Does a person who works hard his whole life to get into a good college deserve an admission more than one whose father is capable of writing a large check? Legacy admissions are not based on merit but the wealth of your family and their history with the university that you are applying to. Your father went there, so did his father and you must follow in their footsteps regardless of how capable you are of doing so (Sacks 155).
As per the article under discussion, it is stated that, “justice calls for evenhanded treatment of groups and individuals,” while this is a very noble concept, it is practically impossible. Yes, in autopian world society holds all individual equal. But is it a good idea to put the good of a few people above greater benefit for all? At a glance it wouldn’t be inaccurate to say that such admissions are unethical, but the question is, who are they harming? Those that are denouncing legacy admission are doing so by promoting merit. Even former president George Bush spoke against legacy admission, however he himself has been known to graduate from Yale while his academic record shows no distinguishing patterns. Legacy admissions help by giving the educational institutes funds which they further utilize to make the edification experience more enriching. These funds result in high labs, competitive sports programs, state of the art libraries etcetera.
Investopedia, an investment company came up with a very simple calculation of yield-measurements e.g. if the university has an endowment fund of $160 million and it has a 7% spending amount, this would yield an annual available income of $11.2 million. For instance the university has allocated an annual budget of $7 million, the access amount $4.2 million is then spent in adding up to the prestige of these universities by offering more scholarships and building up more