<p>As my dad went to Stanford, and I'm applying there as (obviously) a reach school.</p>
<p>Being legacy helps everywhere</p>
<p>not at CalTech...
also, MIT claims it doesn't help your application either.</p>
<p>Yes--a very minor amount. You should definitely apply EA, and unless your parents are very wealthy (million dollar donation wealthy) or very, very influential at Stanford, don't expect miracles, because legacy just isn't that big of a deal anymore. I am/was a double legacy at Princeton, and was rejected RD--you can click on my stats profile for yourself, but suffice it to say that with a 770 average SAT score, top 2% rank, and 4 AP scores of 5, I was a qualified applicant stats wise even for Princeton. Now, my extras weren't great--weren't terrible, either--and I didn't apply ED (the big deal), but still, legacy advantage is obviously not that influential anymore.</p>
<p>From what I understand, it does help a little, but it's far from a guarantee of admission.</p>
<p>it only helps if your parents have been ACTIVE alumni, in otherwords, they have donated back to Stanford for many years, no matter how small the amount. If they are passive alumni, it really doesn't help, especialy these days.</p>
<p>The only problem I have with applying EA to Stanford is the fact that MIT is my first choice, and Stanford's EA requires me to not apply EA anywhere else.</p>
<p>advantage: </p>
<p>Almost always, for a legacy to be a tip factor one HAS to apply Early to schools that offer ED. If you don't apply ED, the adcom immediately knows that they are NOT your number one choice. So, it could actually become a 'negative' in the RD round - human nature being what it is. </p>
<p>btw, mj93: legacy is a non-factor in the public UC system.</p>
<p>Legacy may make a difference between equally qualified applicants. The legacy rate of admission is about double the normal rate -- so about 20% to 22%. Stanford sends a letter explaining the process when they receive your application.</p>
<p>MIT's EA acceptance rate is extremely low...you may want to consider applying SCEA to Stanford anyway, because there really isn't much advantage in applying EA to MIT, as I see it (besides an early acceptance for that lucky 13%, or whatever it is).</p>
<p>
[quote]
there really isn't much advantage in applying EA to MIT, as I see it
[/quote]
I wasn't an MIT early admit, but I hear that you get a tube with confetti and a nice poster :D.</p>
<p>energize - If you'd be happy with going to Stanford over MIT (if the choice came down that that), then I'd apply Stanford SCEA. If you know that you'd be much happier at MIT though, I see little point in losing your EA advantage by applying early to Stanford.</p>
<p>Legacy helps at a lot of places; Stanford is one of them. No one can really say for sure how much it helps. You can cite statistics on admit rate for legacies versus non-legacies, but those stats can be affected by other factors, too. And I have no idea where anyone is getting this stuff about legacy not mattering unless you apply EA--do you have any sources to back that up, or is it just another bit of conventional wisdom?</p>
<p>Conventional wisdom (college advice books often say this), backed up by anecdotal experience (seemed to be true for me...I think I was decently admissable (I got waitlisted at Columbia and Brown with 0 hooks/special traits, for example, so my app couldn't have been <em>that</em> bad! :))).</p>
<p>With the competition for spots anymore, legacy status seems to be declining in importance. Schools just have too much selection. The two major reasons that legacies get a boost are: 1) they get more money from alumni and 2) it increases their yield, since legacies are more likely to attend. At top schools, both of those are not as large of issues as in the past.</p>
<p>And yes, I had always heard that it is almost a requirement to apply early to get the "legacy advantage."</p>
<p>Legacy help to a large extent at Stanford: There are two private schools in Palo Alto/Menlo Park Area and they boost of high Stanford matriculation just because of legacy connections.</p>
<p>Similarly Stanford also have an employee preference. That is why both public high schools of Palo Alto send a large number of students to Stanford.</p>
<p>Pof IH. My son went to one of those 2 private schools [ he is a son of alumni], but we were not wealthy alumni contributors to Stanford and even though he was far more qualified in all respects, he was not accepted, while much more wealthy, less qualified alumni children were. The size of financial contributations to Stanford was the single most important deciding factor in who was accepted among legacy applicants.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The size of financial contributations to Stanford was the single most important deciding factor in who was accepted among legacy applicants
[/quote]
</p>
<p>in my experience too, out of the three that wer accepted from my school, wealth and legacy seem to be muhc more "tipping factors" for applicants ap plying to Stanford than other schools. (the girl who got in cuz of donations got something in teh range of 1800s for her SAT)</p>
<p><----Double Legacy from Stanford, Dad M.S, Mom M.A, rejected regular decision this year with a 1480/2130 SAT 4.0 GPA and decent extracurriculars. hmmmmmmmm</p>
<p>I know several Stanford legacies, my child included, who were not children of large donors. However, all of us showed loyalty through annual small donations or volunteer work.</p>
<p>In order for someone to be "legacy" their parents have to have gone to the university, right? Uncles and Aunts don't count?</p>