Around a century ago, top American colleges began giving the children of graduates of the school a preference in admissions. Harvard, e.g., didn’t want too many “lower class” students (recent immigrants, Jewish) so it favored applicants who had family connections. The practice continues to this day.

In today’s Martin Center article, Walt Gardner argues that it is time to end legacy preferences.

Writes Gardner, “There was a time when the number of ‘legacy admits’ at colleges was low enough overall that the practice was tolerated. But with elite schools now under immense pressure to diversify their student bodies, enrolling underachieving applicants largely because they are family of alumni is criticized by some as an unfair practice that perpetuates inequity in admissions.”

He notes that some prominent schools, such as Amherst and Johns Hopkins have dropped legacy preferences. Colorado passed legislation to prohibit it in its state universities. Some members of Congress want to use the leverage of federal student aid to force all schools that want to accept federal funds to stop giving legacy preferences.

There is some opposition to that, naturally. Gardner notes that, “Push back is likely to intensify in the months ahead as admission to elite colleges is increasingly seen as a distinct leg up in finding well-paying jobs after graduation.”

Actually, it isn’t such a “leg up.” Having gone to a prestigious school is becoming less of an advantage as employers increasingly look for actual evidence of ability. Parents who scammed their clueless kids into top schools might enjoy bragging about where they’re going, but a degree from a top university won’t ensure success for the kids.

I agree with Gardner’s conclusion: “In the final analysis, legacy preferences are nothing more than affirmative action for the rich and well-connected. For too long both have played an inordinate role in admissions. It’s time to replace them with pure merit.”