<p>good mary. That’s the exact right take-away.</p>
<p>Because they also only accept 30% of their legacies, which means 70 for every one hundred aren’t getting in. That’s a LOT of people expecting to get in who aren’t going to get in.</p>
<p>It doesn’t mean your daughter ought not to apply. It just means there are millions of schools in the country and so there are millions of #1’s in their class. Bad odds, but as oldfort pointed out earlier upthread, your daughter may have a better chance than 6%, since many who apply aren’t actually even qualified.</p>
<p>Still, even if my kid were a legacy, I wouldn’t count on any of it, unless I had 10 million to donate. YMMV</p>
<p>I read once, and oh how I wish I’d saved the link, that about 30% of Harvard’s apps were from international students. They make up only 10% of the class. Therefore, the admit rate for U.S. citizens is higher that the overall 7%.</p>
<p>maryfk, while I agree the odds to get into Harvard are slim, I do not agree that your D’s odds are necessarily less than the overall acceptance rate of 6% (which you attribute to due to many slots being taken up by hooked applicants such as legacy, development admits, athletes, URM). Now, I don’t have a chart for Harvard in front of me, but I recall seeing a chart at Brown (where my D went) that showed the acceptance rates for valedictorians (she was one) and some other categories like SAT levels. The acceptance rate for vals was much higher then the overall acceptance rate to the college. So, your D’s chances as a val applicant are likely HIGHER than 6%, not lower (of course it will still be very chancy).</p>
<p>PS…I looked it up for Brown…overall acceptance rate is 8.7%. Acceptance rate for vals is 21%.</p>
<p>“Acceptance rate for vals is 21% and acceptance rate for legacy is 30%? Hmmm… I wonder what that tells you.”</p>
<p>That there are a lot of crummy high schools where being first in the class doesn’t necessarily tell you much about academic preparation or ability. I’ve spoken with applicants who were valedictorian of their rural high school, but with SATs below 500. Not ready for Harvard.</p>
<p>Being val is not what got them admitted. If you look at the chart (this was for Brown, not Harvard), there was a higher percentage rate of admission for either section of the SAT being over 750 as compared to the overall acceptance rate to the university. </p>
<p>I was pointing this out to maryfk because she is not understanding correctly in thinking that her D who may have high stats has a less than 6% chance at Harvard because she is not hooked when the reality is that if she is val and let’s say she has SATs over 1500 CR/M, her odds are higher than 6% (while still quite chancy of course).</p>
<p>There are applicants to Ivies who are weaker than the very very strong applicants and so a very very strong applicant has better acceptance odds than the overall acceptance rate indicates.</p>
<p>Hanna, as far as crummy high schools or rural high schools…don’t be too quick to discount the top students at such high schools. I understand you know of vals at such high schools with SATs below 500. But I can tell you that at our so called crummy rural high school, the top students typically are very strong students who ARE ready for Harvard. My kid didn’t apply to Harvard. She applied to four Ivies…admitted to two, waitlisted at one, deferred then denied at one. At her college graduation, she won the top award in her department. She was surely ready. While our HS doesn’t have a lot of kids go onto such colleges, one or two might each year and are perfectly qualified and ready. I know someone who went to Harvard one years. I know someone going to MIT this year, and other similar examples each year. Excellent qualified students can come from ANY high school or community. There just are less of them at the high school compared to a high school full of tippy top achievers.</p>
<p>(to clarify, my D didn’t have SATs in the 500’s )</p>
<p>The hooks are just giving you a few more tickets in the raffle. They aren’t sure things. And exhibit A is … the legacy admit rate is 30%. Not 70%. Not 80%. Not 90%. 30% is still a raffle if you ask me.</p>
<p>As for the vals, you need a high GPA and super-high SATs. Some vals have the scores, and others don’t. And some kids with very high scores don’t have great GPAs. Unless they have something else impressive, none of those kids are getting into Harvard.</p>
<p>Hanna - Are you going back and forth from looking at the stats in a macroscopic way to a microscopic way argueing one way or the other as you see it fit? Yes, of course, some of the vals are crummy. That’s why it’s 21% not a 100% or closer. BTW that 21% also applies SAT 2300 or higher. The big picture tells us the acceptance rate for well qualified students 2300 and 4.0 is about 20% overall. I wouldn’t be surprised as a group those top students are just as qualified as legacy applicants when ECs are included. They get 21% and legacy gets 30%.</p>
<p>About the internationals, if 30% of applicants come from overseas and they make up 10% stiudent body, it implies the admit rate is about 2%. That’s not that much lower than non-hooked applicants’ admit rate. Since we all know how tough it is to get in as internationals, it gives an idea how hard it is to get in as “unhooked” applicants.</p>
<p>^Not saying it’s more deserving. It’s just that the stats show that more kids are accepted with the 2300+ and the 4.0 than the 2200+ 3.8. Both are qualified but clearly colleges prefer the former. Make with it what you will.</p>
<p>In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter if your chances are 4%, 7% or 30%? It is a longshot for ANYBODY. Either pony up the application fee or don’t. And as somebody said upthread, if you don’t like the admissions policies of the school, don’t apply.</p>
<p>Yes, 4% chance is different from 30%. If the weather forcast says the chance of rain is 4%, I don’t take my umbrella. If it 30%, I do pack an umbrella.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. Just saying that clearly legacy candidates are at an advantage. Not saying it’s necessarily wrong. Just a little weary of all the talk that they are not. Why don’t they just come out and say so and be done with it?</p>
<p>“don’t be too quick to discount the top students at such high schools.”</p>
<p>I’m defining as crummy those American high schools where a sub-500-scorer is the val. Rural, urban, whatever. I’m sure one could find dyslexic or English-language-learner exceptions, but I think that most of the time, that’s a damning piece of evidence that the school has low academic standards (relative to the preparation a Harvard freshman needs). I knew many crummy-rural-high-school valedictorians at Harvard who were thoroughly ready. They were bright, curious people who went far beyond the school’s demands in order to learn.</p>
<p>“The big picture tells us the acceptance rate for well qualified students 2300 and 4.0 is about 20% overall.”</p>
<p>How does that follow? If it’s 21% for high scorers and 21% for vals, we have no data about how big the overlap is between those two groups or what the acceptance rate is for the overlap kids. I wager that it is a lot higher than 21%.</p>
<p>I would also suggest that being “val” is not the best way to think about GPA in the first place. While Harvard will list the number of vals it has, I think it’s really looking for people with a high GPA in the most rigorous curriculum offered in the high school. That may not be the same, at all, as who is the val.</p>
<p>I guess we could keep debating the legacy issue. I guess if I had attended Harvard and donated lots of money and my son or daughter had all the top stats, then I would be frustrated if my son or daughter was not admitted.
My daughter was admitted to Harvard this year and without a hook. She is a white girl from a very middle class family. She is going to be val and has high SAT scores. She took the most rigourous courses at her high school and had good EC’s. We are thrilled she got accepted. However, we aren’t naive either. We know she worked really hard but know how lucky she was to get accepted!</p>
<p>Someone needs to do a systematic analysis looking back over the last 5 years of data and ask:</p>
<p>What is the admit rate of H legacy at H?
What is the admit rate of Y legacy at H?
What is the admit rate of P legacy at H?</p>
<p>What is the admit rate of H legacy at Y?
What is the admit rate of Y legacy at Y?
What is the admit rate of P legacy at Y?</p>
<p>What is the admit rate of H legacy at P?
What is the admit rate of Y legacy at P?
What is the admit rate of P legacy at P?</p>
<p>I don’t think it will be a surprise that there is an advantage to be a legacy of that school but I think most people will be surprised at how small the advantage is.</p>
)</p>