I was rather surprised to find out last week how much my college admissions experience differed from that of the average child of an alumnus. I had never even heard of Amherst College until my sophomore year in high school when the blitz of college propaganda hit my mailbox. Perhaps that in itself is the greatest demonstration of the "average" college applicant's ignorance about the admissions process-small New England liberal arts colleges do not often make the trip to my Chicago suburb.

I decided to apply based on the scant information I had gleaned from the viewbook, rankings and the College's website. Amherst doesn't visit my high school or host any information sessions in the area. There was no one to advise me about the benefits of applying early decision, and I had no guidance about how to make myself appear in the best light on my applications. I had a part-time guidance counselor with over 100 students who quickly accepted my rather primitive attempts to formulate a college list. Even if she had tried to help, I doubt she would've known much more than I did about the process. My college counseling came from my immigrant father, who never attended an undergraduate institution in this country.

Meanwhile, the legacy student, who probably attends the type of school where Amherst is well-known and college counseling is excellent, receives preferential treatment to an almost absurd degree. These kids, who have already had a parent successfully navigate the system, are practically coddled by the College with personal guidance from a dean, review of their resume and even an estimate of their chances at acceptance. The same school that makes a pointed effort of conveying their policy of "no admissions interviews" apparently does not feel that individual consultation sessions with legacies is a bit hypocritical.

By no means am I trying to imply that I was underprivileged-I recognize the fact that my upbringing, though I may not have been a legacy, gave me access to many resources. But I do contend that I was under-informed.

The legacy admissions rate, as reported in last week's Student, is near 50 percent, a significant boost compared to the 17 percent general acceptance rate. Where was this information when I applied? President Anthony Marx excused the system of personal meetings with legacies by saying that it discouraged unqualified students from applying. While this may be true, it is no excuse for the administration's lack of forwardness on the vastly different admissions process for legacy students.

It is true that legacies are necessary for a private institution to continue its existence. I am grateful for both the monetary contributions of alumni as well as the sense of continuity legacy admits provide. It is inspiring to see a third-generation Amherst student, proof of the lasting greatness of this institution. And I don't believe that legacies are somehow less qualified-despite the somewhat-suspicious 50 percent acceptance rate. I trust Amherst not to sacrifice its standards of academic excellence for anyone.

The revelations in last week's Student had the air of an underground admissions process. If Amherst is comfortable with the legacy-admit system, it should be equally comfortable with publicizing the system. Perhaps others knew the details of this preferential system, but I certainly didn't. And finding out about it so late in the game makes me wonder what other hidden admissions policies exist. Is there a similar system for athletes? Who else faces something other than the mainstream admissions procedures?

The impetus for much of this information on legacies being revealed was the introduction of the College Quality, Affordability and Diversity Act by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts). The bill seeks to make the college process more transparent by forcing colleges to reveal previously "classified" information on admission rate according to race, gender and legacy status.

An act of federal legislation should not be necessary to understand the admissions policies of this nation's elite institutions. Amherst should embrace this bill, and then go further. The admissions office compiles statistics and numerically defines each entering class. And every one of those statistics, from states visited by admissions officers to number of viewbooks sent out, from legacy admits to students of color-should be made public by the administration. I'm not suggesting some vast mailing containing all the intricacies of the Amherst admissions process, but simply a place on the website where all this procedural minutiae is thoroughly explained and quantified.

The admissions process is still cloaked in secrecy, a cloak which only benefits those affluent enough to have someone to guide them through the system. It is up to the College to make this process open and understandable to everyone. Until then, all the proclamations of diversity and fairness are hollow promises indeed, and no amount of affirmative action or exhortations to public service will fix that.