<p>Meaning?</p>
<p>By the way, I'd be curious to see what would happen if no one mentioned legacy on their apps, if these stats would stay constant or what....</p>
<p>I don't remember exactly where I read about that study, but if I find it I will post it immediately.</p>
<p>Ugh, that affirmative action article bugged me. I hate how pointed news often is. I'm all for diversity, but affirmative action bothers me in more ways than one. I think race should be the LAST thing considered: if there are two otherwise "equal" applicants, one black and one white, then #s of people in the incoming class of each race can be considered. But you have to remember the actual ratios of whites against other races in the US, and also in the applicant pool. (Sorry if that didn't make any sense...it made sense in my head...)</p>
<p>Bush had VIP status and there is nothing wrong with. It brings media to Yale and Harvard</p>
<p>Not exactly part of the discussion, just a small problem I noticed with the article. -- It says that George W. Bush had SAT scores of "566 verbal and 640 math," but how can you get a 566 on an SAT test if all the scores are multiples of 10? Well, I guess it could have been the average of his scores if he took it 3 times and got scores that were something like 560, 570, and 570, but then wouldn't they just count the highest score? ...lol, um, you can ignore this post. =)</p>
<p>The SAT has changed a lot over time. The scores are also comparatively higher than they appear based on the current scaling.</p>
<p>If that makes sense.</p>
<p>when bush took it, you could score any number 200 to 800 not just multiples of 10</p>
<p>scores were recentered in 1995 so he probably would have had 100 more pts today.</p>
<p>Ah, ok, thanks for clearing that up!</p>
<p>"scores were recentered in 1995 so he probably would have had 100 more pts today."</p>
<p>He also prob. had killer test prep in an era when test prep was uncommon. I'd say it's a wash.</p>
<hr>
<p>And also, I don't think it's conceivable that 40% of children of Harvard educated parents would have gotten in anyway. Think about what it takes to be an applicant that has a 40% chance at Harvard: we're prob. talking Valedictorian or Salutorian w/ 2300+ SATs. I find it hard to believe that the AVERAGE Harvard legacy applicant has qualifications to that level.</p>
<p>" Think about what it takes to be an applicant that has a 40% chance at Harvard: we're prob. talking Valedictorian or Salutorian w/ 2300+ SATs. I find it hard to believe that the AVERAGE Harvard legacy applicant has qualifications to that level."</p>
<p>Actually, in my area, the rare legacy does tend to be a sal with at least 2 very strong and unusual ECs.</p>
<p>My thoughts are that because Harvard alums tend to know how fierce the competition is now to get into Harvard, they only encourage their kids to apply if their kids truly would be strong candidates. That's why the legacy pool is strong.</p>
<p>I know that when lots of people learn my S's scores and legacy, they tell me that he'd be a shoo-in for Harvard. Both my S and I know enough about how he compares with applicants whom Harvard admits that he's not bothering to apply.</p>
<p>One last thing, I doubt that vals and sals have more than a 20% chance of being admitted, if their chance is even that high.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Harvard maintains a Z-list admissions method entirely for legacies.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Hmmm--what is a Z-list admissions method?</p>
<p>I think that's when they offer students the option of taking time off and entering the class the following year (or maybe semester?)</p>
<p>The following year.</p>
<p>There's a Crimson article about it.</p>
<p>Does anyone have data on the Stanford legacy admit rate? According to this article from the Stanford Daily last spring, while Harvard, Yale, Princeton and the other Ivy League schools fully disclose their legacy admit rates, Stanford covers theirs up. The only statement the admissions office would make on the subject was to say that "each year [Stanford is] unable to offer admission to the majority of legacy applicants." This could be read to suggest that the Stanford legacy admit rate is above that of Harvard, Yale and Princeton.</p>
<p>While not providing data, the director of admissions did provide a defense of Stanford's legacy preference:</p>
<p>
[quote]
"This is a university that was founded by parents in memory of their child," Porras said. "This is a community that honors family ties at its core but also recognizes our important responsibility to invite new members into the Stanford family."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The president of the alumni association also offered a defense of Stanford's legacy preference:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Howard Wolf, president of the Stanford Alumni Association, supports the legacy policy because it "provide[s] for intergenerational transfer of loyalty to Stanford." Moreover, "Stanfords legacy admission policy acknowledges the vital role in support of one of the Universitys most valuable stakeholders its alumni," Wolf said.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And the article reports on the direct line of communication from Stanford's development office to its admissions office:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Another special group of applicants are those students whose families have been major donors to the University. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal published on April 13, 2003, former Dean of Admissions Robin Mamlet said, "I will certainly factor in a history of very significant giving to Stanford." Each year, the Office of Development sends the admissions office a list of students whose families have been major donors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In the case of many schools, including Stanford, we will never know the legacy admit rate or - more importantly - the relative qualifications of legacy admits - unless and until Congress passes a law requiring the disclosure of such information, which they have been threatening to do.</p>
<p>Will never happen</p>
<p>The Stanford legacy admit rate is not a secret, or at least it wasn't two years ago when my daughter was applying. She was a Stanford legacy (but ultimately chose to attend Harvard), and during the admission process we parents got a couple of letters about the legacy thing. In one of them they said that the regular admit rate the previous year was 13% and the legacy admit rate was about 26% - meaning that, assuming other stats are equal (which they may or may not be), being a legacy basically doubled your chances. Of course the flip side of those same stats are that 3/4 of all the legacies were rejected.</p>
<p>So does legacy help? Apparently. Does being a legacy make it sure thing? Not by a long shot.</p>