Preferences given to legacies are becoming part of the affirmative action debate, but unfortunately, the debate is being distorted by bad reporting:
While minorities are admitted to Georgetown at a higher rate than the total applicant pool -- about 28 percent compared with 21 percent of all applicants -- the proportion of legacy applicants admitted is higher still, at 40 to 42 percent, Deacon said.The problem is that none of these statistics illustrate what the reporter is using them for: the purported advantage that legacies enjoy.The numbers are similar or somewhat higher at many elite schools. Legacy students are about twice as likely to get into the University of Virginia, more than three times as likely to get into Harvard.
Even in the absence of preferences, we'd expect to see alumni kids getting admitted at a higher rate than the pool as a whole. Alumni kids are more likely to know what it takes to get into that particular school. They're more likely to have educated parents, which means that they're more likely to have successful parents. And parental educational and financial success is an important predictor of student educational and financial success. It's impossible to separate these other factors from legacy status, given the limited statistics cited in the article.
I'm sure legacies do have an advantage, all else being equal. But if reporters aren't going to provide us with meaningful information about the advantage, then what's the point of writing the story? Of course, it's entirely possible that the reporter doesn't realize that the information provided is inadequate, which would suggest that she should spend more time in math class and less in the admissions office. Either way, it was a pretty useless article.
Comments (5)
John Allen Paulos would be rolling over in his grave (if he were dead). :-)
I'm sure legacies do have an advantage, all else being equal. But if reporters aren't going to provide us with meaningful information about the advantage, then what's the point of writing the story?
To try to defend the indefensible, the admission of less qualified people to top schools to make up for the poor education given to these students in the lower grades. Maybe the reporter should read about the experiences in the classroom of John McWhorter to understand why the use of affirmative action admissions is self-defeating.
Posted by Richard | March 12, 2003 10:08 AM
Posted on March 12, 2003 10:08
It's impossible to separate these other factors from legacy status
How about comparing the acceptance rate of legacies of University X applying to University X to the admissions rate of legacies of Universities A, B, and C (where X, A, B, and C are all academically similar) applying to University X? ... seems to me that an accurate assessment of legacy advantage is entirely possible (albeit difficult, since colleges don't tend to release that kind of data).
Posted by Poop | March 12, 2003 8:34 PM
Posted on March 12, 2003 20:34
Poop -- you're correct. Bad writing on my part. I didn't mean that it was impossible to do at all; I just meant that it was impossible to do given the limited data we've been provided. (But your caveat is also right: it's unlikely admissions offices would give us that information.)
Posted by David Nieporent | March 13, 2003 1:14 AM
Posted on March 13, 2003 01:14
One problem with collecting this data is that colleges have been nailed for collusion in admissions before, so it's very possible they don't collect data on what other schools their applicants have applied to.
However, one could just compare the actual academic performance of legacy admits to non-legacies once they've gotten in. Again, this data is hard for people like us to come by, but I'm sure a lot of colleges do collect it. And since the real implication of these stats is that the preferential treatment of legacies results in inferior students being admitted, this might be the best way to confirm or refute those criticisms.
Posted by Dave | March 13, 2003 3:30 AM
Posted on March 13, 2003 03:30
And since the real implication of these stats is that the preferential treatment of legacies results in inferior students being admitted, this might be the best way to confirm or refute those criticisms.
I should say, "the real implication of these articles." The stats themselves don't really imply anything.
Posted by Dave | March 13, 2003 3:31 AM
Posted on March 13, 2003 03:31