@Data10 I know I am going to get flak for this, but if the kids are qualified, what difference does it make if they are legacies? Harvard is filling its class with qualified applicants. No one is really suggesting that they are passing over llarge numbers of far better qualified kids in order to take their own. So why do we care if one qualified kid gets in instead of a different qualified kid?
The issue is it’s a zero-sum game. For example, if Harvard were to admit hundreds of legacies that are “qualified”, but would not otherwise be admitted without a boost; then there are hundreds of fewer admissions spots (ignoring yield differences), so Harvard would need to reject hundreds of non-legacies that would otherwise be admitted.
Whether we should care about this is another issue. Fairness aside, Harvard is not the only game in town. There are many other excellent colleges besides Harvard, including some excellent colleges that do not consider legacy status in admission decisions.
There are so many elements to this topic and so many different perspectives that can be supported quite legitimately on varying sides.
With our daughter having recently graduated from Harvard we have a perspective that has been formed through her experience of being there for four years and us having visited many times. Our daughter is the literal definition of a holistic admit. We have no political influence, we are by definition socioeconomically upper class but that is completely dependent upon both my wife and I working with no adverse life circumstance occurring.
I believe so few people realize what it takes to be admitted and just how across the board strong that almost all these kids are, you think they are “normal” until you become aware of the depth of their accomplishments. Our daughter had reviewed her admissions file recently, kids are given that opportunity if they would like to see what the comments were and what the rationale was behind their being admitted, She was reluctant for quite some time to do so but also curious as so many kids are to attempt to find out “why me”. I encouraged her to do it suggesting how bad can it possibly be they admitted you (off the waitlist). While her academic accomplishments were significant,( Valedictorian 99.7 overall average) her ACT score was firmly in Harvard’s mid range. It was the other things that made the difference, EC’s, Essays and LOR’s. The next time I see her former guidance counselor I will be giving him a hug with tears in my eyes.
There are so many component parts that have to come together and as hard as that is I believe it is the way it should be. To me holistic relates to being across the board strong. I also believe that had these kids chosen to focus solely on their academics and excluded the “softs” most of them would be near perfect with their GPA’s and standardized test scores.
I am personally opposed to admissions solely based on GPA and standardized test scores, that is not the type of school that I would have wanted our child to attend. I prefer there to be more of a human element in the selection process. In the pursuit of impartiality there is the possibility of losing more than you are gaining.
I have seen some things from a legacy perspective that have raised my eyebrows, primarily from the perspective of multiple siblings from the same family being admitted, you know that absent legacy considerations or developmental donor/political considerations that is just not at all likely to happen. There is one developmental donor circumstance that irritates me to my core, I sincerely hope this kid never rises to prominence. There are many legacy kids who are off the charts brilliant including one of our daughters closest friends who was PBK and Summa.
Our daughter was very fortunate although that opportunity arose out of significant effort. Our perspective is now an inside one so to speak, I am sure my perceptions and thoughts would be different if we didn’t have a child that attended Harvard. Our daughter worked in the admissions office and was a tour guide for most of her time at Harvard and as a result of that she and we have additional insight as a result of those experiences. Given what I am aware of I believe Harvard does a lot more right than they do wrong in regard to admissions.
Wow. Look at the application money machine. This is hard to comprehend. That would estimate around 250 Caucasian seats per gender available after all seats are spoken for before the first application is read. Doesn’t include athletes international students. It’s orobably even a smaller pool. Pool is actually too kind. It’s a puddle.
H is the best but do they really need the money from the 25000 students with no possible way of attending.
I guess the endowment isn’t quite big enough.
It is said the ivies are looking to cool the arms race a bit and focus on qualities like being “kind”. Why not start by displaying a little kindness as a world leader and publish the real story to give people a choice in the matter.
“ https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/16/01/turning-tide-inspiring-concern-others-and-common-good-through-college-admissions
The Launch of the Turning the Tide Report Marks the First Step in Efforts of Coalition to Inspire Concern for Others in High School Students, Reduce Achievement Pressure, and Create Greater Equity for Economically Diverse Students”
Disclosure. FIL BIl and wife all are H grads. Only D is attending top 10 first choice. This is in no way is sour grapes view. Not at all. Love the Crimson. Just my thoughts IMHO.
@greatkid That is a really interesting perspective. Thank you for sharing! Your daughter’s experience backs up what @lookingforward is forever telling people about what it takes to get into these schools.
Would you be willing to share a little bit about what she discovered? What did they like about the EC’s, essay? recommendations?
Hi gallentjill,
I gladly will either later today or tomorrow.
This reminds me of admissions to one of the top private K-12 schools in our area when our D1 was getting ready to enter kindergarten. We applied. She visited and we (parents included) interviewed. She didn’t get in — and I found out through a source later that after all the various hooked categories were done (including legacies, which were a really high number because this school had been around for a long time), there were TWO slots left in the K class for unhooked kids. Maybe it was good experience to get ready for college admissions. 
@intparent This is exactly the reason we moved out of NYC when my first daughter was born. What a terrible process!
But we lived in a Midwestern city that would probably surprise you. This school was near where we lived and had a strong reputation, so that is why we applied. (And it really is “we” when they are 5!). And we discovered the same thing that is true in college admissions — there were a lot of other decent school choices (some less expensive than this school, too), and our kids got an excellent education elsewhere without that admission. Probably the more important lesson that we carried into the college application process.
What constitutes the list was redacted from the lawsuit documents. What we do know is that 2.6% of White applicants were on the Dean/Director’s special interest list, whereas 0.5 to 0.7% of applicants from all other races were on the list. If the list was simply a measure of the most promising scholars, it seems unlikely that there would be so few non-White applicants on the list, particularly Asian applicants. The degree of over-representation among White students is similar between Legacies and the Dean/Director’s list, which may provide some hints.
Harvard alums like to repeat talking points about how strong legacy applicants are compared to others. As a general rule they are raised to value education, they are prepped to play the right sports and do the right ECs, attend the right schools, get high test scores, and basically enjoy the kind of curated youth that translates to “objectively stronger” college applications. Etc.
If that were actually true, Harvard alums would be fighting to abolish the identifying legacy information from the application. Legacy applicants being so strong (and of such good moral character) they’d naturally welcome the chance to prove their worth in a fair admissions competition.
Except that Harvard alums have no interest in their children having “the chance to prove their worth in a fair admissions competition”. Why should they? They (or some of them, anyway) are in a position to lavish care and attention on their kids to produce a high-quality package. The best of those kids will get into Harvard and shine there, and Harvard will be glad to have admitted them. The parents aren’t interested in proving to you, or anyone else, that their ability to raise their kids right and provide them opportunities didn’t matter. They want their kids to go to Harvard, not prove their worth in some abstract competition that satisfies you. If you were in their shoes, I’d be surprised if you didn’t feel the same way.
Of course the alums just want to win by any means necessary. I’m just calling out the rhetoric one often hears about how wonderful legacy applicants are. If they were really so wonderful, their admissions rate would go up in the absence of the legacy tip. Surely there are rejected legacies out there who feel they would have gotten in if that darned legacy admit rate weren’t kept artificially low.
A lot of them are wonderful, tbh (I happen to know a few of them pretty well). It’s a balancing act for Harvard and places like it, as I keep saying. There are a few who may be less wonderful but get an extra-big tip because their parents are masters of the universe, but there are also many more who are denied admission but have superior stats to some non-legacies who were admitted because of other aspects to their package or because they satisfied some other institutional need.
@LadyMeowMeow While I completely agree that legacy students are more than likely going to be raised in an environment that fosters a belief in education, playing sports and all the other factors that’s not the point. That said I’d guess about half want to continue legacy and the other half don’t. Some want to continue legacy as its the only thing they have to keep their kids in the competitive pool, alongside recruited athletes, URM, international students and geographic diversity (which MANY do not have most settle on the coasts). So…I’d bet many would in fact give up legacy status if all the other hooks were simultaneously removed. Remember, many Harvard grads are well heeled but are not in a situation to donate a building and like any parent they want what’s best for their kid-which may or may not include Harvard.
Very few people will give up a perceived advantage in any area in life. They might talk about doing so, but very few put their money where their mouth is. After all, they could always fill out the application and not list their Harvard parents info. My guess is few ever do this.
It’s great the files are being opened. IMO, all files to all colleges should be public info then let the cat out of the bag. There is too much dependency on “holistic” admissions and too little emphasis on stats. And it is getting worse.
It’s a shame more attention isn’t paid to the great colleges that choose not to consider legacy status. There are some. Highlighting those may be a more effective strategy than focusing on those that do, in terms of showing the value of an admissions process that is socially responsible and does not impact on alum contributions. I know of a few but not sure if there is a list anywhere. Anyone know of one?
Also, in terms of “legacy students are more than likely going to be raised in an environment that fosters a belief in education, playing sports and all the other factors that’s not the point.”. Any non-legacy student with credentials strong enough to earn a spot at Harvard will have created (or been raised in) his/her own environment that places a premium on academics and education. Legacy students are least likely to have done that themselves.
The legacy preference will NEVER be abolished. Too much riding on the outcome. Personally, I’d like to abolish all "hooks"but this is never going to happen. And actually the legacies do have the goods. If they don’t have something mommy or daddy is going to make sure that the gap is filled ( tutoring, special sports camps, special every other thing). And the hooks continue to grow. There is no real meritocracy in a situation in which 90% of the spots are gone before the ticket booth even opens.
I’m actually not sure why this is an important interest of the university. Is the idea that people will only contribute to their alma mater so they secure a place for their kids? Personally, I don’t see this as true. I give to my alma mater because I am grateful for the experience I received there. My kids are not interested in attending. I never assumed my kids would attend. It doesn’t change the fact of my continued engagement.
^Some people may not care, or it may be irrelevant to them because they have no kids or kids who have no interest. When D got denied, I did not stop giving (or reduce my annual contribution) or volunteering. I knew the competition was brutal. If they had also denied S, who knows what I would have done in terms of continued giving or the amount. It certainly would not have increased. The universities obviously think it is important or why else would they continue the preference. By the way, no one I know assumes making contributions will ensure their kids’ getting in. On the other hand, being involved in fundraising for Yale for close to 20 years, I do know of a lot of alums who stopped giving or stopped volunteering after their kids got rejected.
Folks, Harvard gets 40k apps per year. Probably 20k of those applicants are academically qualified to the point that no one would be surprised that they were a Harvard student. I’ll guess half of those - 10k - are very highly academically qualified - leaving other distinguishing characteristics out of it. Harvard admits 2k, to yield a class of around 1,650.
Let’s say legacies have a 30% admit rate, a 90% yield and form 15% of the class. That means 917 applied, 275 were admitted and 248 matriculated. I’m going to guess that nearly every one of them was in the top 20k of applicants, so we’re talking about 1.2% of the group that no one would be surprised that they were at Harvard. If half of them were in the very highly qualified 10k subset, it would - again - mean that we’re talking about 1.2% of the members of that group.
What bothers some people is that the legacies end up as 15% of the class, but Harvard could admit any of the students in the 10k subset and everyone would say “oh, that makes perfect sense”. They could admit anyone in the 20k subset and everyone would say “yeah, I can see that”. The fact that some of those admitted were legacies makes no practical difference - and how do you know how qualified or not they were, academically or otherwise?
There is no magical ranking that says “this GPA from this school, coupled with this ACT score and those ECs, participated in at this level” is the cutoff. This is why all the anti-legacy arguments dissolve into politico-religious assertions, because there is no absolute ranking - it’s all about what’s best for the school in aggregate, as determined by them. Is the virtuoso bassoonist more valuable than the kid who wins the Intel award? How do their academic stats and letters of recommendation compare, and how do you look at them apples-to-apples when they go to different schools, took different courses and may live in different states or countries (and what if one of them lives in a state that provides “geographic diversity”? What about their personalities? Everyone’s the sum of everything in their portfolio, and everyone’s unique - but there are 20k kids every year who wouldn’t stand out one way or another at Harvard, and 10k of those are bona fide stars. That’s five times as many as Harvard can admit, though.
How do they choose among them? By what they think is best for Harvard. What would you do, if you were in charge of admissions at Harvard? You’d also choose the class you thought was best for Harvard, but if that was by ranking everyone by academic stats (assuming there was some apples-to-apples way of doing that) and admitting the top 2k, you’d end up with something that didn’t look a lot like Harvard, and I think you’d be surprised by the unintended consequences.
Sure, legacies are admitted at a higher rate than non-legacies - they tend to have better stats and better portfolios, and often their parents volunteer or give money in meaningful amounts. That’s all good for Harvard, maybe better for Harvard than replacing them all with URMs, or first-gens, or kids with any number of distinguishing characteristics, or, dare I say, straight-up geniuses. Being a legacy can be the characteristic that distinguishes this really smart, accomplished kid from the one next door and makes them be one of the 2k that get admitted.
You don’t think that’s fair? It isn’t, because the legacy tag means that the applicant’s file isn’t handled randomly, but there’s no kid you can point to who didn’t get in because that legacy did, and, more to the point, you can’t devise a system that’s better for Harvard, because this is the class Harvard wants, and they’re in a better position than anyone else to decide who should be in it. Harvard admits the collection of students every year that in aggregate they think is best for Harvard, for a million different reasons - and it makes no measurable difference to the “quality” of the class.
@northwesty likes to say, “legacy is a tiebreaker in a game with a lot of ties”. With tens of thousands of applicants every year who’d fit in just fine, that’s exactly right, I think.