<p>Igloo – as a parent of a kid applying to a legacy school (this years rates were 18% overall, 36% legacy, I don’t know what % of the class is legacy), to me it was all the same. Unlikely, keep your hopes low and maybe you’ll get a pleasant surprise. In that regard the 7% and the 30% for Harvard are exactly the same. The magic 8 ball still says unlikely either way and you’d best prepare for that and make no assumptions.</p>
<p>
They didn’t go quite that far, but this article covered some of the ground: </p>
<p>It’s from 2005, but I doubt things have changed significantly in the last 6 years. Here’s what they say the average legacy candidate looks like:
</p>
<p>also:
[quote]
Dean Fitzsimmons notes that at Harvard “legacy status is basically used as a tie-breaker between comparable candidates,” and our data confirm that legacy preferences are generally reserved for candidates with strong credentials. When we assign the applicants to the 13 colleges and universities for which we have sufficient data on legacies to three SAT categories, **we find that the legacy advantage is much more pronounced in the highest SAT range than elsewhere. **The adjusted admissions advantage for legacies with combined SAT scores below 1100 is just over 6 percentile points (and not statistically significant), the advantage for those with SAT scores between 1100 and 1300 is 18 percentile points, and the advantage for those with SAT scores of 1300 and above is 25 percentile points.<a href=“My%20bolding.”>/quote</a></p>
<p>PG - It has nothing to do with my kid’s application. My kid is a legacy at Stanford but it is not the first choice. That makes me an impartial observer in the discussion. I have nothing at stake.</p>
<p>soomoo, no doubt its difficult for ORM’s at HYP, but I would argue that because athletes, legacies, rich donor connections, and for the most part even professor kids are very largely white kids that while its hard for ORM’s atleast most of them are competing based on academic merit. For white kids who all they have going for them is exceptionally strong academic merit the sad thing is that you aren’t competing on an even playing field.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really?? This is such a huge range that this statistic is almost useless. What is it once you get to 1500 say?</p>
<p>I know several Harvard legacies who were admitted over the last few years, and every single one of them is incredibly impressive. An example of one I know who was admitted this year: 2400 SAT, 800’s on SAT II’s, 5’s on every AP test he took, number 1 in class at well-known competitive admissions high school, U/W GPA over 4.0, national prizes in two different fields, very talented musician, and all-around great kid who was admitted to every school to which he applied. I also know several very impressive Harvard legacies who were rejected. Not saying there’s no legacy advantage, but I am saying that the Harvard legacies who are admitted deserve to be there.</p>
<p>This is a little like when people are comparing an elephant to a zebra, how massive, round, wide elephants are, someone says, “Wait a minute, I’ve seen an elephant trunk. That is at most 3 inches wide. No part of a zebra is that skinny. Elephants are skinnier than zebras.” If we pull parts out cleverly, I am sure we can convince people an elephant has more stripes than a zebra.</p>
<p>No, Iglooo. You are looking at two elephants and trying to insist that one is a zebra.</p>
<p>One thing I’ve always been curious about and have never seen a clear answer to, is how much the legacy advantage correlates to the alumni activity history of the parent. Does admissions actually look at the parents level of donations and involvement with the school? Not saying favoritism would correspond directly to the amount of giving, but would they look at the alum parent when reviewing the applicant and say, “oh he has given a lot, but only for the past five years, clearly looking toward his child’s app”, or “well, she interviews for us and has contributed $100 consistently over the past 30 years”, etc.?</p>
<p>Here’s a little thought experiment for you. Would you be offended if Harvard said the following: “We do have a legacy preference. If you have an SAT over 2250 and a GPA over 3.8, and you’re a legacy, you’re in. All other legacies are reviewed the same as all other applicants.”</p>
<p>
That’s an interesting question. The conventional wisdom is that this doesn’t matter unless you give enough money to reach the level of “developmental” cases–that is, millions.</p>
<p>My observed anecdotal experience is consistent with what Hunt says. I know several cases at HYPS with (a) students who were perfectly qualified in terms of grades, test scores, activities, if not super-qualified, and (b) parents with consistent involvement over decades and cumulative donations in the $750,000 - $1 million range, where the students were not accepted. If interviewing, fund raising, and contributing $20,000/year for 20 years doesn’t do the trick, it’s hard to believe any of that is relevant. On the other hand, I don’t expect any college to say that anytime soon. They know perfectly well that the folk belief that it matters is worth millions of dollars to the institution year after year.</p>
<p>For whatever it’s worth, Wildwood, since I know you’re an NU alum as well … our history of donating to NU has been sporadic and I would be surprised if it’s reached $500 in total in the 25 years since H and I graduated. There were many years where we gave nothing and quite a few years in which we gave a token amount like $25 because we chose to concentrate charitable donations elsewhere. And frankly because H and I were both full-pay, we felt that they’d already gotten our pound of flesh (or our parents’ pounds of flesh). We do bleed purple, but we do not do anything else for the university such as serve on any committees, interview, etc. We’ve attended occasional seminars, events and shows such as Waa-Mu and the occasional football game here and there; we can’t even claim to be season ticket-holders. I have served as a guest lecturer at Kellogg through two former co-workers who are now profs there, but that has been independent of having alum status.</p>
<p>The point that I’m making is that we are “unimportant” alumni and if they gave our son a legacy boost, it was out of a feeling of esprit de corps and not because we were dripping any dollar signs. They could likely identify from our zip code and occupations that we live in a nice upper middle class and that S didn’t need financial aid, but there’s absolutely nothing in our history of giving that would suggest that we would be valuable in any way. Which is the truth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It wouldn’t bother me. They have that right. My non-H legacy kid with those same stats was not “owed” a spot at Harvard. If, as a result, the student body became less intellectual, less interesting, less diverse … well, then the school’s appeal would suffer in consequent years and the market would right itself. It’s funny … the people who are all agog about how awful it is that the unqualified legacies / athletes / URM’s / first gens are clogging up the student body still desperately want their children to be part of that student body.</p>
<p>IIRC Caltech has a pretty “pure” system that doesn’t preference legacies, athletes, etc. Is their student body – certainly top-notch academically – perceived as being as desirable of a “club” as the HYP student body?</p>
<p>I say let the market decide. And right now the market HAS decided – even with all of the “unfair” legacies, athletes, URM’s, etc., there are still tons and tons of people trying to climb those ivy walls.</p>
<p>I really don’t understand why the athletic recruit’s acceptance with less-scholarly credentials is given a pass by most commenters; I think the emphasis on “winning sports teams” for school spirit is mystifying, in the context of a highly-ranked college, and from what I have understood on other threads, at non-state schools an athletic recruit is free, having once “earned” his or her way onto campus, to drop the sport altogether–a choice for which I would not blame the student in the least, since being a member of a sports team at college represents a huge time and energy commitment, putting him or her at a disadvantage wrt all the students who don’t “perform” for the benefit of the school. Sports should be treated like other extracurricular activities, theatre and music for example, which can also be time-consuming and yet are mutually beneficial for the student and the college. I just don’t understand the reverence with which sports are regarded at colleges, and I totally don’t support the idea that athletes, even gifted ones, should be admitted to college on markedly preferential terms. A tip, yes: I have great respect for the dedication and motivation that goes into high school sports (although I think it’s a little wrong-headed, too, to be honest, if the time doing sports exceeds the time spent on studies), and I certainly am not arguing that such achievements should not be valued in the admission process (in which case, however, even non-gifted athletes could make the argument that their accomplishments are as great as the athletic stars, in terms of hard work and so forth). But not to the extent to which recruited athletes seem to be valued. </p>
<p>And yes, I realize that my children are free to choose schools that don’t prize sports so highly, and I hope they do. One has, for that matter. But all this angst and anger about the supposed preferential treatment, and the precise degree of it, given to legacies baffles me when no one seems to question the logic of preferring athletes to scholars, at institutions that are supposed to be all about scholarship.</p>
<p>No argument here, marysidney; I completely agree. All the outsize fuss and recruiting paid to athletes is far more of a travesty than Harvard showing a little love to its alumni kids.</p>
<p>But they’re not “supposed to be all about scholarship”! None of them has ever said that; in fact, they say the opposite all the time, and they walk the walk as well as talking the talk.</p>
<p>The only comprehensive American university that has ever credibly pretended to be all about scholarship is the University of Chicago, and it has spent the past 25 years trying to walk back from the brink of the abyss to which that strategy drove it. (How? Among other things, by increased emphasis on things like sports, arts, commerce, and political engagement, just like HYPS.) All you have to do is compare the histories of Chicago and Stanford, two universities created out of whole cloth at about the same time, to understand how important it is for a first-rank university to support things other than scholarship at the undergraduate level.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I find this remark as offensive to athletes just as I find the remarks that legacy admits are not as qualified as regular admits and got in due to legacy. Who says athletes are not ALSO scholars??? With legacy admits, to a school like Harvard especially, I see it as all things being equal with two very highly qualified applicants, a legacy may be a tip. But the admitted legacy student is not less qualified than the non-hooked other equally qualified student they were considering. </p>
<p>From personal experience…D1 chose to apply to the college (Tufts) that my husband and I attended. We could care less if our kids applied to our alma mater but it so happened that the school really fit what she was looking for and she became attracted to it with no influence from us. In fact, it was one of her favorite schools on her list of 8 schools. My husband and I have not donated any money to Tufts ever. I have been an alum interviewer for some time. I do recall that the head of the alum interviewer program sent notes to interviewers that if they had a child in the admissions cycle to let them know. Obviously, this might make them take some notice. My kid was admitted but she was quite qualified for Tufts without being a legacy. I realize I’m her mom and can say that but it does not prove that. Let’s just say factually that she was admitted to Brown and Penn and waitlisted at Princeton, all of which are harder to get into than Tufts and so I don’t think her acceptance to Tufts was a case of a “lesser qualified candidate who got in because she was a legacy.” I share this because I think it is VERY typical. Not all legacies are admitted and those who are admitted, are qualified to be admitted without their legacy status. For highly competitive colleges, where more students are qualified than are accepted, so what if legacy is a “tip”? It isn’t tipping in lesser qualifed students in lieu of a more qualified un-hooked student. </p>
<p>In terms of athletes…my kid was NOT a recruited athlete. However, she was a three season varsity athlete in high school. While never recruited, she did go on to play a varsity sport at her Ivy league school. She was both an athlete AND a scholar, as were many of her teammates. She, along with many teammates, were awarded Academic All American. She also won the top award in her academic department at graduation. My D, as an UG, was a TA for two courses at her Ivy. She, along with several teammates, went onto very selective graduate schools, professional schools, med schools, and law schools. Some of the other girls on the team were recruited athletes, although my D was not. Athletes are scholars too. Legacies who are admitted are qualified too.</p>
<p>I agree with JHS that elite colleges are not ONLY about academics. These schools particularly seek out students who are going to contribute to the campus community in many capacities and in many areas, and not JUST in the classroom.</p>
<p>Even speaking for my own kids, they excelled in the classroom at their colleges, winning awards and scholarships in fact. But they were extremely active in ECs at these colleges and took on significant leadership roles. Very selective colleges want kids who are going to make a difference both in the classroom and on campus in other ways.</p>
<p>To say nothing of being located in Palo Alto rather than Hyde Park, JHS (Post #217). Location, location, location.</p>