Harvard Legacy Admit Rate -- 30%

Parents Forum
381

<p>texaspg – your numbers, which vary a lot relatively year-on-year, hardly support the notion that ethnic quotas are being applied. I, for one, think you are way off base in your suggestion that holistic admissions is simply cover for a quota system, although I would concede that it’s possible that the results of holistic admissions could trend toward something that looks like a quota.</p>

<p>sm74 – One of my two kids was a National Merit Scholar. The other had higher SATs, higher GPA, much higher class rank, more/deeper extracurricular involvements, and won more prizes both for academic and nonacademic endeavors. So which kid was the better selective college admission candidate? I think if you look at the cohort of National Merit Scholars as a whole, it is very accomplished and the members generally go to great colleges. But the PSAT is only one test among many, and the tests are only one set of information among many. I really don’t care how many NMSs a college has.</p>

382

<p>I don’t know the percentage of National Merit Scholars at HYPS, but I think that Hunt and texaspg have a point about it. There are 15,000 National Merit Finalists each year. Only about 8,000 actually receive scholarships. </p>

<p>The scholarships are subdivided into scholarships sponsored by colleges, scholarships sponsored by corporations, and one-time scholarships sponsored by the National Merit Corporation itself. Scholarships in the first two categories tend to be renewable and offer more money; the amount may be need-based in some cases. HYPS don’t sponsor any scholarships themselves, as far as I know. The corporate scholarships tend to be reserved for children of employees. The scholarships sponsored by the National Merit Corporation have no restrictions. </p>

<p>At one time, a student had to receive an award directly from the National Merit Corporation to be designated a “National Merit Scholar.” This is a relatively small fraction of those who received funds. The National Merit Corporation stopped making this distinction a few years ago, because (I believe) the corporate-sponsored scholarships could be considerably larger for students who needed financial assistance, and they didn’t want to set up any barriers, in terms of the designation, that could prevent students from taking those.</p>

<p>On top of that, the PSAT score required to be a National Merit Scholar varies considerably from state to state. Cut-offs (or at least good empirical guesses at them) are posted in the SAT/ACT forum. States on the East Coast from CT through MD and Washington, DC tend to have relatively high cut-offs (maybe VA, to some extent NC), whereas the cut-offs in MS, WY, and ND/SD tend to be relatively low. If a college draws a lot of its students from the East, it will have non-scholars who outscored the Finalists in other states.</p>

383

<p>JHS - These are numbers from Harvard Announcements as attached and not something I came up with. I may have missed a 2% variation for Latino but the increase this year seems to have come at the expense of other pools (0.8% Native Americans and 0.4% Asians compared to last year).</p>

<p>Asian-American (17.8/18.2/17.5) /African-American (11.8/11.3/10.4) /Latino (12.1/10.3/10.6)?</p>

<p>2015</p>

<p>Minority representation remained strong. The admitted class is 17.8 percent Asian-American, 11.8 percent African-American, 12.1 percent Latino, 1.9 percent Native American, and 0.2 percent Native Hawaiian.</p>

<p><a href=“http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/03/an-unprecedented-admissions-year/[/url]”>http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/03/an-unprecedented-admissions-year/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>2014 (2013 numbers in parantheses)</p>

<p>A total of 18.2 percent of the admitted students indicated they were Asian-American (17.5 percent last year), 11.3 percent African-American (10.4 percent last year), 10.3 percent Latino (10.6 percent last year), 2.7 percent Native American (1.1 percent last year) and 0.4 percent Native Hawaiian (0.2 percent last year).</p>

<p><a href=“http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/04/a-historic-year-for-harvard-admissions/[/url]”>http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/04/a-historic-year-for-harvard-admissions/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

384

<p>Sooz, my lament is not that test scores don’t play a major role, it is that how little effort is made at these elite schools to determine academic excellence in their candidates. Holistic systems and quotas tend to run counter to efforts at determining academic excellence. In the old days alumni interviews helped to sort out the intellectually curious from the frauds-that in addition to test scores, AP scores could very easily give a school a very strong academic class if thats what they wanted. But thats not what they want and with the exception of about 25% of their class they don’t get an exceptionally strong academic class.</p>

<p>I would be interested if they ever did a study of how National Merit kids ended up performing in college. My guess is that they probably did pretty well.</p>

385

<p>

</p>

<p>You have got to be kidding that you think that elite schools like Harvard don’t get exceptionally strong academic students except for 25% of their admitted class??? Really??? For starters, one only has to look at the stats of the admitted class to schools of the likes of Harvard and they are pretty darn high stats. </p>

<p>I would infer from your statement that you believe that hooked candidates (legacies, URM, athletes) are not as qualified as the unhooked admitted students and if it were not for hooks, that the class would be better academically. I further infer from your statement that given you don’t think the accepted class to Harvard et. al. is as high academically as it could be (except for 25% of them), that you’d prefer that the highest SATs (or some such…you mention AP scores) are admitted over lower SATs and to pick the class that way. </p>

<p>Thankfully, schools like Harvard are accepting students by a myriad of criterion and not just by highest SAT scores. Even so, their accepted class’ profiles tend to be very high on the academic “stats,” not to mention other outstanding qualities and achievements which a school like that seeks besides simply high test scorers. I think these schools believe that to be a success in life and in careers, it takes more than a high SAT score.</p>

<p>(PS, they still conduct alumni interviews…whose aim is not simply to find the best academic students…since they don’t review stats in the interview…but to find the best PEOPLE…I say this as an alum interviewer myself)</p>

<p>PS…I’m glad they don’t use AP scores, btw…when my kids went to HS, our school just had one AP class and so they didn’t have a slew of AP scores. Nonetheless, they were highly qualified candidates academically speaking for very selective colleges.</p>

386

<p>One more thing…these so called “quotas” you mention…those kids also have to meet the academic standards of admission to Harvard. These kids are not admitted simply due to race, legacy or sport, but they ALSO have to meet the academic standards of the institution. If two kids have similar strengths academically speaking, a hook could tip the hooked kid in over the unhooked kid but the hooked kid had to first meet the standard as not all hooked kids are admitted.</p>

<p>Even though my own kids were unhooked, I find it offensive that some comments here imply that hooked kids didn’t measure up and only were admitted due to their hook. I don’t believe that at all. They first had to measure up. Harvard has more candidates that measure up to their standards than they can accept and so hooks play a part to narrow down the qualified candidates to fill various needs and diversity that the college seeks in the make up of their class.</p>

387

<p>

I confess that I do believe both of these things are true. But I think a lot of people grossly exaggerate how true they are. The hooked students who get into Harvard have good enough stats to get into highly selective schools without any hooks. If the hooks are causing Harvard to take students who would otherwise have to settle for Wesleyan, what’s the big deal?</p>

<p>Also, even if the two statements above are true on average, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t plenty of hooked students who would get in without the hook. That also makes the statements less true than they appear.</p>

388

<p>Sooz I believe my experience is not too different from others. More kids from our school got into HYPS from the 10-25%percentile than from the top 10%. Were they sharp, intellegent kids-yes they were. Were they even close to those in the top 10%-NO. Who were the kids in the top 10% that got rejected? White middle-class kids-everyone of them.</p>

389

<p>One thing, and I have a kid who got perfect SAT’s, one sitting, first sitting, is that all that test measures is the ability to take that test. She was also hooked, as a performing artist, and she WAS recruited. By an Ivy. But, and she would tell you this herself, she wasn’t the right kind of student for that school, no way. Not because she “couldn’t” do the work, but because she really just didn’t want to, anymore. She was tired of all the intense academic focus and chose another path.</p>

<p>I have one who is a recruited athlete, being recruited by several Ivies, at this point. Personally, I think when they see her test scores, they will stop coming after her. Regardless, she would laugh out loud at the idea of herself at an Ivy. She’s not sure she even wants to go to college right away. Might want to go do some physical labor and just decompress. Figure out why she wants to go to school before she dives right in. It will all depend on whether or not she wants to continue with her sport.</p>

<p>But, ultimately, I find it hillariously funny, the concept that hooked athletes are not qualified for the Ivies. Have you ever been to a mensa meeting? LOL. I mean, honestly. Beyond a certain point, intellect and IQ just give a marginal return. And I say this as someone whose family falls in the ridiculously high IQ range. What it takes to really succeed in the world has only a relative correlation to what it takes to succeed in a classrom.</p>

390

<p>sm74, why in the world do you think that alumni interviews is the solution to finding academic excellence? I think the uniformity of academic excellence at Harvard today is much higher than at any time in the past. Certainly if you look at my high school classmates who went to Harvard, you would have a hard time matching up “academic excellence” with some of them (the legacies, as it happens). I think there are still tons of Harvard alumni out there who wouldn’t know academic excellence if it bit them in the face, especially if it wasn’t wearing a rep tie from Andover at the time and had a name that didn’t appear on the manifest of the Mayflower.</p>

391

<p>

</p>

<p>HYPS, perhaps, but Columbia would like us to believe that they hardly ever enroll anyone who is not in the top 10 percent of their class. ;)</p>

392

<p>

</p>

<p>I agree and I think that elite colleges also think this way. Smarts/intellect are very important but such colleges don’t want kids who ONLY present that. These colleges want smart people who also possess other qualities that will contribute to their campuses and to eventual success post graduation. They are not skimping on intellects to in order to obtain these other desired qualities. The students at a school like Harvard ARE smart and their overall academic profile is very strong. But they are seeking students who are both smart and offer something else.</p>

393

<p>Poetgirl, not sure how well your second D did in her SATs but I suspect 2000-2100 will get her in as an Athlete if she wants to go to an Ivy.</p>

<p>Btw, nice to have such accomplished daughters!</p>

394

<p>As far as class rank goes, look at the reported stats at any top college and a huge percentage (majority) of the admitted class comes from the top 10% of their HS class.</p>

<p>At Harvard:</p>

<p>75% of freshmen applicants submit a HS class rank.</p>

<p>95% of the accepted students are in the top 10% of their HS class.</p>

395

<p>

</p>

<p>That is not my experience. The vast majority of kids I know who were admitted to HYPS were academic superstars who were very obviously ahead of the rest of their classmates. Some superstars were indeed unlucky and were rejected by the very top schools, but that is to be expected with such a low acceptance rate. I know few if any students who would fit in the “10-25%” category that were accepted by HYPS. And this includes legacies or athletes.</p>

396

<p>^^-^^</p>

<p>The “statistical” rank is often a meaningless indicator for the most selective universties, as it is selectively reported. </p>

<p>Consider that many or most of the most selective college preparatory schools do not release ranks. While we have 30,000 valedictorians every year, how large is the top 10 percent at Exeter, Deerfield, or Harvard-Westlake? </p>

<p>It is all relative.</p>

397

<p>poetgirl,
Can you please give more detail as to how your D was “recruited” by an Ivy for her performing artist talent?
Not because my D is a performer, but because I am unaware of his process beyond sending in a Supplement for Artists.
Thanks!</p>

<p>soozie-
Not to be too damning, but you might feel a little differently if your two D’s had been rejected by tippy top schools of their choice, which could have happened, based on the crazy numbers out there. I am sure your kids are superstars and I do not imply anything other than that. It is just so hard to understand how many “superstars” are rejected. And without being sour grapes, it is natural to ask why, and wonder how things work.</p>

<p>We all know of shocking stories. My niece applied early to one Ivy, was totally in love with the school. In hindsight, should have played her athletic talent (ODP soccer) chip, but did not, so did not even try to be recruited for a spot.
Was Class Pres 2 of 4 years at a competitive admission HS in NYC. Won 2 National Science awards for ground-breaking genetics projects. Started a social service agency in Africa where she travels every summer, continuing her efforts in college. Did research with prof at another Ivy summer before Sr year. Perfect SAT’s and grades. Took multiple math and sciences courses as a senior 2-3 years ahead. Happy, up, social, too. Interviewed. Letter from Prof at other Ivy and one from the Ivy she wanted to attend.
Got deferred in early round, then rejected in the RD round.
She did get accepted at two other HYPS, Duke Honors, and attended one. </p>

<p>But the rejection just does not “make sense.” </p>

<p>Yes, we know there are too many great applicants. And that the AdComm at her EA school might have thought the fit was wrong. (I actually think the fit at the school she preferred was perfect, better than that of the school ended up at, but no matter. She will do fine. But I think she would have been happier at the Ivy that rejected her, that she showed preference for.)</p>

<p>It is just natural to try to understand all this more clearly when there are such surprises.</p>

<p>We are not stupid, just human, and just want more info!!</p>

398

<p>I really don’t know how my original comment, that the admission of legacies at a (perhaps) preferential rate seemed to upset people more than the more numerous acceptance of recruited athletes at a (definitely) preferential rate, has been turned into the idea that “hooked athletes are not qualified for the Ivies.” I never said that, never implied it, never meant it. It seems that one cannot make a comment that is not immediately interpreted to be the most extreme possible: because I value sports less than someone else does, I therefore think sports valueless; because I question the recruitment of athletes in a process that is separate from, and prior to, the acceptance of the rest of the class, I am somehow advocating dropping sports from the college altogether; because I think that recruiting athletes for sports at Ivy-league schools is counter to the school’s interest, means that I don’t believe that Ivy-league schools should compete with each other in their league. There is no need to be so reactionary. There is nothing sacred or time-hallowed in the recruitment process. Admissions to these schools has changed radically in the last twenty or thirty years; sports recruitment is one element of admissions that, I feel, ought to be reexamined–as most ideas, especially those one takes for granted, ought to be.</p>

399

<p>Although it is a bit unrelated in a discussion about legacies, I highly encourage you to watch this series of videos. The original show was aired a few days ago on CNN and was styled “Education in America: Don’t Fail Me.”</p>

<p>It shows accounts from Phoenix, from the deep South, and from an East Coast high middle class NJ city. It is fascinating. Put yourself in the shoes of an adcom, and decide which one you would accept at one of our top schools? </p>

<p>Part 1: [YouTube</a> - Education in America: Don’t Fail Me Part 1](<a href=“Education in America: Don't Fail Me Part 1 - YouTube”>Education in America: Don't Fail Me Part 1 - YouTube)</p>

<p>Pay close attention to what it shared around Minute 1 to 4 on the second one. </p>

<p>Part 2: [YouTube</a> - Education in America: Don’t Fail Me Part 2](<a href=“Education in America: Don't Fail Me Part 2 - YouTube”>Education in America: Don't Fail Me Part 2 - YouTube)</p>

<p>You can find the entire series from there.</p>

400

<p>

I agree that it’s mystifying, but it would be much worse (and more mystifying) if a candidate like this were shut out of top schools. Based on my anecdotal review of a lot of results threads on CC, that doesn’t happen very often, and when it does, usually you can guess why. Why somebody gets into Harvard and not Yale, or the reverse, can be very hard to fathom.</p>