It would jeopardize financial support

The argument

Colleges should not put an end to legacy admissions; doing so would jeopardize their financial stability. Colleges depend on alumni to donate money and financially support their institutions in all aspects — not as an occasional windfall but as a standing part of how they are funded, alongside tuition and endowment income. The argument then connects that dependence to what the money buys. Often institutions that implement legacy admissions are leading institutions of higher learning. They excel in things such as research, sports, and other extracurricular programs that set them apart from other colleges and universities, and none of those are covered by teaching revenue alone. Alumni offer generous support to their alma mater so that they can retain their positions as leading institutions, which means the distinction these schools are known for rests on continued giving. The mechanism proponents identify is engagement rather than payment for a place. Giving preferences to legacies ensures that wealthy alumni will continue to stay engaged and as connected as possible with their alma mater. A graduate whose family may study there again has reason to follow the institution's fortunes across decades rather than treating it as a closed chapter, and sustained attention is what sustained giving depends on. When alumni have children who also gain admissions to the same school, these alumni are more inclined to donate money and other assets to support and help their alma maters — the school becomes part of the family's future and not only its past. Support from alumni is essential for schools that offer legacy admissions to retain their standings as prominent leaders that can offer only the very best to their students. Removing the preference, on this argument, would loosen the tie the funding depends on.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Colleges should put an end to legacy admissions because admitting children of alumni does not lead to increased alumni donations. A study of alumni giving at 100 top universities (using the U.S. News ranking), published in Richard Kahlenberg’s book Affirmative Action for the Rich, found “no statistically significant evidence that legacy preferences impact total alumni giving”. Colleges have defended the legacy preference by saying it’s necessary for fundraising, but have no evidence to show that getting rid of legacy admissions would decrease the financial support they get from alumni.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The dependence on alumni giving is real, but the link to an admissions preference is assumed: alumni donate for many reasons, and nothing is offered to show that removing the preference would reduce what they give. [Rejecting P2] The counter supplies precisely the evidence the premise lacks, and it points the other way — a study across a hundred top universities found no statistically significant effect of legacy preference on total alumni giving. The argument also treats the standing of a small number of wealthy institutions as the thing to be protected, which is not in itself a reason to prefer applicants by descent.