"Alma Mater" has a literal meaning: "nourishing and bounteous mother."
Legacy admissions are good.
I am getting a lot of criticism for this opinion. I will persevere.
Colleges aren't factories. They are cultures of learning and research. They need to create a community. A nurturing mother knows her children.
I was not a legacy nor a recruited athlete. My kids had no interest in attending Harvard. I entered Harvard in 1967. Back then they rejected about six out of seven applicants. Now it about 17 out of 18. Back then people thought standardized tests measured something useful. Maybe the Harvard people thought I showed hustle because of my farm business. The application asked what books one had completed reading in the past year, beyond those assigned in classes. I listed 82 books, so maybe they thought I was a "reader" and they wanted some more of those. Maybe they just wanted one more kid from Oregon. Who knows?
Harvard has a wealth of applicants. I chair the alumni committee that interviews local applicants. We get about 15 applicants a year from the 5,000 graduating seniors in the three counties of "Southern Oregon." Nearly every applicant would thrive at Harvard or anywhere. Nearly all have straight-A grades in advanced classes. Most excel at some activity that requires self-discipline, e.g. the violin or distance running. They eagerly do generous community service. They are perfect in every way. Then they get rejected. There is no room for them. It is heartbreaking to be an interviewer. Nearly all of them are stronger candidates than I was 56 years ago.
The wealth of potential choices means that no one "deserves" admission to Harvard or any of the other dozens of highly selective schools. There is randomness and "fit" at work in the selection process, which people confuse with objective "merit." Students apply to about 15 to 20 schools and get rejected at most of them and accepted at a couple of them, and then they attend one of those. The Supreme Court case and the attention on admission reminds me of college football and basketball recruiting: How many 5-stars did Alabama get? Americans like competitions, including ones that are entirely subjective, like American Idol or beauty pageants, a competition among apples-to-oranges attributes. Who better "deserves" admission to a college, a skilled precocious violinist, or a skilled precocious running back, a skilled precocious book-reader, or a skilled precocious math wizard? We watch a TV reality show -- or college admissions -- and wonder if the judging is "fair." It isn't fair, not in the sense of being objective and measurable. We should not expect it to be. The TV show wants an engaged audience. A college wants a good experience for students and for the institution to protect its long-term interests in having loyal alumni. Is that a surprise?
The "college experience" is an immersive environment and part of its value comes from the sense of being part of something. People wear school colors, compete on their teams, take pride in their facilities, develop meaningful relationships, and care about the curriculum the university offers. Community and tradition build an institution. College is more than a sorting mechanism for identifying great test-takers. That is what the National Merit exam does, not what a college does. Harvard's brand includes traditions and respect for centuries of continuity. The band, the clubs, the school newspaper, the school-sponsored dances and "mixers," the fellow students, the meals eaten with classmates, the bull sessions, are all part of the experience. So is the former attendance of presidents, scientists, business titans, entertainers, journalists, and others who became famous and important.
People dislike institutions that are cold, impersonal, by-the-numbers. Such a place isn’t a paradise of "merit." It is a hell of bureaucracy. A college modeled on the DMV take-a-number would have stripped out the nurturing mother notion of Alma Mater. Nurturing mothers know their children.
But isn't it unfair when applied to legacies? I think not because there is no "fair." Everyone contributes something. I am guessing I was the only farm boy with experience negotiating melon prices with produce managers. Maybe that was my "edge." There were other people there whose families owned business empires, and others whose parents and siblings have long history with the institution, and yet others whose parents teach there. And there were some people way smarter than I was. Everyone brings something to the table.
I'm wondering what the great loss to our country (nostra patria) would be if our "nourishing and bounteous mother" didn't get to shove legacy children ahead of all others? Heavens, what would happen if Donald didn't get into the Wharton School? Or Kushner into Harvard?
If there is no "fair" and lots of qualified applicants are rejected simply because any institution can only accept so many, then where one's parents went to school, leaving a legacy, is a completely bogus, unnecessary, privileged/factor that can only help promote classicism that works against the sort of boot strap melon sales initiative you praise. If two candidates are equally qualified for a lone spot the difference should not be their parent's resume and that, frankly, is what "legacy" amounts to.