".
All in all, these policies suggest that we require a certain number of rich kids to keep the university going -- that student services, including new professors and financial aid, both results of generous giving, might stop if we did not have these preferences. If this is true, then many of our revered alums give more for nepotism than meritocracy, and I can do little more than remind them that acceptance into Brown is not and should never be a birthright.
Truth be told, though, we are all complicit in this policy. We accept Brown's rationale, as the legacy policy will become less objectionable as soon as we are alums sending our own children to dear old Brown. Each of us, and certainly the wealthiest of us, will benefit from this vestige of aristocracy. Frankly, this is something I am not particularly comfortable with. You shouldn't be either.
Zac Townsend '08 is the Admissions and Student Services Chair of the Undergraduate Council of Students.
