Family Bonding with Universities

Family Bonding with Universities One justification offered for legacy admissions policies at universities is that that they bind entire families to the university. Proponents maintain that these policies have a number of benefits, including increased donations from members of these families. We use a rich set of data from an anonymous selective research institution to investigate which types of family members have the most important effect upon donative behavior. We find that the effects of attendance by members of the younger generation (children, children-in-law, nieces and nephews) are greater than the effects of attendance by older generations (parents, parents-in-law, aunts and uncles). Previous research has indicated that, in a variety of contexts, men and women differ in their altruistic behavior. However, we find that there are no statistically discernible differences between men and women in the way their donations depends on the alumni status of various types of relatives. Neither does the gender of the various types of relatives who attended the university seem to matter. Thus, for example, the impact of having a son attend the university is no different from the effect of a daughter. Jonathan Meer Harvey S. Rosen Department of Economics Department of Economics Stanford University Princeton University Stanford, CA 94305 Princeton, NJ 08544 [email protected] [email protected] 1. It is well-known that some universities give preferences to the children of alumni in the admissions process. In recent years, this practice has become increasingly controversial (Golden [2003] and Karabel [2005]). Many universities are quite open about the practice, and defend it in part because it helps bind entire families to their institutions. The President of the University of Pennsylvania, Amy Gutmann, articulated this view clearly: “We’re proactive about it because the alumni are an important part of the mix that sustains us over time...Our alumni are loyal to us, and we are loyal in return.” Gutmann was also careful to point out that legacy students must meet Penn’s academic standards: “No one gets a free pass” (Heintz [2007]). Introduction Other university officials are less circumspect than Gutmann when it comes to the financial implications of family loyalty. The Dean of Admissions at the University of Pennsylvania observed, “It fosters more loyalty to Penn, keeps an ongoing interest in Penn among family members, helps us in our efforts to raise money and continues to create a wonderful family atmosphere” (Heintz [2007]). In a similar vein, a member of the Rice University public relations staff said, “Any development professional will testify that a family's financial commitment is likely to grow with additional members’ and generations’ common affiliation” (Thomas and Shepard [2003]). Sheldon Steinbach, general counsel of the American Council on Education, went so far as to say that “without legacy preference, there would be a significant decrease in giving from a core body of traditional support — families in which at least a second generation has gone to the institution” (Golden [2003]). Are these financial benefits real? Alumni do increase their giving when their children approach college age, and increase their giving yet more when their children are admitted (Meer and Rosen [2009]). But the claims that legacy admissions bond families to a university go well