<p>if at all.</p>
<p>At PrincetonReview it says that it's "Considered." Probably not weighed extremely high.</p>
<p>Probably about as much as extracurriculars count, which is somewhat important.</p>
<p>I suspect no one really knows, not even the admissions committee as it starts its work on the regular decision round right now. In the past four years, Chicago's applications have increased so much that it has gone from a 40% admission rate (50% EA) to a projected 25% admission rate (32% EA). So there's a lot less room for any number of factors to make a decisive difference, including legacy. Or, put another way, when Chicago was admitting 50% or more of the students who applied EA, admitting most of the qualified legacy applicants who applied EA was probably something that happened without even paying attention. That can't be true anymore.</p>
<p>The second reason is that until recently Chicago got comparatively few legacy applications. First, in the 60s and early 70s the headcount at the College got extremely low, below 500 per class for awhile. So the number of legacy children of those students is small relative to the size of the college. But that number is growing as children of graduates from the period after the college started expanding again begin to show up. Second, the college was uniquely unpopular with its alumni of that era. People at Chicago admit that all the time: they have many alumni saying that they steered their children away from the University because they were so miserable there, notwithstanding the quality of the education. (I know several 70s alumni who did just that.) But the University has been waging a 20-year campaign to improve undergraduate student life, and to communicate that to its alumni, and I think both efforts are well past the tipping point. So I would guess that, among the vastly increased number of applications Chicago has been receiving the past few years, there is a vastly increased, and still increasing, number of legacy applications.</p>
<p>I have never seen a clear statement of what Chicago's legacy policy is. But whatever it is, no one has much real experience applying it, since it has probably never mattered much until very recently. In college admissions, without a bunch of people who know what the policy means to them in specific cases, you don't really have a policy at all.</p>
<p>Thank you, JHS (and everyone else too). I think you are right. No one really knows, because even though legacies are given "consideration", there is no real and cogent policy addressing what that consideration ought to be.</p>
<p>As always, JHS did a great job answering your question. I can personally attest to his post as I am a legacy student with a very anti-UofC mother. From the way she talks about her time there Hannah Gray was the bane of her college experience and my interest in UofC is 100% of my own accord. </p>
<p>I realize I fall into a slightly different era than JHS was describing, as my mom graduate in '92 so she is at the very very tail end of the whole despondent alumni trend--things have gotten much better over the past 10-15 years--but still her general tone in regards to UofC is less than favorable. </p>
<p>In comparison to schools where legacy is traditionally more considered, Chicago has a significantly lower amount of active alumni, especially those who like to donate. For example my mom has only donated 50$ in the past 15 years to her Alma matter and that was after we visited because she was pleasantly surprised and saw "promise" in the new Chicago. Along these same lines during an information session I attended, the issue of legacies was addressed as, "Obviously if your dad donates a library to the school it wont go unnoticed by the admissions office; however, for the most part we want to see who you are not your parents and factors such as essays and activities are much more important." So I guess we can assume Booth's kids will get in (haha) but as for me, I was deffered--maybe my mom should have donated a little more :-P</p>
<p>I graduated in '89 and my husband graduated in '88. We loved the school so much we named our dog Hannah (she looked just like Hannah Gray-really). ;)</p>
<p>Seriously, I don't remember anyone of my classmates hating the school. My husband and I both had a ball and got fantastic educations to boot. I would be beyond happy if my daughter got in.</p>
<p>From the (lovely) horse's mouth...
[quote="Libby_Pearson, post:175, topic:210891"]
The legacy question is a tough one. I'm pleased to report that we do not hold spaces for legacies. Usually in the reading process, we hold legacies to higher standards because they should know more about the school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Being the kid of an alum used to be worth the application fee. that's one reason my D applied 5 years ago. :)</p>
<p>So back then, they did consider it - 50 bucks worth, even though I only went to the GSB, not the college.</p>