The appearance of solving a problem

A true solution to admission inequities would be complex and multi-layered and involve stronger high school preparatory programs, scholarship aid and mentorships.

On the face of it, the legislature's proposed bill to end the practice of college legacy admissions seems justified.

After all, it is difficult to support a practice that benefits rich and well connected students who already have an advantage in applying to elite private institutions.

As one testifier told the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee last week, the practice of admitting students with alumni connections “is discriminatory and perpetuates racial and socio-economic inequities.”

That may be true. In fact, the state's four universities and colleges already prohibit legacy admissions.

But this bill represents government oversight of private institutions that would be difficult if impossible to enforce.

The first question that would need to be resolved is what constitutes a purely legacy admission.

If an applicant's mother is a Yale grad, for example, is that admission automatically a case of preferential treatment?

What if the applicant is qualified on the basis of academic ability, athletic talent and leadership qualities?

Katherine Bergeron, president of Connecticut College, expressed “grave concerns” over enforcement of the bill, “given the complexity of the admission process.”

She noted that only 1.65 percent of its applicant pool, or 147 students of 8,900, have relatives who are alumni, and maintained “it would be nearly impossible to demonstrate whether any of these students, should they be admitted, did or did not receive preferential treatment.”

In fact, Bergeron noted that because the college's diversity efforts stepped up about 20 years ago, more minority applicants have legacy ties. It would be “a cruel irony,” she noted, if this law lessened their chances of admission.

The act, House Bill 5034, gives the appearance of solving a problem. We doubt, however, that the ban would change the systemic inequities that are the real culprits here.

Some applicants, regardless of whether their parents or grandparents attended a private college, have socio-economic advantages that increase their chances of admission. Students whose parents can afford tutors and summer prep programs, who can pay for music and tennis lessons, who support academic success as a priority have an advantage over students without these tail winds.

Connecticut College has tried to even the playing field by meeting 100 percent of scholars' financial need and working with programs like the Posse Foundation, which encourages diversity by recruiting students with leadership potential to apply to colleges like Conn.

The college's student body, which is 67.5 white, could be more diverse. But given the small percentage of legacy applicants, it's hard to argue that banning the practice would improve those numbers.

Passing this bill would give its backers the illusion of progress without any real result. A true solution to admission inequities would be complex and multi-layered and involve stronger high school preparatory programs, scholarship aid and mentorships.