Rick Kahlenberg writes about our American meritocracy:
Among selective research universities, public and private, almost three-quarters employ legacy preferences, as do the vast majority of selective liberal arts colleges. Some admissions departments insist they are used only as tie-breakers among deserving applicants. But studies have shown that being the child of an alumnus adds the equivalent of 160 SAT points to one's application (using the traditional 400-to-1600-point scale, and not factoring in the new writing section of the test) and increases one's chances of admission by almost 20 percentage points.
Legacy admissions are nothing more than a tool for the preservation of aristocracy. Contrary to the fantasy that hordes of underqualified black applicants are now producing their own legacies at elite schools, that's not really happening.
There are a number of reasons why I think we continue to focus on the relatively small pool of minority students that are helped by affirmative action while ignoring the massive impact legacies have on the children of the better off, but chief among them is the anti-meritocratic notion that being the child of a wealth family is some kind of free market "accomplishment" that can't be tinkered with while help for the children of "losers" is an unwarranted interference. Call it the Rick Santelli principle--no amount of aid to the wealthy is unjustified because they're "winners," while anything that helps historically disfavored groups is an indefensible attempt to rig the game for "losers" who don't deserve it.
