Legacy admissions tend to be more than qualified

The argument

Colleges should not put an end to legacy admissions because they are used as a mere tiebreaker among otherwise equally qualified applicants. The objection to the practice assumes that a legacy preference substitutes for merit; on this argument it does nothing of the kind, because it is applied only once merit has already been established. Legacy admissions do not favor any student who is not already completely qualified to attend the institution they are applying for. Most legacy admissions are admitted because they are great candidates who are deemed fit to meet the expectations of their desired institution, which means the alumnus parent is not what puts them in contention — at most it is what separates them from someone indistinguishable on every other measure. Selective institutions routinely face far more qualified applicants than places, so a tiebreaker of some kind is unavoidable, and the question is only which one. Students of alumni may even be better candidates than the average. They tend to have well put-together applications and have a deeper knowledge and appreciation of the institutions they are applying for because of their familial ties — the kind of familiarity that produces both a stronger application and a better-informed student once enrolled. Legacy admissions is not a process that helps to admit students who are not qualified to be admitted or to give an unfair advantage that is not deserved. The natural benefits of having a parent who is an alumnus tend to help legacy students and tend to make them more qualified candidates. Thus, legacy admissions just end up being a mere tiebreaker to help decide between candidates who are all equally great and well qualified.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Colleges should end legacy admissions. If legacy preference serves as a tiebreaker among candidates who are both equally and well qualified for admission, then using legacy status as the tiebreaker is the wrong thing to do. Michale Dannenberg of Education Reform Now says, “No two applicants are the same, and the ‘tie’ rarely exists...And regardless, if there were a tie, you’d want to break it in favor of the person who’s overcome more and had fewer advantages along the way.” Legacy admissions break the tie in favor of the student who has already had every benefit afford to them. Instead, it should instead be going to the student who has had fewer advantages to be considered an equally qualified candidate.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] "A mere tiebreaker" is the conclusion restated as a premise, and it is offered with no admissions data at all. How much weight legacy status actually carries is precisely what is in dispute, and the argument settles it by assertion. [Rejecting P2] "Not unqualified" is far weaker than the position needs. Selective admission consists in choosing among many qualified applicants, so a preference operating only among the qualified is operating exactly where it has its whole effect — this premise describes the advantage rather than denying it. [Rejecting P3] The reasons given for legacy applicants being stronger — polished applications, familiarity with the institution through family — describe inherited advantage rather than merit, which is the objection rather than a reply to it. And if these applicants genuinely are stronger on the stated criteria, the preference is doing no work and could be dropped at no cost. The counter-argument's point, that a real tie should be broken in favour of the candidate who overcame more, goes unaddressed.