<p>So I mean I obviously know what it means to be a legacy when you apply to colleges... But what's the appeal? It seems incredibly unfair to me.. It doesn't make sense.. For example I'm first generation, so there'd be no chance for me to be a legacy, so I guess what I'm asking is why would a school chose someone who's a legacy over someone who's better qualified? Sorry if the answer seems really obvious, but this whole thing is kinda daunting.</p>
<p>Parents of legacies are more likely to donate.</p>
<p>First-generation college students also have an advantage in admissions. Is it as large? No, but it helps at more schools.</p>
<p>“why would a school chose someone who’s a legacy over someone who’s better qualified?”</p>
<p>You’re presupposing that schools only accept kids with the highest academic qualifications? That system of meritocracy happens at most colleges in the US but very few of the top-tier ones who can afford to cherry pick their admitees. Legacies and development admits maintain the financial strength of the schools – which allows them to generously admit and fund the education of kids from lesser economic backgrounds. Institutionally, it’s a very fair trade off.</p>
<p>At the tippy top schools, legacy kids are being admitted at about twice the rate of other, non-legacy kids. However, it still means over 80% are being rejected. That’s a lot of disgruntled alumni, each and every year. However, it’s also been shown that (at least for HYP), the legacy kids tend to have higher levels of academic accomplishment than their non-legacy peers – goes to logic, no? Also, they tend to perform better, on average, in college – again somewhat justifying their admit rates.</p>
<p>Actually, as a first generation you are about as appealing to schools as a legacy.</p>
<p>Thanks for answering guys. It makes more sense now, but just to throw it out there when I said “more academically qualified” I meant qualified all around, sorry I should’ve said that.</p>
<p>The third post implies that legacies are “fair” because they pay for the poor kids who can’t attend the top-tier colleges.</p>
<p>That’s ridiculous.
I’m sure you know how much money the top-tier colleges are sitting on.</p>
<p>Blueribbon: their endowments got so large due in combination to wise investing and the generations of generous alum donors. Let’s look at this:</p>
<p>Batch A colleges: gives some legacy preference; big endowments; can be very generous with FinAid</p>
<p>Batch B colleges: no legacy preference; smaller endowments; less generous FA</p>
<p>I’m not judging one to be better than the other – there’s place for both. But Batch A tend to be private institutions who feel sating their alumni is an institutional priority. My local state colleges have about 3% of alumni giving. What’s Princeton? About 65% giving.</p>
<p>Fair? You think it’s fair for Harvard to accept a development kid with a 3.5 GPA if it means $5 million in the bank? I do.</p>
<p>Go to your local state school and see how much of a check it would take to get a 2.0 GPA kid in the door. $500000? you betcha</p>
<p>I agree with most of what you say, but you really didn’t address my point.
Alum donations have contributed to the growth of the “Batch A” endowments, but now, being the huge financial entities they are, “Batch A” colleges don’t need nearly as much donations.
And eliminating legacy preferences certaintly doesn’t mean eliminating alumni donations.</p>
<p>Blue: Even the tippy top schools with the mega endowments depend on the generosity of alumni. My alma mater is one. Although I have to say, when they were ballooning the endowment into the $20+ BILLION range, it made their yearly appeals for my meagre dollars ring somewhat hollow.</p>
<p>There’s no talk whatsoever about eliminating legacy preferences. No one inside our community feels that decreasing alumni devotion is worth it. And (at least for my school), the “preference” is extremely minor – legacy applicants get a special read before rejection. The legacy admits are fully qualified and, as it turns out, academically stronger than their non-legacy peers.</p>
<p>One thing no one has touched on which I think is the biggest reason for Legacy admits: What is the value of a top-tier school?</p>
<p>At Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. what is the value of going there over a decent state school? With the internet and increasing standardization of curriculums, book-wise you can learn the same, even if the student body is different.</p>
<p>The polite way of stating the value of an Ivy school is “a motivated, talented, and diverse student body that is better on average than other schools”.</p>
<p>The more blunt, cynical way of stating the value is “richer, more influential students for me to connect with”.</p>
<p>Ask yourself this question, was admitting George W. Bush as a “legacy” a good decision for Yale and other students who got into Yale who were not so privileged? I think yes, bc at the end of the day he came from an influential family and became an influential person who through Yale was connected to students from less privileged backgrounds.</p>
<p>When I was deciding between a full-ride at UMich and the Ivy I ended up attending, this was the biggest factor in my decision to attend the Ivy. Going there over Umich would have had no value to me if the students were “just” driven, ambitious and intelligent. I could’ve gone to Umich for that. </p>
<p>My dad was a factory worker at GM, and my mom never received a college degree. I went to the Ivy bc I suspected I wanted to go into business, and that having people who had access money or power already would be useful to me. College is where I could become friends with them.</p>
<p>Call me cynical, but that’s the real “extra” value of a name-brand school to me.</p>
<p>T26E4: My objection was to your seeming implication that legacy money “paid” for scholarships for underprivileged students.
I’m not a graduate of such schools, so I guess you would know more about the generosity of alumni.
But as you said, when the endowment is at the 20 billion mark…</p>