<p>Mini, 30 years ago, a well to do, well known nursery program went all out to try to get more diversity in their school. Once in the program, the kids can continue into the top prep school without having to apply, so this was a big deal thing in a city where the public schools are not top grade. </p>
<p>The recrutiment went very well with many,many applications. Not a single one of the low income applicants would have been accepted if we did not take consideration for their status, Not one. So the standards do have to be altered to get an acceptance rate at all. The prep school where my some of my kids attended, also does an outreach program, and not one of the kids in the 8 years I was there, who were in the program made the Cum Laude Society. Nor did they get top test scores. Without giving this group some quarter, there wouldn’t even be the number of them at these schools that there are.</p>
<p>Also the failure rate of these kids are higher once in there. Particularly at schools that are known to be academic sweatshops. In fact, I wouldn’t recommend kids who are not well prepared, top students with high SAT scores under any circumstance to apply to those school, and certainly not kids who might get in with a pass due to special hooks so given. None of my kids have been encouraged to go my alma mater for that reason, and I have 2 who probably would have gained entry. It 's a sad fact of educational statistics that income is a very strong predictor of academic success.</p>
<p>Now that is not always the case. I work with two women who are URMs, went to open enrollment colleges, came from low income families and both went on to top post graduate programs and are now way up there in their fields and were top students in those schools. But they are the first to tell me that they are the exception to this rule which is why they are working to try to break this trend. It is possible to do so, but it hasn’t happened yet.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, that I can assure you is not the case. Many private schools have Naviance type records that go further in terms of identifying things like hooks, geographics, special situations, male/female. As a mom whose kids went to such a school, I have access to those books. When my kids were going there, and particularly for their classmate, I could pick out easily half of who the kids were since the class is not that large. Also when you know who the celebrity type kids are and where their parents went to school. No question in those cases, absolutely none.</p>
<p>Maybe we should start one of those threads where every child admitted to a top school and also has legacy status can list their scores. Then we can all pass judgment on them. :)</p>
<p>No one is passing judgment on the kids. The question at hand here for me is why legacies need a hook since they tend to have better scores and be a better group on the whole over the average. At Harvard with a 30% accept rate, is a hook category for them even necessary? The only reason I can see for it is because the composite numbers are one thing; the individual ones another, and there are certain individuals that may need hook power to be admitted outside of the regular ol’ admissions process. In that case, they could go into development or celebrity category and just forget the whole legacy hook deal. Just getting alums mad that there kid didn’t get in even with a hook when they can see that their stats and resumes have to be way up there. And I don’t mean presumptions, but actualities.</p>
<p>Okey-doke. I don’t know the GPA, SAT or ACT scores for any kids outside my own, since it’s none of my business. As for other kids’ EC’s, I know them only vaguely (this kid is a runner, that kid acts in plays) but certainly not enough to think that I know everything that might have put on an application. And I know the parent-college-status of maybe 5 other families in my kids’ school. I just can’t clutter my mind with all this stuff that doesn’t impact me. More power to those of you who have the mind-space to do so!</p>
<p>Well, I could list the scores of my legacy kids who were rejected. Had they been accepted and enrolled, they would have been in the top half of the class for every meaningful score, and in the top quarter for most. One kid’s class rank was not up to snuff, but that was entirely due to switching schools in 11th grade.</p>
<p>cpt-- I actually wonder if being a legacy is a hook, and not just a category of well-educated, advantaged students who test well. (there is incontrovertable evidence that wealthy kids test better)…</p>
<p>In fact, given the number of high stat students produced by well-educated, education valuing wealthy graduates, I can’t help but wonder if, all things being equal, it’s not actually a hindrance to acceptance. I mean, they are asked to “justify” their legacy numbers. With that kind of scrutiny, unless it’s developmental?, I bet you have to outperform non-legacy applicants. I wouldn’t be surprised.</p>
<p>There are so few spaces in these schools, I don’t know why anyone would be surprised to be rejected. The surprise, ought to be, acceptance.</p>
<p>But, people will continue to insist that JR. was rejected because of that darn legacy down the street. People need their stories.</p>
<p>The elite schools DO make plenty of legacy-parents mad, though, when they don’t admit their kids. JHS has said that his wife basically swore off her Yale affiliation when they didn’t admit their son, whom I’m presuming was fully qualified. </p>
<p>Look, if schools diluted the strength of their pool academically by admitting unqualified legacies at great rates, then they wouldn’t be desired schools any more. The schools we are talking about are still highly desired. If you don’t like a given policy, don’t apply. YK, I’m not a fan of athletic scholarships in general - but my kid goes to a place that does offer athletic scholarships. Well, obviously I don’t feel THAT strongly about it, because if I did, I’d put my money where my mouth was and refuse to give money to a school that offers athletic scholarships. Since I didn’t, well, then, obviously it’s not that big of a hurdle for me. Likewise, if you dislike a legacy (or URM or whatever) policy, you’re perfectly free not to have your kid apply there.</p>
<p>Let’s remember that these school reject many many qualified applicants. I do believe that at the very high end of test scores and GPA, legacy helps in this pool of the very qualified. They probably don’t need the amazing ECs that non hooked applicants seem to need.</p>
<p>Okay, I think that’s valid, if you see it as being a pass on Siemens or Olympic qualifier. But, you know, by that point? I think they are just searching for ways to differentiate one superstar mathlete from another anyway. :p</p>
<p>At my alma mater, legacy makes a difference. It won’t get a definite reject accepted, but if the kid is within what is considered acceptable, it can happen. And the accept rate is low there. It’s not fair, but it’s there. And, yes, though none of my kids have or is likely ever to apply there, I think it is a good thing for the school. But the school does not have that many legacy kids either. What percent of HPY are comprised of legacies.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl,there was a time I could remember stats ever so well, but those days are gone. I just get the gist of them now. I can’t remember my kids stats, heck, I couldn’t remember a birthday when I was filling out something this year. But there are folks who are there trying to bring out those numbers. For Naviance, we can just bring up the info on line so I could come up with those #s right now. But the more detailed book can only be examined in house, in the office near the secretary and no notes or photos allowed of the info. Still there are privacy issues with all of these things.</p>
<p>And when a legacy parent gets mad that has some clout, some damage can be done to a school. I think HPY are insulated enough that they can take those hits but for some schools, it can make a big difference. There are those who have donated buildings and huge funds to the tune of over a million dollars. There is a family at sons’ schools that easily has donate millions to the k-12 private school and will continue to do s as long as their kids are going there. </p>
<p>I never donated anything other than token amounts to my college so ticking me off along with most of my former classmates isn’t going to be a drop in the bucket. It’s the development buckets where it can make the difference to a school.</p>
<p>What’s the “right” proportion of Harvard’s class that should be legacies?</p>
<p>And to some extent, isn’t that dependent on what % of the applicants are legacies? Does the answer make a difference if I say the % of applicants who are legacies is 5%, 15%, 30%, 50%? (% of applicants who are legacies is not the same as admit rate or % of the class who is a legacy)
If Harvard leaves its students so in love with the campus / place that when they grow up and become parents, their children want to apply in droves … isn’t that evidence that Harvard did its job well? If Harvard sends its students off to fabulous careers that then afford them to treat their children to the best in education … isn’t that evidence that Harvard did its job well? If Harvard fosters a lifelong love of learning in its students such that they pass that spirit of inquiry onto their children and their children want to apply to Harvard because they perceive that is a place where such learning will take place for them … isn’t that evidence that Harvard did its job well?</p>
<p>Harvard looks for smart people. Children of smart people tend to be smart. Therefore, Harvard children, taken as a whole, are more likely to have the characteristics that Harvard rewards for admissions in the first place. It’s not that hard.</p>
<p>This discussion has always been precisely about everyday, run-of-the-mill alumni / legacy kids, not about alumni with power and clout to threaten to withdraw the promise to build the new science center.</p>
<p>I don’t know what the “right” % should be. It’s what the school wants it to be, I guess, as they have some control over that. That a student is legacy does not preclude him/her from having other hooks either, so it’s difficult to isolate for whom the legacy hook was even used.</p>
<p>Top 5 Moments in J.D. Porter’s “Legacy Admissions are Stupid Column:”</p>
<ol>
<li>Legacy admissions initially came about because Ivy League administrators hated Jews. In the 1920s, they noticed that someone had been educating Jewish people, who were now better qualified for their schools than the traditional student body, the bored children of various industrial barons.</li>
<li>At least student athletes actually have to do something in exchange for admissions leniency, like kicking a ball, or rowing a paddle. This puts them far beyond the value, and probably skill set, of any legacy student.</li>
<li>Every one I know wishes they would shut up and go away. People aren’t qualified to do things on the basis of their parents’ skill sets. My dad was the top marksman in his class at West Point, but it would not be wise to choose me to defend America, or even a single American.</li>
<li>In 2003, the Journal reported that legacy kids at Harvard had a 40 percent admission rate, compared to 11 percent for everyone else. It’s like Mike Tyson goes into the ring with a small child, and the Ivies are yelling “It’s not fair! That kid gets to use both hands!”</li>
<li>For some reason people don’t seem all that infuriated about this, even though the whole concept is about as fair as picking a deranged child to rule a nation because he’s the firstborn. Well, the time has come to destroy that sickly child.</li>
</ol>
<p>To address post #42, academic value is not governed entirely based on attending an Ivy school, IMO. Which is why S has chosen LAC education over an Ivy education.</p>
<p>Can’t speak to Harvard. At Brown, I could write a book about my classmates and their annoyance/anger/irritation (depends on the family) that their legacy child was not admitted. And since these rejected kids ended up at Penn, Cornell, JHU, Northwestern, Duke, Amherst and Columbia (at least the people I’m close to) where the kids did not have legacy status, I’ll go out on a limb and say it’s not like Brown would have closed up shop if it had to admit these kids.</p>
<p>What is the common denominator besides high scores and legacy among this group of kids? No money and nobody famous.</p>
<p>I think (at least at Brown) legacy is meaningful when coupled with one of the other things the school looks for- dad is a US Senator. Mom is a movie star. Kid is an Olympic ice skater. Dad is first violinist of a major symphony orchestra and kid is a musical prodigy. So legacy can push these already hooked kids over the edge.</p>
<p>But a high scoring legacy with good grades whose dad is a minister and mom is a social worker? Or dad teaches high school English and mom is a freelance magazine writer? (These are real people BTW.) Their kids legacy status probably got the application a second read- and got the kid into Cornell or Penn- but wasn’t enough to tip them into Brown.</p>