AP English Language — Claims and Evidence — Writing Drill 2

The following is a draft of a student argumentative essay on legacy admissions preferences at selective colleges, written for an AP English class. [1] Many elite colleges and universities give preferential treatment to applicants whose parents attended the same institution. [2] This practice, known as legacy admissions, is unfair and should be eliminated. [3] It privileges students who are already privileged and makes the college admissions process less meritocratic than it claims to be. [4] Legacy applicants are admitted at significantly higher rates than non-legacy applicants at many selective schools. [5] At some universities, legacy applicants are admitted at rates three to five times higher than the general applicant pool. [6] These students are not more qualified on average — they are simply connected. [7] This gives wealthy, predominantly white families a compounding advantage: they attend elite schools, their children attend elite schools, and the cycle continues. [8] Defenders of legacy admissions argue that these preferences help maintain alumni donations, which fund scholarships, financial aid, and campus infrastructure. [9] This argument has some merit — alumni giving is a real funding source for many institutions. [10] But the assumption that legacy preferences are necessary to maintain alumni giving is not well supported by evidence. [11] Several universities, including MIT and Johns Hopkins, have eliminated legacy preferences without experiencing significant declines in alumni donations. [12] Others argue that legacy students bring a sense of tradition and institutional connection to campus. [13] This argument is the weakest of the three. [14] The idea that an institution's culture requires preferring the children of alumni over equally or more qualified first-generation students is difficult to defend on any principled grounds. [15] Legacy admissions should be eliminated at all selective institutions. [16] The admissions process should be based on merit, potential, and equitable access — not on the accident of birth.