Data shows that legacy applicants from 12 elite colleges, including Duke University, enjoy an extraordinary advantage, with a 37% acceptance rate at schools where they hold legacy status — nearly quadruple the rate for non-legacy applicants at the same institutions, which stands at just 9.5%. Even when legacy applicants apply to similarly prestigious schools where they lack legacy ties, their acceptance rate drops significantly to 11%, revealing how much their success depends on the legacy tag.
Furthermore, legacy admissions disproportionately benefit the wealthiest applicants, as nearly two-thirds of legacy students come from families in the top 5% of income earners, with 36% from the top 1% alone. If universities like Duke claim to value diversity, innovation and fairness, they must question whether policies favoring legacy applicants align with these principles — or if they instead reinforce exclusivity at the expense of diverse, “holistic” admissions strategies.
Legacy admissions further amplify economic disparities in student bodies, disproportionately benefiting the wealthiest applicants. As shown in the first figure in this article, the advantage for legacy applicants grows dramatically as family income increases. Legacy applicants in the top 0.1% are an astounding seven times as likely to be admitted as applicants with the same test scores. For reference, non-legacy students in the top 0.1% are two to three times as likely to be admitted. This disparity demonstrates the extent to which legacy preferences may elevate wealth over merit.
Clarence Thomas, associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, describes legacy admissions as “poisoning” the admission process. The Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard has also highlighted relevant opposition to legacy admission, as legacy admits tend to be wealthier and whiter than their non-legacy peers. This process is commonly critiqued for not being meritocratic. By granting an acceptance advantage to legacy students, Duke reinforces systemic inequities that contradict its core values of fairness and academic excellence.
Legacy admissions may help maintain a familial “nature” to Duke, but it comes at the expense of merit-based admissions. Research done by Michael Hurwitz at Harvard indicates that legacy admissions often favor applicants who may be less qualified than their non-legacy counterparts. The study found that being a legacy applicant increases one's chances of admission substantially, even when controlling for other factors including high school GPA, extracurricular activities and rigor of high school coursework, proving that this boost given is not based on academics.
The rationale for maintaining a low acceptance rate is to admit highly motivated and accomplished students. However, an inflated acceptance rate for legacy applicants suggests that familial ties may play an outsized role in an already even more “selective” admissions rate for non-legacy students, students with access to limited resources and those who face economic disparities.
The consequences of a contrasting admission of legacy and non-legacy students at Duke can be understood through the psychological concept of self-serving bias. According to the American Psychological Association, self-serving bias is the tendency to interpret events in a way that assigns credit for success to oneself but denies one’s responsibility on external factors. Legacy preferences, benefiting from familial ties, may still attribute their acceptance to solely personal merit, while overlooking the systemic advantages their connections provide. This perception reinforces a sense of belonging rooted in tradition rather than individual achievement.
In contrast, non-legacy students, who lack inherited advantages, may view their acceptance as a testament to their own hard work and qualifications. At Duke, perhaps this perspective can lead to a deeper appreciation for the opportunities Duke offers and foster a stronger sense of loyalty to the university. As a university, we should explore these psychological tendencies further to better understand how legacy admissions shape differing attitudes toward achievement and belonging within the Duke community.
This practice prompts an important question: Are legacy preferences limiting access for the next generation of "Forever Duke" students who could better embody the University’s values of resilience, innovation and inclusivity? Ironically, Duke may risk weakening its community by admitting students who may have strong familial ties but lack the diverse perspectives, adaptability and merit-based achievements that enrich Duke’s dynamic and forward-thinking community.
Ultimately, we must ask how a university that emphasizes diversity, inclusion and belonging — even embedding these ideals in its own admissions essay prompts — can continue to justify legacy admissions, which appear to contradict these principles.
Kareena Sukhnanan is a Trinity junior. Her pieces typically run on alternate Thursdays.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Sign up for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.