Today’s presidential panel featured President Shirley Tilghman and her soon-to-be successor, Christopher Eisgruber ’83. Eisgruber fielded several questions from the audience, one of which came from a man from the Class of 1951 who oversees his class’s Annual Giving. He expressed concerns about not letting in legacy children, as this often causes alumni to scale back or altogether cease their donations. He urged Eisgruber and the admissions committee to let in more legacy applicants. Eisgruber’s closing comments on the matter were: “Rather than picking one over the other, I’d like to simply have more available spots.”
The alumnus’s viewpoint is problematic. It implies that legacy children are somehow more entitled to a Princeton education than their non-legacy peers without considering merit. Admitting non-legacy applicants works to gradually expand the Princeton network, as well, as more people then have connections to the University. While there is certainly a value and sense of pride in being able to say you attended the same university as your mother and grandfather, it’s better to be able to say that due to merit rather than blood.
Furthermore, Princeton still ranks as the university with the highest endowment per student. Money does not need to be the driving force in decisions such as this one. It’s understandable for alumni to be upset that their children were not accepted, but their refusal to donate money shouldn’t have any bearing on admissions as it already is. Allowing more legacy children in for the sake of money also bears the risk of compromising the socioeconomic diversity that the University prides itself in, as alumni who can donate large sums of money are presumably also from a wealthier socioeconomic background.