July 17, 2023
Dear Chairpersons Comerford and Rogers:
I am the Executive Director of Education Reform Now Massachusetts and write in support of H. 1282 and S. 821, An Act Banning Legacy Preferences in Higher Education, filed by Rep. Michael Moran and Sen. Lydia Edwards.
ERNA is an advocacy organization that advances educational equity and innovation through issue advocacy campaigns in support of students in Massachusetts.
The History of Legacy Preferences
The time has come to end the practice of legacy preferences in higher education. Legacy preferences are so embedded in our culture that most people do not know their origin. The practice of giving an advantage to children and grandchildren of alumni started in the 1920s as a way to keep Jewish students out of Ivy League colleges and universities as they were unlikely to have a relative who attended the school. As a result, elite academic institutions gave advantages to certain types of students — that is, Protestants — as a way to deny admission to others, without actually admitting that their decisions were rooted in antisemitism.
One hundred years later, both public and private universities are still making admissions decisions based on whether a family member attended the school. Each school has a finite number of students it will admit. By reserving seats for children of alumni, they are limiting opportunities for all others, especially immigrants and those who are the first in their family to attend college. Legacy policies also harm students of color and students from low-income families as they are far less likely to have parents who attended selective schools.
Education Reform Now Advocacy’s Deputy Director of Higher Education Policy, James Murphy, has written a brief entitled The Future of Fair Admissions containing additional background information that you may find helpful as you consider these bills.
Legacy Preferences in Massachusetts Colleges and Universities
In 20 states across the country, no public universities provide an admissions advantage to the relatives of alumni. In 2021, Colorado became the first state to ban legacy preferences in public higher education institutions. In stark contrast, in Massachusetts, 69% of public universities provide a legacy preference. This is the third worst rate in the entire country. In the UMass and state university systems, the following schools use legacy preferences in their admissions process:
● UMass Dartmouth
● UMass Lowell
● Bridgewater State
● Fitchburg State
● Worcester State
● Mass. College of Art and Design
● Mass. College of Liberal Arts
● Mass. Maritime Academy
Across all Massachusetts higher education institutions, 75% provide a legacy preference. That means 75% of Massachusetts colleges and universities perpetuate systemic racism, support an inequitable practice, and give an advantage to students based on their birthright. I have attached a list of Massachusetts public and private colleges that shows which ones use legacy preferences in their admissions practices and those that do not.
What happened when Amherst College ended legacy admissions demonstrates this powerfully. Last month, Amherst announced the impact of its decision to admit students based on their qualifications rather than on their birthright. For the class starting in September, the number of first-generation students went up 50% and the number of legacy students dropped by 50%. Creating an admissions system based on merit literally creates opportunity for those who have been historically marginalized.
The Impact of Legacy Preferences
In a holistic applicant review process, college admissions committees use multiple factors when determining who to admit — academic, nonacademic, and contextual. No one is admitted to a selective college due to one factor, whether it be test scores, grades, athletic ability, race, or legacy status. Even after admissions officers have narrowed down the pool, there are still too many highly qualified candidates for a limited number of seats in an entering class. During a process known as shaping a class, a single factor can make a large difference in a highly qualified applicant’s chances of being offered admission over other equally talented students.
This explains why some of the defenders of legacy preferences assert that legacy preference is just a tiebreaker. At places like Harvard, MIT, Amherst, or Williams, tiebreakers are everything. At MIT and Amherst, where your parents went to college does not break the tie. They evaluate applicants based on their merits, not on their parents’ educational background.
During the trial that led to the recent Supreme Court decision on affirmative action, Harvard’s admissions dean revealed how tie breakers, or what Harvard calls a “tip,” work in their admissions process. He testified that being a top-ranked applicant coming from a low income household boosts your odds of getting in from 15% to 24%, which sounds good until you learn about the boost that an equally ranked legacy gets. Their admit rate goes from 15% to 55%.
In other words, a smart high school student from a low-income family gets rejected by Harvard three out of four times. A smart legacy, however, is more likely to get into Harvard than get rejected. That’s one powerful tiebreaker.
Conclusion
In the wake of the Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, a chorus of voices spoke out against the continued use of legacy preferences. Leading figures including President Biden and former Harvard president Larry Summers have called for the end of legacy preferences in college admissions. As Massachusetts colleges and universities begin their work to protect diversity and fair access in the shadow of the Supreme Court’s flawed decision, they should be acting now to end the use of legacy preferences. We will know whether they have decided to live up to the mission statements they released in response to the Supreme Court decision by the end of this summer. If every college in the state has not voluntarily dropped the use of legacy preferences by September 1, 2023, the legislature has to act.
The Higher Education Committee has a simple question to ask: should winning a birth lottery be the thing that gets a student admitted over an equally talented student who would be the first in their family to attend college? We respectfully say the answer is no. Massachusetts should stop this shameful and exclusive practice. I hope you will give H. 1282 and S. 821 a favorable report.
Best regards,
Mary Tamer
Executive Director
Education Reform Now Advocacy Massachusetts