Which is self-reported data, so make of it what you will.
So with their legacy and the fact that the families had more money, they also were probably more likely to have had SAT prep courses.
I’m not arguing the legacy advantage, but I would not read much into a difference of ~20 points per section.
Self-reported, certainly, but bear in mind that this information was gathered from students who were actually admitted. If true, the legacies enrolled at Harvard have higher SATs than their classmates, and I’d bet the difference is far more pronounced when comparing legacy applicants as a whole to the rest of the Harvard applicant pool.
By the way, this thread had some good, evidence-based discussion of the legacy issue: http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1980224-are-legacy-preferences-dead-or-at-least-over-rated-p1.html
Most surveys and polling data are self reported data.
It is not very revealing to compare the academic stats of incoming legacy students with an average of ALL incoming students.
They should be compared to the average of students who are also middle class/affluent and have parents with college degrees and should not include recruited athletes. (While I understand some legacy children may have grown up in low-income households despite having a Harvard grad as a parent, those are more than likely to be the rare exceptions).
It would also be revealing to know whether legacy children from certain elite private high schools are admitted at a higher rate than legacies from public high schools and under the radar private schools. And if so, is that because their standardized test scores are higher or because legacy students from those privates are given an admissions boost?
I have no doubt that almost all the legacies who are admitted have credentials that fit into the range of admitted students. But if non-legacy students from the same affluent backgrounds who are admitted have higher average stats, that would indicate that legacies do have an advantage.
Ya know, often the focus on statistics about this or that only fuels a fire. Not always a representative or insightful fire, either. You look at one aspect and pretend you can extrapolate about the whole. Espenshade knew that and warned of it.
The Harvards aren’t taking kids solely based on their hs stats. Meet the bar (rigor, grades, scores) and then the rest needs to be there. And that rest is qualitative, but rests on some specific wants. Most kids miss that. This is part of why I nag them to dig into what else the colleges say or hint they want and need, the sorts of kids they feature.
The bright ones try. Then it shows in their apps and supps. They aren’t in a daze like so many Chance Me kids.
Get past superficials.
No one’s disputing that legacies have an advantage, but I think it’s different from what you think it is, @observer12, and varies very substantially depending on who a legacy is.
The baseline advantage that all legacies have is that because the ~800-~1,000 legacy apps per year at each of HYPS are flagged at the outset for specific review, they don’t get lost among the ~30k or more apps that these schools get every year. That’s not insignificant; it means that a legacy app isn’t going to be read quickly at the end of a long day by a tired adcom and thrown out because it didn’t look special enough at that moment in time to that person.
The second part of the advantage is that, because the vast majority of legacy applicants indisputably meet the minimum academic standards for admission (and many of them are extremely strong), it’s in the clear interest of these schools to admit a not-insignificant number of them (nowadays, a number that translates into ~10-~15% of the class at these schools) - but few enough that (i) there are sufficient spots left for all the other constituencies to be satisfied and (ii) it doesn’t look to the outside world like there’s a hereditary aristocracy.
If alumni felt that their donations and involvement provided no advantage to their academically-qualified kids, those donations and involvement would fall off a cliff, to the university’s significant detriment. So, a fluctuating number of spots roughly equivalent to the number of recruited athletes is, now and for the foreseeable future, loosely reserved for a cherrypicked group of legacies (~70-~80% of legacy applicants are denied at these schools, as we know) based on what they bring to the party.
Which brings us to the often-overlooked fact that legacies are admitted, just like everyone else, on the basis of the entire package, including the aforementioned alumni giving/involvement as well as (which you flagged) where they went to high school and how they did there.
A legacy who attends a garden-variety public high school that sends a couple of students every few years to the legacy school, and whose alumnus parent donates a few hundred dollars a year and maybe occasionally does an alumni interview, enjoys no appreciable advantage beyond the first and second ones I noted, which, in the context of roughly 800-1,000 legacy applicants a year competing for roughly 200 offers at one of these schools, means very little. That kid needs to be a star, highly competitive in the context of the overall applicant pool, to be admitted - especially because their family may not be able to afford the kind of enrichment/test prep, etc., that other legacy families can. Every year, a significant number of such “weakly-connected” legacy stars are admitted at all these schools, and do very well there.
On the other hand, if a legacy applicant attends an elite private high school well-known to the admissions office for its academic standards, and where there is a good rapport between the college counselors and the admissions office because kids are admitted from there every year, and the applicant’s family is highly involved/generous, and the applicant (because he/she attends such a school) has had strong academic preparation and produced a well-developed application, with test scores (possibly bolstered by the tutoring that his/her family can afford) that stack up well against the admitted class, they are going to have a very significant advantage relative to other applicants in the general pool, other applicants with middle-class/affluent parents who have college degrees and, critically, other legacy applicants. That kid doesn’t need to be an absolute star the way the one in the previous paragraph does (but may well be one), and he/she is much more likely to be admitted - and do fine or better than fine in college, by the way.
Ultimately, the real advantage in the game of life, as well as in college admissions, is being born high-SES, to be honest.
Some of that, absolutely.
But remember, a legacy can presumably better explain the choice to apply (the Why Us or any other question designed to glean awareness.) They don’t usually refer to “you’re a top college and I want a top college.” Or, “you’ll prepare me for a top med school.”
That’s not wealth or a fancy prep or lax camp or SAT support. It’s real, a different level of knowledge of the college, what it offers, what it values, and comes across in the app. Or not, then legacy isn’t any protection.
It can happen from an ordinary hs, with parents who aren’t big donors- or consistent donors- or who ever gave anything.
Notwithstanding what @DeepBlue86 says, Harvard and Yale will admit legacy kids from public schools – certainly, high-quality public schools, but sometimes even mediocre public schools if the student stands out – and reject clearly qualified legacies from the snootiest, most academically demanding prep schools. They will admit legacies whose parents have contributed little or nothing by way of time or money to their alma mater, and reject clearly qualified legacies whose families have contributed hundreds of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years. There isn’t any formula that guarantees success other than being someone whom any college would accept.
Agree with both @lookingforward and @JHS - the whole app (including perceived fit with the institution) is critical, and legacy status or where an applicant went to high school are only pieces of the puzzle. For example, in 2011, Jeff Brenzel, then-dean of admissions at Yale, stated in the New York Times that in that year he had denied more than half of the applications of children of Sterling Fellows (donors who have given at least $1 million to Yale in their lifetime).
@DeepBlue86 said “No one’s disputing that legacies have an advantage…” But I thought some people were disputing that.
I think we agree on the rest of your post @9:08am. Legacies from elite private high schools don’t have to be absolute stars. That may not even be a legacy advantage per se but just an advantage given all the affluent students at those private schools. It would make sense that with all the tutoring available to high income families, those students would be expected to have exceptionally high SAT scores relative to similar students from public schools. And while I am sure some do, it would be interesting to see how many of those admitted students actually have lower standardized test scores relative to the no-name public school students (including legacies) who get rejected.
A legacy or any other advantage does not have to mean that the students who are admitted are not qualified. It just means that some are less qualified – in terms of standardized test scores and high school record – than many students who are rejected.
@JHS It would be interesting to compare the stats of admitted legacies from public schools to the stats of admitted legacies from “name brand” private schools to see if the public school legacies have a higher bar to meet. Likewise, it would be interesting to compare the stats of middle class/upper middle class students from public schools with the stats of admitted students from “name brand” private schools. How often does a student with very good but not outstanding stats from a no name high school get admitted versus one from an elite private school?
I do disagree with @lookingforward about a student’s ability to answer the “why us” question being important. Does Harvard even ask that anymore? I suspect that question is more important to colleges that worry about their yield and want to know the student will likely enroll if admitted. And presumably colleges know that there are expensive college admissions consultants who specialize in helping wealthy students answer that question. I doubt it matters to Harvard whether the truly brilliant and accomplished public school student wants to go to Harvard because he or she thinks Harvard is the best university in the country and says so instead of demonstrating “a different level of knowledge of the college”. Harvard already knows why students want to attend. The application tells them who the student is and what drives them and excites them and interests them.
Finally, that quote from Jeff Brenzel saying that he denied “more than half” of the $1 million + donors means he probably admitted close to half of them. That’s an extremely high admissions rate and just because a Jared Kushner type is “qualified” (as I’m sure he was) does not mean that wasn’t given an admissions advantage over thousands of far more qualified students who were rejected.
Wow, ^ you’re mixing up a lot of assumptions from various corners and hoping to make a cake.
Yes, the Why Us matters. It isn’t always directly asked, so what? But TT adcoms are looking for a level of understanding and thinking, through all the elements of the app and any supp. Every piece, not just a transcript and resume. Even how a kid pulls together his app and how he answers the various questions can show this. Or not. Harvard knows, of course, that lots of kids want to attend. Now they filter, intensely, for those they feel deserve it. No dart boards. Kid either shows it fully or not.
I don’t think you realize just how little so many kids know about their targets or, when there is a Why Us, how often they do answer generically, as if they put little thought to it. Or with outright misinfo. It’s far from a yield issue. The tippy tops have the luxury to cull severely. Anything can trip up a kid.
Admits, including legacies, need to be qualified to do the work and engage with the campus community, as the college wishes.At that point, who cares if someone else’s stats are a smidge higher. This isn’t rack and stack.
I don’t get why so many assumptions trump, on CC and elsewhere, nor why so many take the media at face value.
If the elite preps hold an advantage, it’s that their GCs know what the tippy tops want. They know how to match, holistically. They aren’t guessing. The kids they pull for (a reduced percentage of the hs class) are well qualified. The details they provide are more generous and on track than some GCs who just rattle off that Billy was in band and DECA, took x AP courses. The teacher LoRs are similarly solid.
Kushner wasn’t a legacy.
“@DeepBlue86 said “No one’s disputing that legacies have an advantage…” But I thought some people were disputing that.”
I don’t believe so; the specific review legacies get is an advantage, which I don’t think anyone would deny. I believe that there is also a legacy bucket, as described above, which would be another advantage. People disagree on the magnitude of the advantage, and have pointed out, accurately, that admitted legacies stats-wise tend to rank in the top half of the class.
“A legacy or any other advantage does not have to mean that the students who are admitted are not qualified. It just means that some are less qualified – in terms of standardized test scores and high school record – than many students who are rejected.”
My response to that would be:
First, you may believe that statement strongly based on anecdotal evidence, but you can’t know it to be true. It presupposes being able to assign a unique ranking to each applicant based on their test scores, high school, rigor of courseload and grades. Unless a student has perfect test scores (and on how many and which tests?) you can’t rank them by that measure, you can’t assign a specific ranking to high schools, you can’t compare rigor across high schools, you can’t make an incontrovertible assertion about whether grades or scores should be more important and you don’t know the details of anyone’s transcript except your own kid.
Second, even if you could prove it to be true, what difference would it make? Even assuming HYPS actually could make a ranking for all >30k applicants based on grades and scores like the one described above, are you suggesting that they should do so and accept the top 2,000 on that list without regard to anything else? That the rest of the application (essays, recommendations, variety and depth of extracurricular activities, evidence of leadership or some unique talent, race, economic background, fit and demonstrated interest, etc.) should count for nothing? Or do you believe these schools should make targeted exceptions for certain people and groups? Because if you do, you’re proposing something that already exists, just tweaked slightly to suit your personal beliefs.
At the end of the day, these institutions could fill many classes each year with qualified applicants and are building their classes based on which mix of 2,000 individuals it will be most advantageous to the school, now and later, to give seats to. There are many constituencies that it’s in the university’s best interest to satisfy, and one important one is alumni. If 10-15% of the class each year are legacies, many of whom are extremely talented in a variety of ways and each of which is highly valuable to the university for some reason, I’m not sure why we should care or what value judgment we should make, other than that it’s a lot more likely that you’ll be one of those people if you’re born rich.
Anyone can say URMs, legacies, etc, are in their own “bucket,” compared against each other-- but I don’t think they speak from any experience or knowledge. The cover sheet on an app file will hold certain info- sure, that includes a legacy flag. That’s not some special pooling.
What some often confuse legacy with is kids of uber donors. These few, particular cases are usually brought to admission attention early, by development, akin to an athlete pre-read. But not the same pull as the coach has.
Special cases like a Clinton or Obama daughter can also go straight to the dean or another lead. Legacies in general, are part of the usual pool. No special pool either, for elite preps. There are some hs, like Stuy, that put forth so many apps they may have a dedicated rep. But that’s not a bucket. After first cut, they go though the same review stages as anyone else.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
OK, now we’re just debating. So closing thread.