This is a good defence of a programme I've generally found abhorrent.

What about this: public funding (and tax exemption) is reduced in proportion with the number of legacy students a university accepts? The idea being the university should be able to monetise these slots to more than compensate for the decline in public funding. And said slots do not serve a public purpose, but one more particular to the graduates of the university.

▲

sokoloff 6 days ago | parent [-]

This requires a precise and careful definition of legacy student, I think.

Is it a student whose admission decision was influenced by legacy status? Or merely someone who was a child of an alum?

MIT claims to not have legacy status affect admissions decisions. Would their taxes increase if they admit the kid of an alum?

▲

ghaff 6 days ago | parent [-]

I suspect it's a question that it's very hard to find direct answers to especially given how admissions on the margins are probably at least somewhat arbitrary. There are a lot of reasons why children of parents who attended an elite school probably have something of a leg up irrespective of how much money the parent has donated.

▲

sokoloff 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Exactly. I feel like you'd have to write such a law to be based on provable influence, rather than solely on outcomes. The last thing we want is for a school like Ohio State or Michigan to lose public funding and tax exemptions just because a lot of families have multiple generations of students attending them.

	▲	ghaff 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		A lot of the big state universities are pretty powerful magnets for people living in those states for a variety of reasons even before you factor in that a parent or two went there.

▲

JumpCrisscross 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> given how admissions on the margins are probably at least somewhat arbitrary

Not really. The university would need to certify it did not consider legacy status or donations during admissions. If someone decides to get sneaky, that’s tax fraud.