HERE'S WHAT READERS ARE SAYING:

I agree that college admissions should be based on
merit. However, if two students are equally qualified
and one is the child of an alumnus, then the
preference should go to that student.

Amanda Lutey
Beaver Dam, WI
Wisconsin State Journal

Is it OK to show preferences for offspring of alumni?

In my humble opinioin, absolutley NOT. There is enough
nepotism in this world already. Regardless of the
school, whether it be Yale or a community college,
there are student enrollment caps. Favoritism could
push out many hard working and determined students in
favor of less ambitious, less academically deserving
students - and all because of who the latter is
related to.

I say leave such behavior to the institutions it is
suited for; fraternities.

Annaliesa Redfield
Fullerton, CA
Orange County Register

Re: Colleges and Legacy Students.
Some where I read that if a notion doesn't make sense look to the money. The benefit of legacy is not to the student or the alumni. Legacy is a benefit to the college. The college "sells" the future benefit (your child will have the same great experience you had) to the alumni in exchange for "donations" to the school. I propose that children of "non donating"alumni have no better chance of admission than children of non alumni.
Jim Ward
Anaheim California
Orange County Register

Yes, preference for offspring of alumni who graduated from private colleges, such as Yale, should be allowed, at the discretion of each college or university, but no for public colleges and universities.

Past performance (high school grades and course selection) and standardized test results (SAT) are the best predictors of future success in college and I support these two criteria, with very few exceptions, being used as the paramount standard for admission at public college and universities. Extracurricular activities, community service, athletic ability and other factors should carry much less weight and legacy should not be a consideration at all.

I see community colleges as a second chance for all students who were unable, for whatever reason, to perform well in high school. A student who performs well in community college may transfer to a college or university and those students high school grades or low SAT scores are not taken into consideration.

My husband graduated from a private university, Chapman University, and I would have expected my children to have a preference in being admitted to that particular University, had they applied.

Melody Vaught

Everyone knows, unless they just landed from another planet, that it's "Who you know not what you know" that makes this planet go around! The bottom line is the almighty Dollar, Yen, Euro, Ruble - you name it.

So who's to say that the offspring of alumni shouldn't receive preferential treatment?

After all; the alumnus in question probably paid for the science building & started a new company created 30,000 new U.S. based jobs. All to the benefit of the rest of us who'll have to rely on other qualifications to gain admittance. Such as: being  a 6'7" - 330 lbs tackle or being a 14 year old genius gifted with an innovative scientific mind.

Bob Lansley

Dear Mr. Seglin:

I am Maria Aurora D. Puzon of Anaheim CA, and I have
just read your article in the Orange County Register about showing
preferences for offspring of alumni.

I believe that they could be given preference if they qualify and only then. More power to you!

Dear Mr. Seglin:

Children of alumni members should be considered along with other applicants in the admissions process.  But they shouldn't have any special favors.  The primary factors used to gain enrollment into college should be high school grades, community and school activities, and various reading & writing skills.  Students need to be very literate in college and in the occupational world.  Other secondary factors in the admissions equation could be socioeconomic status, athletic skills and positive character traits.  Moreover, the higher education selection process should be based upon fairness and common sense.  

Christian P. Milord            

Fullerton, Ca.          

Orange County Register

President Bush's daughter Barbara must have been accepted in Yale because of her father, Pres. Bush and his money. I'm sure it wasn't scholastically. She was accepted and pushed through because of family tradition. President Bush was right when saying colleges should not give preferences to children or grandchildren of alumni. He also said admissions "ought to be based on merit". I guess he knew what he was talking about.

Her speech at the convention doesn't say much for her being a Yale or college grad. She sounded more like a smug young teenager not a college grad. If that was my daugher, I would have been embarrassed. As they say "Like Father Like Daughter"

Charlotte Goldfarb

Coconut Creek, Fla.
.
Read the article in The Jewish Journal

Absolutely.

First of all, alumni have already made substantial investments in their respective institutions of higher learning. Those investments include tuition and fees paid and non-monetary contributions such as volunteerism and revenue-generating athletic participation. Perhaps more importantly, each alumnus' college experience is a tangible investment in the creation of the culture of his/her college. It is certainly reasonable that the children of alumni should benefit from the investments of their parents.

From the perspective of the college --- their loyalty pays. These institutions couldn't make it without significant charitable financial support.  Alumni represent the most fertile soil for giving. The natural product of consecutive generations attending the same college is loyalty. The loyal college that admits a legacy creates another generation of loyal alumni. Multi-generational participation creates a cycle of reciprocating loyalty which makes possible major financial gifts from families, versus minor gifts from individuals. If I attend College A, my child attends College B, and my grandchild attends College C --- each school may well receive charitable contributions from each respective alumnus. But due to divided loyalty, it is unlikely that any one of these institutions will receive the family fortune.

It is important to note that this argument is not intended to promote the admittance of unqualified students to any institution of higher learning.  The point is that most high-performing colleges are able to turn away many qualified students, in favor of other students that they may deem as "more qualified." Accepting the largely subjective nature of these evaluations, I believe that it is very reasonable for institutions of higher learning to offer some preference to legacies. No college is going to damage its academic reputation or culture by admitting unqualified students.

Bob Bilbrough
Gainesville, Georgia
Wake Forest University '78

Just my personal opinion but I believe that the president is right....your college admission
should never be based on who's child you are....it should be done with tests and merits
only.

Susan Helton
Shreveport, Louisiana

My name is Dee Tomlin. My hometown is Jonesboro, GA, and I read this article in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution. Below is my answer.
Like most questions, the best answer is neither yes nor no. The best answer to most questions is more likely to be "it depends". It might depend on whether the alumni consistently make contributions to the improvement of the institution, such as donations or grants, financial or other.
To get a more definitive answer, and to sound less solicitous, it is sometimes better to rephrase the question, evoking a more thoughtful and appropriate, indeed intuitive answer.
This question might well be rephrased thus: Is it proper and effective to use preferential treatment as a reward for behavior deemed positive to the institution?  By using the best criteria, an answer to this question, and possibly others, may become a matter of logical deduction.
In this case, it seems appropriate to reward those who contribute. This supports our time-tested system of rewarding good behavior and, conversely, not rewarding bad behavior. The obvious answer is that if anyone has made a contribution, their behavior should be rewarded. Therefore, yes, it is ok to show preference to offspring of alumni. Intuitively, it is likewise ok to reward other forms of approved behavior by showing similar preferences to other groups. Students who have worked to establish superior records for their hard work and achievement in academics, sports, or any number of other areas may then be included. To summarize, reward behavior. This would eliminate preferential treatment for anything not related to behavior, over which individuals have no control, such as height, age, race, etc. Logic demands you reward someone for excelling at basketball, but not for being tall. In short, reward people for "doing", not "being."

Folks:
A private school, such as Yale or Boston College (where one of my nephews
was a successful legacy) may discriminate in any way it chooses. This is
not the ethical case where the school is a public school. Public schools
are for the poor, and may discriminate only on the basis of academic
promise.
Elizabeth C. Goldin
Stone Mountain, Georgia
Read in the Atlanta Journal/Constitution

I believe I saw an article on this in the school paper when I was attending a major public university over a decade ago (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). Someone in the admissions office was quoted as saying it was a "necessary evil"; you had to let the children of big donors in to keep these donors happy and sending money.
I remember thinking, "Well, it might be necessary, but it certainly is evil," particularly for a state-funded college. A state school should have better criteria than to admit legacies.
Therefore, my current thinking is as follows: legacies are fine for a private university, but they have no place in a public university.
David J. Kupstas
Richmond, VA
Richmond Times-Dispatch

I think legacy quotas should be banned and affirmative action quotas are ok. Just think - if W. had been required to get into Yale on his own merit, we wouldn't have had to tolerate him for four years.

Bill Kopf

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in the e-mails to The Right Thing: Sound Off section of this Web site are solely the views of the those who sent them. They do not reflect the views of Jeff Seglin, The New York Times Syndicate or The New York Times Company.