Until last week I had never heard the expression "white affirmative action." Unbeknownst to me, this is what Congress is calling the admittance of early decision applicants and alumni offspring. Ironically, Senator Ted Kennedy, himself former legacy admittance at Harvard, filed a bill last week that would force colleges to release the economic and racial status of those students admitted under the early decision program, and those accepted who were legacies. Under this bill, a university's failure to disclose this information could make it ineligible for federal financial aid. An article on Oct. 29, 2003 in the Wall Street Journal pointed out that the proposed legislation was an effort to highlight two admission policies that "tend to favor affluent white students over low-income minorities." In a political effort to appeal to a vast array of constituents, this bill does sound like the just and moral way to approach college admissions; however, in reality, it is both impractical and — more importantly — takes attention away from the crux of the problem that is plaguing college admissions.
In discussing the bill, Senator John Edwards, a current presidential hopeful, said that "requiring these disclosures should encourage colleges to take a hard look at a practice that tilts the admission process against the kids who face the biggest obstacles." While I agree with Senator Edward's statement, is forcing universities to release legacy statistics really going to help these underprivileged kids? As our new Dean of Admissions Janet Rapelye said in the Journal article, "I don't think reporting the information is going to help the situation. I would hope that higher education would have the freedom to work this out for the student's best interests without having a federal watchdog."
This present bill is sure to be the first of many aimed at eliminating the unfair advantages of wealthier students in college applications. But this bill fails to acknowledge that the college admission process is, in some respects, about "unfair" advantages and preferential treatment. Athletes, musicians, international students and underrepresented minorities all are given special treatment in the admissions process; legacy is merely another one of these special groups. There is no such thing a "sure thing" with a legacy but they, as with gifted athletes, are given an extra look. This year, 12 percent of the Princeton freshman class are children of alumni and according to the Wall Street Journal article, they "are accepted at two or three times the rate of other applicants." For many schools, including Princeton, legacies are an undeniably important part of the university and are, in many cases necessary, for providing the financial stimulus for growth and development.
The real crux of the problem is that behind this blind statistic of legacy admittance is the inherent economic privilege that is really making the difference. The saving grace of the bill is a section that calls for providing free tutoring on college entrance exams. If one really wants to create a balanced applicant pool, education is the path to follow, not fooling around with legacies. As a country we need to work on the entire education process that leads kids into college and decrease the disparity in resources available to high school students. The proposed bill should be limited to the building of an education program that provides everyone with equal opportunities for college admission. Standardized tests are a perfect place to start. With good tutoring on the SAT I's and SAT II's, every student can develop the skills and methods to succeed on the test; one could even argue that the test today has become a measure of a student's economic resources and not intellect. I say, let's take the focus of the bill off of the admission of legacies and instead concentrate on making the college-preparatory education more egalitarian.
But who knows? Maybe this "white affirmative action" movement is simply the next logical step in the increasingly muddled college admission process. With increased talk in the Ivy League about decreasing athlete preference in the admission process, is legacy favoritism the next to go?
Chris Berger is a sophomore from London.
Read More
Seniors deserve better than Jay Shetty
Izabela Konopka and Joshua YangWe are writing to express our strong disapproval of the selection of Jay Shetty as the 2025 Class Day speaker. We deserve better than a self-help guru and repeated plagiarist who runs a “school” that an expert claims exhibits “similar patterns” to a multi-level marketing scheme.
We are writing to express our strong disapproval of the selection of Jay Shetty as the 2025 Class Day speaker. We deserve better than a self-help guru and repeated plagiarist who runs a “school” that an expert claims exhibits “similar patterns” to a multi-level marketing scheme.
The CPUC must not gut its Judicial Committee
Bill HewittEnding the Judicial Committee’s jurisdiction over initial complaints would embolden abuses of power, allowing the administration to evade accountability for University rule violations without the pressure of student and faculty authority.
Ending the Judicial Committee’s jurisdiction over initial complaints would embolden abuses of power, allowing the administration to evade accountability for University rule violations without the pressure of student and faculty authority.
Princeton, let’s adopt a digital prox
Jorge ReyesTo prevent pointless replacement and lockout charges, maximize convenience, and create better access to meals and facilities, Princeton should follow the precedent set by some of its peers and adopt a digital prox system.
To prevent pointless replacement and lockout charges, maximize convenience, and create better access to meals and facilities, Princeton should follow the precedent set by some of its peers and adopt a digital prox system.