Nepotism in colleges excludes qualified students

Question

Many elite and exclusive universities have many students who are children or relatives to highly successful and wealthy parents. This means they not only have an advantage in admissions, but also exclude highly qualified students who may not have the same resources as those who gain access to the universities mostly due to nepotism.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/unveiling-nepotism-ivy-league-admissions-barrier-meritocracy-raj-gqzpc/

Answer 1

The claim that elite universities favor children of wealthy or influential parents is partially true, supported by evidence of legacy and donor preferences in admissions. For instance, Harvard’s admissions lawsuit revealed that legacy applicants are accepted at rates five times higher than others, and a 2023 study published in Nature Human Behaviour found that students from the wealthiest 1% are far likelier to gain admission compared to equally qualified lower-income practice reinforces privilege, the term "nepotism" may oversimplify the issue, as some advantaged students still meet academic standards. These practices perpetuate inequality but do not outright exclude all highly qualified, underprivileged students.

Comments

Make sure you're labeling your answer with a true, false, or otherwise. Also, to strengthen your argument, you should link to the sources you mentioned. Otherwise, great job!

Answer 2

True, Much evidence supports the claim that elite colleges prefer admitting children or relatives of wealthy and successful parents over equally qualified applicants who don't have these connections.

Legacy admissions, which give applicants tied to alumni preference, are common at many top schools. One study found that 43% of white students admitted to Harvard were either legacy students, athletes, children of donors, or children of professors and staff. Interestingly, almost 70% of legacy applicants were white, and being a legacy candidate raised the chances of getting in by a factor of seven.

https://www.salon.com/2019/10/06/harvards-systemic-nepotism-revealed-43-percent-of-admitted-white-students-were-legacies/ 

This unfair approach often means that highly qualified students who don't have family ties are left out. As an example, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) pointed out that legacy applications favor white, wealthy students, which keeps racial and economic gaps alive. At Harvard, the rate of legacy acceptance is more than five times higher than the rate for non-legacy admission, but only 16% of the admitted class is black.

https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/how-ending-legacy-admissions-can-help-achieve-greater-education-equity
The idea behind legacy admissions comes from trying to keep top schools completely similar. In the 1920s, Ivy League schools put in place legacy preferences to keep their primarily white, Protestant student groups and keep Jewish immigrants from enrolling.
 

https://freshman.academy/tpost/iptev2avd1-the-culture-of-nepotism-in-american-univ

To sum up, legacy admissions at top colleges give big advantages to applicants with family ties, often at the expense of candidates from less fortunate backgrounds who are just as qualified or even more qualified. This practice makes inequality worse and goes against the idea of meritocracy that colleges and universities say they support.

https://apnews.com/article/california-colleges-legacy-admissions-1db4e1163c48045ce5c996ef7d5a9896

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/california-bans-legacy-admissions-at-private-colleges-7818df1d

https://people.com/california-bans-private-colleges-legacy-donor-admissions-preferences-8720713

Answer 3

Your statement of many elite universities have students who are children or relatives to highly successful parents that utilized their wealth and connections to get their children into colleges is partially correct. You used "many" to describe the number of students used such channel to get into elite universities is not quantifiable through the source you provided for the basis of your claim. I have located the investigation of bribery used in your source from the United States Attorney's Office-District of Massachusetts website. However, the investigation only states "a dozen" of individuals involved nationwide. This does not describe the widespread of nepotism you claimed. 

Answer 4

I agree with this statement, an article by US News mentions how after legacy admissions were banned from schools like John Hopkins and Amherst, the rise in first-generation students went up from 16.7% to 30.8%, and legacy admissions went down 7%. One of the main reasons legacy admissions were more popular among institutions was because they held a reputation with their name, they wouldn't need as much financial aid from the school, and they could build a larger sense of community. But for those reasons, a majority of the individuals let in were all white, not giving chances to those less privileged with similar test scores. The demographic of legacies varies between universities, but a majority are white, making this a race problem after the Supreme Court ruled out affirmative action. As we see with universities slowly eliminating legacy programs, the acceptance of lower-income and first-generation students has risen and prospered in these schools the way some legacies couldn't keep up.

https://www.usnews.com/higher-education/articles/legacy-admissions-what-it-is-and-why-colleges-are-reconsidering-it

Answer 5

I do agree with the fact that elite universities provide advantages in admissions to children of wealthy, influential families, often through legacy preferences. Studies show legacy applicants are significantly more likely to be admitted than non-legacies, and access to resources like private tutoring and college counselors further enhances these students’ competitiveness. The 2019 college admissions scandal (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/us/college-admissions-scandal-consultants.html) underscored how some families exploit this system. 

Recently, a new law banning legacy and donor admissions at private institutions like USC and Standford shows how nepotism was an issue and the only way to combat this was to instill a law that completely outlaws it. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-09-30/newsom-signs-bill-law-ban-legacy-donor-admissions

Answer 6

I see what you mean about the Varsity Blues scandal being pretty limited since just a few wealthy families got caught. But the bigger issue is how legacy admissions and other “insider” preferences keep giving certain well-connected students an ongoing advantage.

 A good example is Harvard’s admissions data, which showed legacy applicants getting in at significantly higher rates than other students with similar qualifications. That might not be as flashy as a bribery scandal, but it still blocks out equally deserving students who don’t have those connections. And when some universities, like Johns Hopkins, ended legacy admissions, they saw an increase in first-gen and low-income admits, which shows that changing these policies can really help level the playing field.  

https://www.nber.org/papers/w26316. 

Answer 7

The statement is true. Many elite universities have a significant number of students who are children or relatives of successful and wealthy parents, often due to legacy admissions policies that favor applicants with familial ties to alumni or donors. This practice can provide these applicants with an advantage in the admissions process, potentially excluding highly qualified students who lack such connections. For instance, a report by the American Civil Liberties Union highlights that legacy admissions disproportionately benefit white and affluent applicants, thereby perpetuating inequality in higher education. https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/how-ending-legacy-admissions-can-help-achieve-greater-education-equity?

Answer 8

This claim is largely true, as many elite and prestigious universities have a significant proportion of students who are children or relatives of wealthy and successful individuals, which can confer an advantage in the admissions process. Legacy admissions, for example, tis common at many top universities like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton and Forbes found that legacy applicants often have a higher chance of being admitted than non-legacy applicants with similar qualifications. "At Princeton, legacy applicants are four times more likely to earn admission. In a 2022 interview, Notre Dame’s former head of enrollment Don Bishop estimated that 19–25% of the school’s incoming class is made up of legacy students each year." This system can perpetuate social and economic inequality by disproportionately benefiting students from wealthy and connected families.