The idea is that affirmative action gave a non-merit advantage to minority students, while legacy admissions gave a non-merit advantage to white kids. (Left out of course, are the white kids from non-elite backgrounds.) People want it to be "fair" by removing more non-merit policies since one has fallen. But I think this thread brings up a good point, as to what it is that places like Harvard are actually selling.

Not sure why this wasn't mentioned more often but it's because of donor money. Donor money that funds things like new cafeterias and other facilities ultimately benefits everyone at school and helps keep tuition prices in check, also complicates the ethics ie if they didn't have enough donors, then tuition will go up and it'll be even less affordable

Yeah, it would be sad for Harvard to get unaffordable.

Noted your sarcasm, but it would be sad for Harvard and its ilk to get EVEN MORE unaffordable for anyone not upperclass.

I think the argument rings hollow to me mostly because it's not that Harvard has to charge this much. I'm sure they could be providing the same quality of education for 1/5th the price. In fact, with the endowments many of these schools have, they could probably go tuition-free for a couple of decades and still be fine.

They charge this much essentially because they can (govt-subsidized loans), and because it helps them maintain a certain reputation.

Harvard has been around for centuries, long-time-horizon planning is rare in the current corporate landscape but less so at such large institutions.

Harvard effectively is close-to-free if you are not rich, but why would they subsidize people from rich families?

Govt subsidized loans thing is wrong also, very few Harvard students have any sort of loan.

Harvard is very affordable post -financial aid and I am not sure where the rumors otherwise came from.

But there's no actual evidence that ending legacy admissions will dry up donor funding that I've seen.