While the Dartmouth Class of 2012 admissions statistics -- including records of 16,536 applicants and just a 13.2 percent acceptance rate -- portend a bright future for the College, they disguise a problem that subverts the very purpose of this esteemed institution and has become far too widely tolerated: high acceptance rate of legacy students.
The College acknowledged that the acceptance rate for legacy applicants (29.7 percent) ran over twice as high as that for everyone else (12.7 percent) and that the total number of legacies admitted was the highest in five years. Dartmouth's policy may not reek as much of nepotism as Princeton's, which garners a 40.2 percent acceptance rate for the children of loyal Tigers, yet the system fundamentally corrupts the profound aims of this College by valuing family name above merit.
Granted, some legacy students may have general attributes that make them stronger than the average candidate. Legacies have an attractive personal connection to the College and likely come from more privileged backgrounds (their parents are Dartmouth graduates after all) with better educations. But are those factors really strong enough to warrant an acceptance rate that is almost two and a half times higher?
Of course not. In fact, the policy undercuts one of our supposed "Core Values" -- that the College "embraces diversity with the knowledge that it significantly enhances the quality of a Dartmouth education." Considering the make-up of Dartmouth students of previous generations, legacy applicants are much more likely to be white and wealthy. Despite all of the diversity talk, we still admit these advantaged individuals over those with equal or possibly better resums. The Admissions Office might as well send the marginalized students we turn down a special attachment in their envelopes saying, "if only you were born with a Big Green silver spoon in your mouth."
Obviously much of the legacy policy has to do with alumni relations and institutional development. According to the Council for Aid to Education, alumni gave over $29.75 billion to colleges and universities in the U.S. last year, including $159.1 million to Dartmouth. They also spent many valuable hours recruiting students, promoting their colleges and helping new graduates find jobs.
One would hope that alumni's love for their alma mater and willingness to give back is not predicated on that college accepting their son or daughter in the future. Unfortunately, that is not the case, according to two economists from the National Bureau of Economic Research who analyzed alumni donations at an unnamed university. They showed that money given spiked in the year during which the alumni's child applied to the school, and donations dropped off considerably if the university rejected him or her.
With all that money being thrown around on the expectation of legacy admissions, Dartmouth implicitly condones bribery by accepting such a high percentage of legacies. Even if Dartmouth admits a lower percentage of legacy applicants than some other schools, any large benefit provided just to encourage donations or involvement ruins the fairness of the admissions process and deprives the College of the finest student body. Besides, alumni donations should be more than just kickbacks. They ought to provide an avenue for alumni to give back to an institution that gave so much to them.
How do we justify rewarding sons and daughters of alumni over other, more highly qualified high school students? Even George W. Bush, who received as much legacy help as anyone, understands the problems inherent in this dishonest system. He once remarked, "And to the C students, I say, 'You, too, can be president of the United States,'" but stated in 2004 that "colleges ought to use merit in order for people to get in."
Our mission statement reads, "Dartmouth College educates the most promising students and prepares them for a lifetime of learning and responsible leadership with a faculty dedicated to teaching and the creation of knowledge." By admitting the "best connected" or "most likely to donate" over the "most promising students," the College fails to honor the integrity of its past and spits on the only legacy that truly matters.
