Legacy admissions, a controversial practice exercised by some of the nation’s leading universities, grants preferential treatment to the children of alumni and donors, leading to the perception that it benefits the wealthy and influential. The article from The New York Times sheds light on the ongoing debate surrounding legacy admissions. Critics argue that this practice perpetuates a cycle of privilege, allowing the scions of rich families an easier path to prestigious universities, regardless of their qualifications. The universities are defending legacy admissions as a means to raise funds even though it runs counter to the values of fairness and meritocracy.
This raises the question: is raising money for these institutions a sufficient justification for perpetuating a system of privilege for merit-based institutions? And are universities using an erroneous and shortsighted justification for maintaining this policy? More specifically, can elite universities do financially better by being confident in the value of their education and focusing on merit-based admissions of entrepreneurially gifted students who could become Unicorn-Entrepreneurs and can potentially donate much more than legacy alumni?
Many schools and school buildings bear the names of successful entrepreneurs, indicating that these entrepreneurs have contributed significantly to the institutions. This observation implies that the major donors, who appreciate the value of education, and whose names are on the gates, are often entrepreneurs who may have received their education from the institution or appreciate the value of education and the institution:
· Ken Langone, a co-founder of Home Depot, has given hundreds of millions to NYU.
· Glen Taylor (Taylor Corporation) has been a major donor to Minnesota State University at Mankato, where he got his degree.
· Dick Schulze (Best Buy) has been a significant benefactor to the University of St. Thomas, which is located in the area where he grew up.
· Bob Kierlin has donated to Minnesota State College in Winona, where he lives.
· Earl Bakken donated to the University of Minnesota where he got his undergraduate and graduate degrees.
· Sam Walton has been a significant donor to the University of Arkansas, which was his alma mater.
Reason #1. By providing motivated and talented students with access to high-quality education and a high-impact network, the potential for these students to start and build successful companies increases significantly. If elite schools focus on admitting entrepreneurially gifted students, they could benefit financially with increased donations from these successful individuals, further contributing to the school’s resources.
Reason #2. Universities also have the opportunity to help all communities. Students from non-legacy families, who have achieved success through their own efforts, may be more likely to give back to the less privileged communities where they grew up.
The recommended strategy is not without challenges, including identifying entrepreneurially gifted students who can actually build unicorns and not just pitch for capital. Entrepreneurship is also not the only need in the non-legacy segments but is one that may best balance the financial equation and defang the argument that elite institutions need legacies for funding.
MY TAKE: To get started, it would be helpful to know the number of unicorns built by legacies and non-legacy alums of these elite institutions, and also the amount donated by the two groups. By ending the practice of legacy admissions and actively recruiting entrepreneurially gifted students who are likely to become Unicorn-Entrepreneurs, elite institutions may help to create more unicorns. Some of these talented students may drop out of the elite institutions to pursue their dreams as was done by Gates and Zuckerberg — and build more unicorns.
Read the full article here
