This article reviews recent moves to end legacy admissions at selective colleges, highlights bipartisan legislation proposed by senators to make legacy preferences a potential accreditation violation, examines state-level pushes and university responses, and considers the political and practical stakes for fairness and institutional tradition.
Stanford University opted to forgo an estimated $4 million a year in state aid rather than alter an admissions system that favors applicants with alumni or donor connections. That aid came through California’s Cal Grant program, and a 2024 state law required recipients to eliminate legacy preferences or appear on a public list of violators. Stanford’s choice to leave the program became a clear signal about how far some institutions will go to preserve legacy policies.
A bipartisan group of senators introduced legislation called the Merit-Based Educational Reforms and Institutional Transparency Act, or MERIT Act. The sponsors include Sens. Tim Scott (R-SC), Todd Young (R-IN), and John Kennedy (R-LA) on the Republican side and Sens. Tim Kaine (D-VA), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), and Andy Kim (D-NJ) among the Democrats. The bill would amend the Higher Education Act by adding an accreditation standard focused on whether an applicant’s relationship with an alumnus or donor is the “determinative” factor in admission or in awarding educational benefits.
The language of the bill turns on that single word, “determinative,” and it could be a significant restraint on legacy preferences if accreditation bodies enforce it. The legislation does allow colleges some flexibility, for example to use an applicant’s demonstrated interest if the criteria are public and equally available to all applicants. Religious institutions would also retain the ability to make admissions choices consistent with their faith commitments.
Sen. Young described legacy preference as a barrier to social mobility, saying, “America is a land of opportunity, not a land of aristocracy. Legacy admissions restrict opportunities for many bright and talented young Americans.” Sen. Scott emphasized the uneven playing field for applicants without family connections, stating, “Every student deserves a fair shot at any college or university regardless of his or her family’s background and connections to the institution.” Those quotes capture the core Republican argument: opportunity should be merit-based, not inherited.
Data show many colleges have already moved away from legacy bias. Education Reform Now found that 24 percent of four-year institutions considered legacy status in 2025, down from 49 percent in 2015, leaving 420 schools still using the preference, 358 of them private. But the remaining institutions that cling to legacy policies are disproportionately the wealthiest and most selective, preserving advantages for families already inside elite networks.
Several states have taken action independently; California, Maryland, Virginia, Colorado, and Illinois have all passed restrictions on legacy preferences. Still, most of the nationwide decline in legacy usage resulted from voluntary policy changes rather than mandates. The schools that remain committed to legacy admissions are effectively betting that Congress and accrediting bodies will not intervene and that voluntary change will not reach them.
Even some faculty within elite universities have acknowledged the problem. A committee of 10 Yale professors concluded that preferences for legacy applicants, athletes, donors’ children, and relatives of employees reduce seats available to other high-achieving students and recommended scaling those preferences back. Whether administrations at these institutions will act to shrink legacy advantages remains uncertain, and history shows internal recommendations can stall without public pressure or regulatory teeth.
Opponents of federal intervention argue that alumni loyalty and family tradition protect institutional continuity, a point often made by those with generational ties to a school. Critics of legacy bans counter that cutting off such preferences can reduce critical donor engagement and long-term financial support. Yet the fact that an institution like Stanford would walk away from millions in aid to preserve legacy treatment shows how entrenched the practice can be at some places.
The MERIT Act arrives in the wake of Supreme Court rulings limiting race-conscious admissions at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, and it reflects a broader shift toward scrutinizing non-merit selection factors. No committee hearing or vote has been scheduled, and similar proposals stalled previously. The choice facing Congress and accrediting agencies is whether to let elite institutions maintain inherited advantages or to enforce a higher standard of fairness in access to top colleges.
Add comment