The article opposes the federal government in pressuring universities to drop the practice of legacy admissions, wherein universities take into account the kinship of an incoming student to the school alumni, in hopes that the alumni will be more inclined to support the university financially if their relatives are studying in the same school. The writer believes that as long as a university does not violate anti-discrimination laws, the said university should maintain its freedom to accept students based on its own criteria in order to fortify its unique character, traditions and even finances, through the student community.
Paraphrase Legacy admissions improve the chances of prospective students to be accepted by a university if they are related to school alumni. This practice not only helps the university gain the financial support of the student-related alumni, but also strengthens the character and reputation of the university through its student community. However, the said practice is currently being criticized for its non-academic partiality. Critics continue to denounce legacy admissions because to them, these policies override the principle that academic standing should be the sole standard for college admissions.
But since college is broader in scope than just the academics alone, universities should have the prerogative in accepting students that passed their criteria and contribute to the image that the schools want to represent. This is because it is the school’s right to manage its own affairs as long as no laws are violated. Every college should preserve its right to hone its student community according to its discretion to ensure a more vibrant learning experience. Critique
The article “Preserve Universities' Right to Shape Student Community”, which appeared in an editorial in USA Today, attempts to defend universities in their policy to favor incoming students who are related to the school’s alumni, instead of using only academic standing as the standard. In the article, the writer depicts legacy admission policies as “a freedom worth preserving” because it is a means for universities to shape their student community as they see fit.
In the article, the writer shifted the view from the student to the school. Instead of disclaiming the criticisms that legacy policies “undermine the principle that college admissions should be based on academic accomplishments,” the writer explains that academic standing should not be the only basis for admission, that is, if colleges aim to be vibrant and diversified. Such argument is logically compelling; however it is not backed up by evidence and comes off as just speculation.
In the article, each paragraph denotes a different thought that supports the argument of the writer. In order to defend the school policy, the writer emphasized that admission policies are not discriminatory; instead, it is an exercise of the school’s right to choose its students on its discretion. The writer presented the school’s side in an organized structure by starting with situational examples and then citing the opposite side of the argument before moving on with his conviction.
The writer is successful in showing the side of the school in the issue, by showing that without legacy policies, the school management itself is being overridden. This was done through enumeration of the school’s rights and the effects of undermining these rights. The writer is able to use common sense to emphasize that a college “is more than the sum of student’s grades and standardized test scores. ”