<p>No, the legacy does not have to be undergrad, but from what I understand, undergrad legacies count for more than graduate legacies. Who knows what that means though? A tip to the candidate with any legacy if comparatively equal to someone else?</p>
<p>if a sibling is attending currently, is that legacy-status at all? would it at least help?</p>
<p>Anyone know the answer? My question is several posts up. Thanks</p>
<p>Graduate doesnt matter at Harvard. Having a sibling helps ever so slightly.</p>
<p>Someone asked, "You guys don't like legacies?" I know it's funny to some, but it's really not.</p>
<p>There are droves of people that are as qualified, if not more qualified than those legacies admitted. There are people who are low-income, haven't had the same opportunities and won't apply because they hear all this stuff about 'legacies getting in'. Legacies, however minuscule effect they have on the overall admittance rate, have an unfair advantage. Legacies are not the same as minorities or athletes. It's the worst form of preference, in my opinion.</p>
<p>And let's be fair, a lot of legacies were usually 'well-off' and their parents as well. It just goes to show that money and social class actually do have an effect on admissions. That's really not that surprising. I don't see why anyone could be complacent about it, unless it's helping them, in which case I always hear the argument, "I would've gotten in anyway because I was such a strong applicant." It's Harvard -- there are too many strong applicants; that argument is as flimsy as a house of cards.</p>
<p>Legacy families are paying the tuition for the 50 low-income kids who were able to attend Harvard for free under the financial aid initiative. This is not to mention the 500 others who received generous grants. Ultimately, their presence is more beneficial than harmful or unjust.</p>
<p>Financial aid initiative comes from endowment growth (investments) more than anything. The more direct effect of unqualified legacies on financial aid recipients is to make the grading curve softer.</p>
<p>hehe....i've got about a 6% chance</p>
<p>These schools are not just looking for those who won those prestigious awards but also those who have exceptional artistic talent in the arts and who can bring that talent to the school. By exceptional it might include those with international and or national individual recognition in their fields.</p>
<p>Wait for 7 days, and you will have a fresh crop of admissions specimens :) Nothing like new data to help stir the pot.</p>
<p>Telletube they are not addressed the same way at all. For recruited athletes, the coaches give a list to the Dean of Admissions of the athletes he or she is interesteed in. The coach already knows the SAT scores and grades of these athletes. He or she may be able to get in a nationally ranked athlete with lower SAT scores if he takes a very good one with higher scores. These athletes are usually not advocated for by a regional admission officer and skip that entire process. This is decided between the Dean of admissions and the coach. As for legacies there are two types and they are handled differently. The legacy who is a development case, ie his family has made significant contributions to the school is usually on a list that the development office gives the Dean of Admissions. The development office gives the Dean of admissions a list of applicants that the development officer feels is important to the school. Usually the development office and the Deans discuss these applicants separately. As for regular legacies a regional admission officer originally reads the file but at most schools the Dean of Admissions gives the file another look. As for minorities there is usually at most schools an admission officer that handles multi cultural applications. Thus the minoroity appilcant usually gets their files read by both the regional admission officer and the multi cultural officer.
As for the rest of us without any connections, applications are not read by the Dean of Admissions. Each application is read by a regional admission officer and a second time by someone in the regional committee. Those are the only ones who see the application. The regional admission officer advocates for each applicant in his or her region that make it to committee. A regional admission officer might be advocating for several hundred applicants at the committee. It is up to the regoinal admission officer to present the applicant in the best light.
The other categories get the benefit of skipping the regional admission process or at least getting another read by the Dean of Admissions who I imagine must have some influence if they like what they read</p>
<p>murkywater: I'm definitely not here to make the claim that I deserve to go to Harvard; I've slacked off so much that it would be pretty incredible if I DO get in. It just seems to me that there are a lot of people who misjudge the situation of legacy kids. My parents are too poor to donate any money, if that makes a difference. I work hard, not to go to Harvard, but to get my education and continue on with my life.
Also, it seems like you mistook my wording, as though I were asking <em>why</em> you didn't like legacy kids. I'm well aware of all the reasons people would dislike the tip that a lot of kids get because of their lineage, and I understand why. There are arguments for and against lineage counting towards admissions, and quite frankly, it just doesn't matter to me. It would be the same if my parents had gone to community college - I'd still be applying to all the same places.
That doesn't excuse the fact that many severly underqualified files go through and get into Harvard, presumably because of their parents' cash; I guess I'm just sticking up for myself when I say that I don't think I'm a bad college candidate. If I truly felt that the only way I'd get into college (anywhere, not just Harvard) was because of my parents, I wouldn't apply at all.</p>
<p>The idea of having one's file specially read by the director of admissions is overstated. There is a handful of development cases or specially recruited athletes for which ordinary decision criteria may be suspended. Minorities, legacies and ordinary athletes (i.e. OK-to-excellent students with solid athletics) generally go through the usual admissions process, but they get higher status, an extra reading before a decision to reject, lower SAT cutoffs demarcating rejection, and similar benefits. The admissions director is not for the most part a reader of files, there are other demands on his time. </p>
<p>For Harvard specifically the process is outlined in Chuck Hughes' book. Dartmouth is described in Michele Hernandez' book. The book by Rachel Toor (Duke) describes a situation at a much more sports-oriented school, where on a ranked list of 10-20 applicants from a given region, the bottom one or two would often be athletes already marked for admission by the admissions chief via the coaches.</p>
<p>I am bringing up this thread in response to the recent activity in a similar thread. I hope this can add a new perspective for people. One quote I found interesting:</p>
<p>"It has been surmised:</p>
<p>recruited athletes: 10-15% of harvard frosh
legacies: 10%-12%
minorities: 40%</p>
<p>these pools really don't overlap much at all (i.e. very few minority legacies)</p>
<p>50% of the class is filled EA. Most athletes and legacies go then, but most minorities get in RD. </p>
<p>about 1050 spots left RD</p>
<p>immediately, 450-500 are gone to minorites.</p>
<p>Legacies probably taken another 50, athletes another 100.</p>
<p>RSI, TASP, SIEMENS, etc. probably about 100. </p>
<p>for all white people, there are around 250-350 spots left. </p>
<p>At most, 200 of these (more likely less than 100) are left for those in the title. I would guess about 10000 to 13000 of the applicants left (RD and EA deferrees) fit the characteristics of the title. </p>
<p>there you have it. Less than 1%.
(it depends on what numbers you use. I used ranges. If you use best case scenario, as you are, with my numbers, then it is over 1. If you do middle to worst case scenario as I did, it is under.)"</p>