California’s recent decision to prohibit legacy admissions at public universities has been widely condemned as a step toward equality in higher education. However, calling it a “ban” is somewhat misleading. Yes, the University of California system has stopped using legacy status—preference given to applicants who have family that are alumni of the college—, but UC schools had largely not relied on legacy admissions before this formal “ban.” So, although the move is symbolically important, it does not bring much change some are making it out to have had.
Legacy admissions are more common at private universities, while California’s public universities have largely avoided this practice. In fact, the UC system has not officially begun using legacy admissions in its decision making process since 1998. This “ban” essentially reinforces a policy already in place rather than ending a widespread practice of these legacy admissions.
Moreover, framing it as a “ban” also suggests that legacy admissions were the primary source in inequality in college admissions. The deeper issue, however, is much deeper which lies beyond legacy admissions. Wealthier students often have access to private tutors, test preparation, exclusive extracurricular opportunities, etc. These advantages, unrelated to legacy admissions, start long before the college application process. Eliminating the legacy preferences does not address the persistent disadvantage that many students from underprivileged backgrounds are faced with. While removing legacy admissions may slightly level the playing field, it falls short from being a solution to the larger, more ingrained inequities in the education system.
Ultimately, California’s decision to officially “ban” legacy admissions is not the revolutionary, groundbreaking change that some are celebrating it to be. A broader focus on systemic inequalities that start long before college applications are even submitted is necessary.
