**Tl;DR: Legacy admissions give more advantages to wealthy students and take resources away from disadvantaged ones.** Higher education institutions in the United States stand as [global outlier](https://www.economist.com/united-states/2019/03/23/why-legacy-places-should-be-abolished) in allowing legacy preferences in admissions decisions. This mechanism allows children of college alums to have an advantage in the competitive admissions process. Studies have shown that legacy preferences can significantly boost a student’s chances or admissions by [as much as 23%](https://www.chronicle.com/article/at-elite-colleges-legacy-status-may-count-more-than-was-previously-thought/). Legacy preferences disadvantage low-income and minority students. The mechanism ties college admissions to family backgrounds. Wealthy and white students are more likely to have well-educated parents. Hence, their inherent advantages will also manifest in the college admissions process. Furthermore, legacy preferences are not viable to many first-generation college students and descendants of recent immigrants. When comparing family educational histories across different racial groups, almost half of white students have parents with higher education, [compared to](https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2020/01/30/479940/elite-college-dropped-legacy-admissions-time-higher-education-institutions/) less than a quarter of minority students. As a result, the mechanism remains largely a tool for privileged, wealthy, and white students to enhance their social status. The effect of legacy preferences is visible in reality. When John Hopkins University abolished the process, [the college saw a drastic shake-up in their enrolled students](https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2020/01/30/479940/elite-college-dropped-legacy-admissions-time-higher-education-institutions/). The number of Pell-Grant eligible students went up by 10%. The overall student body became more diverse and competitive. Therefore, the abolition of legacy preferences represents an effective way to promote equitable educational opportunities. For this reason, legacy admissions should be abolished.

**TL;DR** - **Legacy admissions destroys any notion of a meritocratic system.** When [the college admissions scandal broke in 2019] (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/12/college-admissions-fraud-scandal-felicity-huffman-lori-loughlin), it brought renewed attention to the issue of the nepotism in admissions into college. Of course, this is not the same as legacy admissions, but it points to a continued failure to allot college places purely on ability. Meritocracy means rewarding someone based on their abilities and achievements, rather than based on wealth and family. A legacy admission, conversely, is given a 'leg up' by the fact that they have a relative who has attended the same institution. _The Atlantic_ reported that being a legacy can [double or quadruple] (https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/04/legacy-admissions-preferences-ivy/586465/) one's chances of gaining admissions. Colleges are already highly selective, but the advantage given to legacy students neutralises the meritocratic ideals upon which admissions to higher education are granted. Colleges cite the importance of legacy admissions for fundraising. However, the same piece from _The Atlantic_ observes that a legacy admission is no guarantee of donations to the college. Likewise, if the college is thinking in purely fiscal terms, wealthy students risk being rejected on the basis that they are not a legacy. To that end, it is not possible for a college to brand itself as meritocratic in its admissions policy and to then operate a legacy admissions programme. They cannot coexist.