Writing: Legacy Admissions and a Predicted Donor Revolt
Your Grade 1 writing task gives two short extracts and asks: 'Should universities end legacy preferences in admissions?' Extract A is from a dean: legacy status is 'one factor among many,' and ending it would cut annual giving by about 6%, a prediction based on donor conversations; he cites a new library funded by a legacy family. Extract B is from an economist: at one university, legacy applicants were 3.1 times more likely to be admitted than non-legacy applicants with similar scores, and 62% of legacy admits came from the top income quintile. You have 25 minutes and 200-250 words. Your own view is that legacy preferences should end, but you want to concede something. You notice that Extract A's 6% figure is a forecast, not an observed result, and that no comparison is offered. You must use both extracts without misrepresenting them.
1. Draft a thesis sentence and a concession sentence that use both extracts fairly.
Read the worked answer
Thesis and concession: 'Universities should end legacy preferences because they give an admission advantage to applicants who are already advantaged, but the dean is right that ending them may reduce giving; the fair response is to replace that funding rather than preserve a discriminatory rule.' This concedes the dean's practical concern while rejecting his implied conclusion. It uses Extract A fairly by treating the 6% as a predicted revenue risk, not as proof that legacy preferences are justified. It uses Extract B as the fairness reason, not as a claim that every legacy admit is unqualified. The concession also gives the essay a real counterargument to answer, which is stronger than dismissing the dean as biased.
2. How should you handle the dean's 6% prediction in the essay?
Read the worked answer
Treat the 6% as a forecast, not a finding. Write something like: 'The dean predicts a 6% fall in annual giving, but no comparison is offered; the figure rests on donor conversations, not on observed behavior after a policy change.' Then test the inference: even if the forecast is accurate, a revenue loss is a cost to be managed, not a decisive objection to fairness. You can propose alternatives, such as need-based aid, a transition period, or a fundraising campaign, without pretending the cost is zero. Avoid writing 'the dean has no evidence'; he has a forecast. The precise criticism is that a prediction about giving cannot by itself settle whether admissions should be fair.
3. What is the biggest risk in using Extract B's 3.1 figure?
Read the worked answer
The main risk is overgeneralizing from one university. The 3.1 figure is strong because it compares legacy and non-legacy applicants with similar scores, so it is not just a raw admit-rate gap. But it describes one institution, and 'similar scores' may not capture essays, athletics, or legacy-linked donor pressure. Do not write 'all universities admit legacy applicants at 3.1 times the rate'; that misstates the source. Use it as an illustration of a mechanism, advantage persisting after academic controls, and pair it with the 62% income-quintile figure only if you keep both conditional on that one university.