<p>
[quote]
The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Harvard accepts 40% of applicants who are children of alumni but only 11% of applicants generally.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>yeah, it doesn't guarantee anything but it's an interesting statistic nonetheless. i wonder what the percentage is for recruits.</p>
<p>We've already known this. But remember, yes, being a legacy is an extra tip factor, but usually, as NSM had stated, the children of Harvard grads do just as well academically/extracurricularly as the others who were accepted in the applicant pool.</p>
<p>But is that, again, because of upbringing and background or ability? I would venture to say the former in half of the cases and the latter in the other half.</p>
<p>If you have parents who achieved such an elevated level of higher education, you better have great grades and ecs. My problem with legacy admissions is that it privileges the already privileged.</p>
<p>These people's parents probably, at least more than the average applicant's parent, really teach their kids good work ethics and teach them to succeed. Plus this may be controversial but isn't there also possibly a genetic factor as well, where smart parents might be more likely than others to have naturally smart kids?</p>
<p>I agree that the children of Harvard alumni are probably more qualified than the average applicant is and that explains part of their high success in getting into Harvard. As filmxoxo17 said, "If you have parents who achieved such an elevated level of higher education, you better have great grades and ecs. ". I also agree that there may be a genetic component in the mix. </p>
<p>However, Harvard does not have a 'monopoly' on well-educated alumni. Let's face it. Yale alumni are also extremely well educated. So are MIT alumni. So are Princeton alumni. So are Stanford alumni. So are alumni from the other top schools. Yet their children don't get any special Harvard boost.</p>
<p>How are they defining legacy?</p>
<p>Because from my understanding, the only people who really receive a big boost in admissions for being "legacies" are the ones whose parents have donated a lot to the school. So are they defining it this way, or do they simply mean legacy as in your parents went there?</p>
<p>Probably meaning just went there...</p>
<p>I think they lumped together everyone who indicated that they had some relative at Harvard. If you further seperated that crowd into those who had a sibling to those who had a parent who donates massive sums of money, I guarantee that we'd see even more interesting trends -- meaning the richest kids get the biggest push. Very interesting indeed...</p>
<p>
[quote]
These people's parents probably, at least more than the average applicant's parent, really teach their kids good work ethics and teach them to succeed. Plus this may be controversial but isn't there also possibly a genetic factor as well, where smart parents might be more likely than others to have naturally smart kids?
[/quote]
This was my intial thought, as well. But, you also need to think about the number of kids with parents who went to Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Williams, or were the very top students at any other school. Harvard parents probably taught their children work ethic and encouraged education; however, all of these other parents would do the same thing. </p>
<p>It would also be interesting to see the success rates of Harvard applicants at, say, Yale, though that would of course bring the confounding "first choice school" variable.</p>
<p>I think the higher rate is a combination of legacy standing and the general qualities of kids with Harvard parents, with the former holding the most weight.</p>
<p>"A legitimate criticism of affirmative action is that it politicizes life chances and focuses blame on race. If you get turned down by Yale to make room for a George W., you're not even aware of it. But if you get turned down by the University of Michigan, you're likely to blame affirmative action (if you're white), even though the numbers say you probably would have been turned down anyway. "</p>
<p>I think we see a lot of this on this website.</p>
<p>
[quote]
think they lumped together everyone who indicated that they had some relative at Harvard.
[/quote]
No, legacy specifically refers to those who have a PARENT who attended Harvard. Other relatives, like grandparents or siblings, do not make one a legacy. The article also specifies parents.</p>
<p>A good method of seeing how much of a legacy advantage there really is versus how much is based on the quality of the legacy pool is to compare the acceptance rate of Harvard legacies to Harvard with the acceptance rate of other top Ivy legacies (Yale, Princeton, etc.) to Harvard. It turns out the admission rates are much closer than the gap between legacies and the overall applicant rate, indicating that much of that 40% rate mentioned earlier comes simply from the fact that people with Harvard-educated parents, like those with parents who went to other Ivies, tend to be better qualified.</p>
<p>Mitchell, do you have a source for those stats? I'm pretty sure I recall reading somewhere that the admit rate at Harvard for children of Yale and Princeton alumni was close to 30%, which would be consistent with your post, but I can't seem to find where I read it.</p>
<p>"Plus this may be controversial but isn't there also possibly a genetic factor as well, where smart parents might be more likely than others to have naturally smart kids?"</p>
<p>Yes, yes, and yes. Genetics is a huge factor here--moreso than school district, wealth, $15,000 college counselors, the whole nine yards.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, yes, and yes. Genetics is a huge factor here--moreso than school district, wealth, $15,000 college counselors, the whole nine yards.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While I don't deny that genetics plays some role, I would argue that it's mostly cultural. For example, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find that adopted children of Harvard alumni also exhibit a high success rate in getting into Harvard. Maybe not as high as the biological children of Harvard alumni, but high nonetheless. </p>
<p>It's really the kinds of skills and attitudes that you impart on children that ultimately determine their fate more so than whatever DNA they have.</p>
<p>thats kinda crazy...</p>
<p>i cant believe that the admissions rate is 40%. I've seen a much more weighted right-side ratio then that personally. I only know of ONE legacy out of quite a few thats gotten in, although that may all change in April (I certainly hope that it does).</p>
<p>Harvard maintains a Z-list admissions method entirely for legacies.</p>
<p>"This was my intial thought, as well. But, you also need to think about the number of kids with parents who went to Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Williams, or were the very top students at any other school. Harvard parents probably taught their children work ethic and encouraged education; however, all of these other parents would do the same thing."</p>
<p>Yeah but these schools' graduates still make up a tiny percentage of the general populace. What percentage of Harvard applicants' parents went to great schools like these?</p>