Using my post yesterday on "legacy" admits as a jumping-off point, one of the two authors of Observational Epidemiology suggests that there may be legitimate reasons to give an admissions boost to alumni children--at least to those rarified few who occupy the Senator's- son/Internet-mogul's-daughter category.
The author's logic has little to do with building institutional loyalty, colleges' stated rationale for this form of affirmative action. Instead, it's a straightforward calculation about the likelihood of future professional success. Brains and hard work are important to such success, of course, and these are the qualities stressed in the (largely) meritocratic admissions process. But personal connections play an important role in success, too:
Connections are governed by the laws of graph theory. I'm not going to delve too deeply into the subject (since that would require research and possibly actual work on my part), but as anyone who has read even the cover blurbs on Linked or Small Worlds can tell you, adding a few highly connected nodes (let's call them senator's sons) can greatly increase the connectivity of a system.
It would be interesting to model the trade off between picking a well connected legacy over a smarter, harder-working applicant given the objective of producing the greatest aggregate success. Because of the network properties mentioned above, it wouldn't be surprising if the optimal number of legacies turned out to be the 10% to 15% we generally see.
Meanwhile, a contributor at Gene Expression takes the exact opposite view. The author buys the (contested) notion that attending an elite college itself leads to a lifetime of higher earnings (i.e., that the college adds something above and beyond the qualities that got you admitted). Given that lifetime benefit, he says, it is doubly scandalous that admissions would be partly based on who your mother or father is.
The author is solely responsible for the content.
Leon Neyfakh is the staff writer for Ideas. Amanda Katz is the deputy Ideas editor. Stephen Heuser is the Ideas editor.
Guest blogger Simon Waxman is Managing Editor of Boston Review and has written for WBUR, Alternet, McSweeney's, Jacobin, and others.
Guest blogger Elizabeth Manus is a writer living in New York City. She has been a book review editor at the Boston Phoenix, and a columnist for The New York Observer and Metro.
Guest blogger Sarah Laskow is a freelance writer and editor in New York City. She edits Smithsonian's SmartNews blog and has contributed to Salon, Good, The American Prospect, Bloomberg News, and other publications.
Guest blogger Joshua Glenn is a Boston-based writer, publisher, and freelance semiotician. He was the original Brainiac blogger, and is currently editor of the blog HiLobrow, publisher of a series of Radium Age science fiction novels, and co-author/co-editor of several books, including the story collection "Significant Objects" and the kids' field guide to life "Unbored."
Guest blogger Ruth Graham is a freelance journalist in New Hampshire, and a frequent Ideas contributor. She is a former features editor for the New York Sun, and has written for publications including Slate and the Wall Street Journal.
Joshua Rothman is a graduate student and Teaching Fellow in the Harvard English department, and an Instructor in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. He teaches novels and political writing.