There are differing views about how important it is to have a family member or relative who also attended a college. It is clear that it is a factor; one report suggested that having a family member who is an alumnus gives "a leg up" for applicants. One report suggested that siblings do not count as legacies. In some cases, a parent's attendance at a related graduate school counts as a legacy, but most colleges do not count this. Many selective private colleges have a higher admit rate for alumni children as a way to "keep the larger set of alumni happy and giving", and being a legacy applicant can mean as much as "100 or 200 points on the SAT".
Legacy admissions have had a history of controversy; economist Peter Sacks criticized the practice of legacy admissions as a "social reproduction process" in which "elite institutions have an implicit bargain with their alumni ... 'You give us money, and we will move your kid to the front of the line.'" Another agreed that legacies perpetuated a "hereditary aristocracy". But an opposing view is that all colleges, to varying extents, make choices as part of the admissions process, including state schools that charge in-state residents (with taxpaying parents) a lower rate than out-of-state residents, and it was argued that there was not really much difference between taxpaying parents contributing to a state school as well as generous alumni contributing to a private school--both with the possibility that it will help their offspring get into college. Consultant Donald Dunbar suggested that admitting legacies encourages future donations, and in turn these incoming money flows help the school subsidize the education of more minority students; another source suggested that alumni gifts was important in helping a college pay for need-blind programs. Legacy admissions was criticized by Daniel Golden in his book The Price of Admission in which elite schools gave "heavy preferences to the wealthy", according to essayist Neal Gabler in the Boston Globe.