Admissions research

Legacy and athlete preferences: what the research shows

Selective colleges have long extended admissions preferences to some applicants — among them children of alumni (“legacies”) and recruited athletes. One of the most rigorous public analyses of these preferences comes from Harvard data disclosed during litigation. Here is what that study found, in neutral terms, with sources.

The Harvard study

Economists Peter Arcidiacono, Josh Kinsler, and Tyler Ransom analyzed applicant-level Harvard admissions data made public through Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, covering the admissions cycles for the Harvard classes of 2014–2019. They grouped four preference categories together as ALDC: recruited Athletes, Legacies, applicants on the Dean’s/Director’s interest lists, and Children of faculty and staff.

“Among white admits, over 43% are ALDC. Among admits who are African American, Asian American, and Hispanic, the share is less than 16% each.”

“Roughly three quarters of white ALDC admits would have been rejected if they had been treated as white non-ALDCs.”

“Removing preferences for athletes and legacies would significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students, with the share of white admits falling and all other groups rising or remaining unchanged.”

Quotations from the paper’s abstract (see Sources).

Important limits

The findings describe Harvard specifically, for a set of admissions cycles roughly a decade ago. The size and even the existence of these preferences vary widely across institutions and over time — some colleges have since ended legacy preferences.
“ALDC” combines four distinct categories; the effect for any one applicant depends on the specific category, the institution, and the rest of the applicant pool.
The data became available only through litigation; most schools do not publish comparable applicant-level figures.

How AdmitQuant handles this

We report each school’s published acceptance rate and model your odds from academic and profile factors. We deliberately do not apply legacy or recruited-athlete “boosts” in our estimates, simulations, or optimizer: their magnitude is institution- and individual-specific, isn’t publicly quantified for most schools, and can’t be modeled responsibly. We’d rather show you honest base-rate-driven estimates and point you to the peer-reviewed evidence than imply a precise boost we can’t stand behind.

Sources

These outputs are estimates from a baseline model — not guarantees of admission, cost, or outcome.

Legacy and athlete preferences: what the research shows

The Harvard study

“Among white admits, over 43% are ALDC. Among admits who are African American, Asian American, and Hispanic, the share is less than 16% each.”

“Roughly three quarters of white ALDC admits would have been rejected if they had been treated as white non-ALDCs.”

“Removing preferences for athletes and legacies would significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students, with the share of white admits falling and all other groups rising or remaining unchanged.”

Quotations from the paper’s abstract (see Sources).

Important limits

The findings describe Harvard specifically, for a set of admissions cycles roughly a decade ago. The size and even the existence of these preferences vary widely across institutions and over time — some colleges have since ended legacy preferences.

“ALDC” combines four distinct categories; the effect for any one applicant depends on the specific category, the institution, and the rest of the applicant pool.

The data became available only through litigation; most schools do not publish comparable applicant-level figures.

How AdmitQuant handles this