Close up of admissions office sign near public university campus
Legacy preferences in college admissions are in the news again, this time because a bill has been introduced in the New York State Senate that would end the practice. Senate Bill S4170, colloquially referred to as the “fair college admissions act,” would also end the use of “binding” early decision admissions policies. It is also framed by its supporters as a response to the likely Supreme Court decision to end or restrict the use of race in college admissions.
Legacy College Admissions is Unpopular But Durable
Legacy preferences in college admissions are often derided as unfair, elitist, and an example of systemic racism. Moreover, nearly 75% of US adults view the practice as “inappropriate,” according to a Washington Post-Schar School poll from last October. Even current college students (the ostensible beneficiaries of legacy preferences) overwhelmingly oppose the use of legacy preferences and are willing to sign their names to editorials proclaiming that view.
And yet, despite this opposition, the use of legacy preferences remains widespread. Just under 50% of private universities still consider legacy status in the admissions process, and the rate is north of 80% at selective colleges with lower acceptance rates. And the advantage conferred in the admissions process can be enormous. At Harvard, for example, legacy applicants were six times as likely to be accepted as non-legacies between 2014 and 2019.
Given the increasingly heated debate around the practice, it’s worth analyzing why colleges and universities continually retain legacy preferences. As a disclaimer, none of the analysis that follows is meant as a defense of the morality or correctness of legacy admissions as a policy. Rather, the goal is to shed light on the incentives that govern their behavior.
Legacy applicants have a higher yield rate
A fall 2022 study from Ethan Poskanzer at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and Emilio Castilla at MIT’s Sloan School of Management provides useful insight into the utility of legacy preferences for institutions. The first and most powerful effect is on yield, the proportion of accepted students who end up enrolling.
Yield is perhaps the most important metric that enrollment leaders are responsible for. Generally, a higher yield rate creates a more predictable enrollment process, increases overall enrollments, and helps institutions manage their tuition revenue.
Poskanzer and Castilla’s data suggests that legacy applicants are much more likely to yield. At one elite school in the Northeast 74% of legacy admits ended up enrolling while just 47% of non-legacy students matriculated. A cohort of students that is 1.5 times more likely to enroll is hard for enrollment leaders to pass up.
Legacy applicants are more lucrative
Poskanzer and Castilla also found that legacy graduates (and their families) were seven times as likely to make high-dollar donations as non-legacies. It’s easy to dismiss these incremental donations as unnecessary largesse, especially at well-known colleges with endowments in the 10s of billions of dollars.
But this dismissiveness is at odds with the cold realities that govern finances at most private institutions. According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), virtually no private college in the United States would be able to operate without dipping into its endowment. In fact, the average private college funds 29% of its annual budget from its endowment - almost at par with the 33% of funds received from student tuition, fees, room, and board. While there are a few outlier schools that can afford a donation freeze, the vast majority of the 500+ colleges with legacy preferences cannot.
Legacy applicants are more likely to enroll and pay higher out-of-pocket tuition. They are also more likely to become the kind of high-dollar donors that keep private colleges with otherwise precarious finances afloat. While legacy preferences are often criticized, institutions have powerful and existential incentives that push them to continue the practice.
