<p>'And how many [legacies] even have what it takes to be admitted?'</p>
<p>Why does everyone think that legacies are academic jokes?! - it has been suggested that they are actually more competitive than the normal applicant pool - which would make sense if you think about it.</p>
<p>visc you make good points, but i don't think we disagree so much as we enjoy arguing with eachother so i say we nip it in the bud :)
as for awesome..
i could imagine that having to work up from a tougher starting point would make non-legacies more accustomed to putting forth effort to get what they want, as opposed to having it handed to them on some sort of expensive metallic platter <em>ahem</em></p>
<p>But the incremental difference for many legacies (final stats - 'privleged position) is the same or better as many other candidates. And does being from a higher-income household really diminish the brilliance of a >2300 SAT or a perfect GPA etc? </p>
<p>And who is saying all legacies are rich anyway? As so many threads have pointed out a Harvard degree is no guarantee of wealth. Many applicants are as wealthy as legacies (including many Princeton, Yale etc. legacies). Not all legacies have everything handed to them on a 'expensive metallic platter' - thats just the Kennedys et all.</p>
<p>All I am saying is that legacies are not untalented - they are probably more competitive than the rest of the application pool so why say stupid stuff like: </p>
<p>'And how many [legacies] even have what it takes to be admitted?'</p>
<p>Yet they're admited at a 50% rate, whereas everyone else is admitted at a less than 10% rate. Sure they may be a little better, but are they really in the top 20% of the overall applicant pool? That's more than a little better.</p>
<p>The general consensus on this board regarding legacies is that if a legacy candidate is at the level of all of the great non-legacy applicants, then the legacy will most likely be accepted, whereas the non-legacy would still need some luck on his side.</p>
<p>But 'luck' isn't an actual lottery - it's doing an extra something to impress. The legacy kid won't have to do that. Which is why the Economist tells me legacy kids do perform less well than non-legacy kids, on average.</p>
<p>They very well may be in the top 20% and by the by, the last reported rate was 38% - and that was 5 years ago so I can only assume it has decreased since then. And if the legacy has a slight advantage so what? That is at least partially cancelled out by alumni settling in competitive areas (at least the more affluent legacies you say benefit so much - which would tend to live in business centres). Also, would Harvard be the worlds top university without donations from alumni - which are largely given under the assumption that children will likely go there? </p>
<p>Which Economist issue was that legacy article in btw? - I'd like to read it.</p>
<p>You've being extremely defensive here - I haven't made any judgement of the legacy policy, haven't even mentioned wealth.</p>
<p>I just said legacy kids will be less good. Which should be obvious - Harvard admits being a legacy students is an advantage in admissions, despite the fact it has no impact on your merit as a person. </p>
<p>I've no idea which Economist issue it was in - I read it a couple of years ago. Do you file away every copy of the Economist you run across, and make a list of interesting articles in each one, btw?</p>
<p>EDIT: but a quick bit of googling...here's the link for you, complete with a lovely cartoon <a href="http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2333345%5B/url%5D">http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2333345</a></p>
<p>Oh yeah sorry for the rant. It wasn't against you it was mainly against the earlier post: </p>
<p>'And how many [Legacies] even have what it takes to be admitted?'
and similar posts like it. </p>
<p>That legacy kids will be less good is a broad generalisation and the same could be said for any hooked group - URMs, athletes, 'drama or arts' spikes etc - there are some incredible students but, yes, there are a few kids let on on lesser credentials. But the truth is that even those let in more leniantly will still have pretty much unarguable credentials - its not like legacies can get in on a 1900 SAT w/ no hook or anything. </p>
<p>Thx for the link</p>
<p>You're definitely right on that front - even if slightly less good, legacy kids will have to be very good to get into Harvard. </p>
<p>You're also right that they're hardly the only ones who get in based on something of arguable merit. And really, who's to say fostering a healthy alumni community is less important than having good drama productions at the college? I'd say the former is far more important!</p>
<p>I think it's a very difficult balanced question. No doubt the principle is objectionable, but I think it does have concrete results which are very valuable: I do think it has a financial value, I do think it has a value in terms of fostering alumni spirit, I don't think it comes at a cost of admitting dunces into Harvard.</p>
<p>What's a URM btw?</p>
<p>Bit disappointed with the article - it did not seem very balanced at all and it didn't rely on any hard facts. I expect better from the economist</p>
<p>Under Represented Minority</p>
<p>tkm: thanks</p>
<p>Awesome: That's true. However it's not really dealing with this specific issue, rather the principle of nepotism across the upper echelons of American society, and there it does make a good point - it's not half as meritocratic as it pertains to be.</p>
<p>Meh - maybe. I don't see anywhere thats better but yes, it is not as meritocratic as it could be or as it claims to be.</p>
<p>But only the US claims to be this bastion of aristocracy-free meritocratic equality!</p>
<p>Well... Most of the free world is strongly in favour of it nowadays but yes, point taken, it is not as central as in the US. Still, they're doing quite a good job of it.</p>
<p>Vicci-</p>
<p>you info is very far off. first of all, Harvard is 40% minority. More than 40% are probably admitted because there is fiece competition for top URMS. </p>
<p>True, most athletes were probably taken EA, but still many are taken RD. My guess is that very few minorities double as recruited athletes (think about the hockey team, football team, lacrosse team, etc. nearly all white guys). </p>
<p>Once you factor in geographic location and legacy status, it is in fact near the 1% mark.</p>
<p>my favorite quote from this entire discussion:</p>
<p>"the brilliance of a >2300 SAT or a perfect GPA"
i only got a 2290 and a 3.98, so i guess i'm just short of brilliant
damn it, so close! some day, maybe some day</p>
<p>i think the real issue with the legacy question is that, while harvard (and almost all other competative schools) portrays itself as being open to diversity and encouraging a variety of students to apply, the legacy practice does the exact opposite.
(pause to allow everyone to bubble up with 'how does it do the opposite?')
even though graduating classes these days are diverse, legacy students are legacies because of the graduating classes up to around 1985 and mostly before that (especially multi-legacy students). during those years, diversity was not exactly the strong point of many ivies, which is why legacy students would not be diverse in ethnicity or (therefore) perspective. furthermore, those students would lack perspective in the fact that, at the end of the day, the legacy pool is probably about 20-50 thousand dollars higher on the income scale than the general applicant pool, and has a much tighter spread (outliers like hollywood and the forbes 500 being disregarded)
i posit that it is the hypocracy in the legacy/neo-affirmative action duality that angers most; it sure bothers the hell out of me.</p>
<p>About what % of the student body was recruited for athletics?</p>
<p>pvodesnki: Where the hypocricy? Having legacy kids doesn't rule out diversity; it just means you have to make up for it elsewhere. Harvard does that. Where's the problem?</p>