[csa]

You’re assuming that no children of Harvard alum would be qualified to get in even without legacy status. This is a woefully incorrect assumption.

Also note that a full 70% of legacies are denied admission. Being a legacy is hardly a golden ticket.

[betterunix2]

It is not that no legacy students would get in purely on their academic achievements or that being a legacy is a golden ticket. The legacy admission process seems to serve no reasonable purpose and to be in direct conflict with Harvard's other goals with its admissions process. It would be better to fill that 14 percent with randomly selected applicants -- at least that would given Harvard a control group to measure the impact of their admissions criteria against.

[chongli]

Is it not reasonable for Harvard to try to grow their endowment? If an alumnus wants to donate a new library or a new scholarship to Harvard, what's wrong with letting their kid attend, assuming she has the grades? The library or scholarship could benefit far more than what we lose by not admitting the one kid for the place the legacy took.

[betterunix2]

No, it is corrupt for Harvard to try to solicit donations by tipping the scale in favor of admitting the children of their alumni. "Assuming she has the grades" is exactly the problem here -- legacy admissions are not held to the same standard as everyone else and have an easier time gaining admission.

We are also not talking about "one kid," we are talking about 14 percent of their student body. Harvard does not get a new library or big donation for every one of the hundreds of legacies it admits each year. What is the cost/benefit analysis of having having such a large fraction of the incoming class held to a lower standard?