"Harvard’s Class of 2022 is made up of over 36% legacy students, according to The Harvard Crimson. The year before, the share of the freshman class was just over 29%.
As of 2015, legacies were five times more likely to get into the world-famous university than applicants without relatives who went to Harvard.
Stanford University gives legacies a significant advantage as well. ‘It used to be that every application would be read twice. Now, only one reading is guaranteed, although — thanks, Mom and Dad — every legacy application still gets two sets of eyes,’ a 2013 Stanford Magazine article about the school’s admissions process reported.
Across the top 30 schools in the U.S., one review from 2011 discussed in the Washington Post found that children of alumni ‘had a 45 percent greater chance of admission’ than other applicants." …
folks at CNBC who wrote the article likely had very poor reading comprehension and math skills.
CNBC claimed the numbers were from a Crimson article (and linked to the article in the CNBC report). The Crimson article put the number at "More than 14 percent of surveyed Harvard freshmen said they are legacy students "
Further breakdown: “One parent went to Harvard College 10.8%, Two parents went to Harvard College 3.7%”
By the way, the CNBC article is a very good illustration of why it is often a good idea to check the original sources.
@Dave_Berry: I agree with tdy123. The CNBC numbers are grossly exaggerated, and I think you should correct your post. According to the Crimson article cited by CNBC:
“Slightly more than 14 percent of surveyed freshmen in the Class of 2022 reported being legacy students, a decline from the 18.3 percent from the Class of 2021 who did so.”
10.8% one parent
3.7% two parents
7.2% sibling
3.5% grandparent
1.4% multiple grandparents
5.5% aunt or uncle
4.7% other relatives
63.2% none (so all of the above would be 36.8%)
What Harvard admissions counts as a “legacy” for admission preference purposes may not be publicly stated (or whether there are different levels of admission preferences for different legacy relations).
There really must be errors here. According to Harvard (see article below), 14% of students are legacy. And 70% are on financial aid (below). If I were to guess, some sleep-deprived or non-math major student at the Crimson added up all of those categories when they were not mutually exclusive (ie the same person who has a parent also has an aunt, and that student is counted twice…they added those categories up and subtracted from 100% to get the 63.2%).
I have a freshman there now, and in chatting with his hall mates, and parents over parents weekend, move-in day, etc., there is no way the 36% is accurate.
I am not a fan of legacy preference, and my children are not legacy students (well, one is only a senior in high school, but she is not considering my alma mater in the end). But I still think it would be best to stick with the 14% as the accurate number. By the way, I am not a fan of legacy preference, but when I was in college as a first gen student, I did enjoy having friends who were legacies—they really did bring something extra in terms of school spirit and institutional knowledge, etc. that was beneficial. And clearly many of them did not get a “boost”—the phi beta kappa ceremony, etc had plenty of legacy students. It is a mistake to assume that all or even most are in some way under qualified. But I agree they should not, as a group, have different standards.
Oh, yes, it’s obvious that’s what the mistake was. Those categories all add up to 100. However there is no category for people with multiple connections (ie the student whose mom AND brother and grandfather attended). In reality, there is a tremendous overlap in those categories. Additionally, this is a self-reported survey that doesn’t have complete participation whereas the Harvard data (14%) is comprehensive, from actual admissions records, so it would overall be more accurate to use the Harvard data, even if Crimson fixed their error. So it appears they added up non—mutually exclusive categories to arrive at this silly 36% number. Harvard is pretty clear, too, that the admissions preference only extends to students who have a parent who attended undergraduate there (and there is nowhere on the application to even send in information about grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc).
Such a lesson that journalists should really be schooled in statistics, etc. or at least should have someone on staff to vet things likes this! While the 36 percent was pretty ridiculous, people sometimes can’t help believing what they read.
Dave, I think you should correct your subject/headline. Instead of just deleting this fallacious article/post, you really ought to consider adjusting your headline to say something to the effect of, “Don’t believe everything you read—Harvard’s freshman class is NOT over 1/3 legacy, but is still a sizable 14% of the student body.”
@EmptyNestSoon2, the error is on the part of CNBC, which claimed 36%. The Crimson lists the figure as 14%. @ucbalumnus, Harvard’s definition of legacy is publicly and privately stated as a son or daughter of someone who has graduated from Harvard College. https://college.harvard.edu/are-my-chances-admission-enhanced-if-relative-has-attended-harvard
Other relatives give no legacy tip, and relatives who attended Harvard graduate schools offer no tip. It may be interesting that many students have relatives who attended Harvard University, but there is no legacy advantage unless a parent attended Harvard College.
I wouldn’t put a lot of faith into what Harvard defines as a legacy. They say that only the parents count but who knows? The article is clear as to what they are defining as legacy. It certainly established a connection to admittance and relatives. The numbers seem way too high compared to overall acceptance rate to be ignored.
I don’t think anyone is saying that there is no boost for legacies. Just that:
You can’t add up categories that are definitely NOT mutually exclusive to derive a total number, as the CNBC journalist did. The “36% of all freshman are legacies” is garbage, and very embarrassingly shoddy reporting. The accurate number is 14%. Anyone can consider that number too high if they choose. Personally, I think it’s too high, my opinion. But it’s 14%, not 36%.
The other relatives aren’t even listed on an application (there is no space to say that your auntie or grandpa or 2nd cousin went there…unless for some reason you choose to write your essay about that, which would most likely be a big mistake). So it seems quite fair to believe that the primary legacy connection that helps is parents who attended Harvard College.
@damon30. I’m not sure that the source can be considered “definitive,” in that it’s the “Plaintiff’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.”
In any case if athletes, legacies, and children of donors and staff comprise 30% of the class, there is no way that legacies alone comprise 36%.
@jazzing
Exactly. The court document statistics were compiled through discovery and are very reliable. The article is the usual poor excuse for journalism.
The article is accurate if you define legacies as any relation (which is clearly defined in the article) not just parents. If you don’t think there is a boost for siblings you’re wrong.
even if 0% legacy: Harvard 18%URM, 12% recruited athlete, 10% international students,10% Dean’s/Director’s interest list, 16% Pell grant
just those Hooked categories leaves only 24% of the class (AT MOST) as unhooked. https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid/how-aid-works/fact-sheet
This is a terminology problem, not numbers problem. “Legacy” normally is understood as “at least one parent went to Harvard”, so the article should have stated “over 36% have family relations to Harvard”. That said, the numbers do suggest relatives other than parents also play a role in admission.