Reader Responses to Affirmative Action for Rich Kids

I found in the decade or so after I had graduated that in talking with parents whose children were potential legacies that Brown seemed to take a harsh punitive stance and the children were not admitted. No parent can take an objective view of the admission of their children and so I will not comment here on that matter. There was a case not involving me that I found egregious. It involved a young legatee whose entire wish and goal was to be admitted to Brown. Reading in other places in the BAM her parents were extremely generous alumni. The daughter was not admitted to Brown. She was admitted to the University of Pennsylvania. Certainly her accomplishment merited another look. Thus part of the problem is that Brown disfavors good potential legacies. Why are many admitted? Simply put, in many cases the parents are wealthy and the admitting of a legacy helps to insure a steady stream of contributions.

I do not understand the logic of the legacy alumni who have written, stating essentially, ‘Because I succeeded at Brown academically and athletically etc. and afterward; therefore the legacy admission policy is just. Non-legacy alumni succeeded in all those ways too, likely with more work-study hours, on average, to wrangle. The defensive feel of those letters speaks to the other issue of doubt and imposter syndrome raised in the article. Eight percent legacy admissions equals over 130 students of each incoming class. No doubt many (most?) would have made it in without the legacy advantage. If so, why keep it?

Affirmative action may have been a factor in my admittance into Brown in 1977. Nevertheless, it was not instrumental in me graduating with a bachelor of science with honors in applied mathematics and economics. The motivators and catalysts for this were my advisors, my mentors, and the exceptional Dean Hazeltine, as well as upper classmates such as Teri Williams ’79, John Paul Grandy ’78, classmates, and sorority sisters. The rigorous academic courses gave me a purpose and a beacon of light to finally walk through the Van Wickle Gates. Diversity and inclusion may have supported me to join the track team, but it was the discipline and passion of the coach and team members that motivated us to be All Ivy. This outstanding program gave me the inspiration to complete the Marine Corps marathon in 3.40 hours, at age 29. My classmate Jocelyn McClain ’81 and her family opened their home to me the night before with unforgettable homemade pasta. It took a village to accomplish my achievements. Affirmative action programs create opportunities, not handouts or a false sense of entitlement. Every degree is earned, because the University empowers students to achieve their fullest potential and further a lifelong love
of learning.

I am surprised by the criticism. In my interactions with various alumni over the years it struck me that Brown had an anti-legacy orientation.

I am surprised by the criticism. In my interactions with various Brown alumni over the years it struck me that Brown had an anti-legacy orientation. The fact that it admits only 8 percent of each class through legacy applications suggests that most of them would have been admitted on their own merits. I wonder if anyone has conducted a longitudinal study of legacy students. How did they do both in academics and in leadership roles compared to the student population? Does Brown benefit financially from their attendance and post-graduation contributions? If we had some relevant information, we could better discuss this matter.

I suppose I was a legacy admission. However, my family was not wealthy. With in-laws and others making up the entire group, we do have more than a dozen Brown graduates in our family. Some of the family members were fairly well off when admitted but some were men and women who worked their way through school while depending on scholarships. When only 8 percent of Brown undergraduates are legacies one wonders how much of a factor legacy admissions are in denying opportunities to others. In the meanwhile, my extended family is proud and supportive of our generations-long association with the University. We feel that some of our shared values and culture are related to our undergraduate education. It is an important part of my life.

The discussion is inorganic and suspect. Chetty et al have axes to grind and their scholarship is biased from the start. My recollection holds that the college was more economically diverse 50 years ago than today. At Brown, the new curriculum coupled with the hiring of President Swearer were instrumental in getting the dust off an institution only a half-decade removed from possible collapse. Growing the endowment gained by selling instruction liberated from distribution requirements, and the college’s attractively small footprint matured to “elite” during the go-go get your own heyday of the Reagan years. Social and economic competition went into high gear fueled by gains in the financial and nascent technology sectors, on the one hand, and by opening the country to immigration from the developing Asian states—places accustomed to intense competition for positions in education and society. Where once the class composition was largely regional—the bulk of students from New England and New York, rich and poor alike, the push for celebrity (We got Amy Carter! We got Kennedy! We got child x, y, and z from Hollywood!) and the drive to build the endowment scanned over the world seeking fame and fortune’s grace to Van Wickle gates. We weren’t alone. Even the hockey teams changed in the course of time, once learned on outdoor ice, in schools, and in poorly equipped local leagues, hockey today starts at age 2 and training a kid costs more money than you ever dreamed possible. The Europeans may have socialized training a bit better, but here in the U.S., it takes money. So when student Shieh declares he’d rather have been rejected than have a “legacy” influence, he likely forgets that the real influence on his grades and test scores was the resources poured into his schooling, activities and advising. Shieh should also ask his alumni parents how they feel about this matter (Note: some immigrant communities manage to share good advice in gaining efficient and positive outcomes, but this business has professionalized as these communities themselves moved out of poverty). Or when student Forstner writes about a high school team, one backtracks to the previous paragraph to underline that she played on travel teams. That ain’t hay feeding this crew. Shieh wants mechanical admissions, and yet inputs of grades and test scores can only output more grades and test scores. And Forstner seemingly overlooks that the poorer players may be the better grade-and-test-score students. Besides, poor people do not row, and in the U.S. they barely play baseball anymore (much less have access to the study of Latin and Greek). The college will have to do some serious thinking about its goals for admissions, and who benefits, yet again. It would not hurt to abandon the term “legacy” in favor of something more accurately descriptive and less biased. It also will not hurt to consider “merit” with respect to the disciplines of instruction lest the school lose its ability to provide broad curricular choices as it narrows to a grade and test score economy.

I can’t deny that I was privileged to come from a “privileged” background, and I was also fortunate enough to graduate from one of the world’s best boarding schools. I understand the feeling behind the quote by the person who spoke about “imposter’s syndrome.” Also, when I came to Brown it had a much smaller endowment, and I remember reading at the time that Brown couldn’t afford to do “need blind” admissions in the way some other top education institutions did. But I am not going to beat myself up too much about it. I know I earned my keep based on my SAT scores, IQ tests, and the good grades I received at Brown itself, where I know I was being judged by professors based on my work, not my background. Also, it’s worth remembering that the money more fortunate individuals and families can give to Brown is helpful in making it possible for the school to support more scholarships and grants. So I suggest to those who feel guilty about their station in life, donate to Brown or remember it in their wills as a salve.

So rich kids have advantages, including some that help them prepare for college? What a shock. I have a very hard time believing, as Prof. Friedman contends, that our coaches—given the intense competition they face—prefer worse athletes as long as they are wealthy. The main cause he cites is legacies, which have known pros and cons. They build support but cost Brown new blood. But shouldn’t the institution itself—which is responsible for building its own culture and long-term flourishing as a University—make that call? At only 8 percent Brown does not seem to be overdoing it. A melodramatic conclusion by Prof. Friedman.

My oldest will be applying to colleges in three years. She would love Brown, contribute to the community, and take advantage of everything it has to offer, but neither of us want her to have a leg up because of her parents’ attendance. In fact, she won’t benefit from Brown the same way another kid will. A study published a decade ago found that “Students who are poised to succeed tend to do so even if they don’t get into the Ivy League.”

But there was a crucial exception. There were strong benefits for the subset of Black and Hispanic students, and for those whose parents had few educational credentials. It turns out that students who come from less privileged backgrounds benefit greatly from selective colleges. Elite higher education gives them social capital they didn’t already have. I hope Brown does away with legacy preferences before she applies. If she gets in, I want her to know it’s on her own merit. If she doesn’t, the data suggest she’ll do great wherever she goes.

I have no problem with the fact that offspring of University officials, trustees, and prominent alumni have and always will be given an edge. Brown has always struggled to be competitive with its peers re: endowment. These monies aren’t going to be provided by campus agitators/crazies. Harvard at 36 percent (legacies) in 2022? Not surprising, and Brown at 8 percent, figures. Harvard endowment at $40 billion, Brown at about $6 billion. Harvard doesn’t apologize, nor should they.

Thank you for your article about legacy admissions. I did not realize that Brown still participated in this antiquated practice, even if it yields “only” 8 percent of the student body. One argument in the article for legacy admissions stated that “wealthy alumni parents generally stop giving if their child is not admitted….” But what if those of us without legacy children (the majority) stopped giving if legacy admissions continue? That is now my intention.

I did not realize Brown still participated in this antiquated practice, even if it yields ‘only’ 8 percent of the student body.