The question is: why should athletes get advantages in admissions over non-athletes.
@Rivet2000 Why should a student who is ranked top 10%, or has a SAT/ACT in the top 10% get advantages over everyone else who applies?
"The question is: why should athletes get advantages in admissions over non-athletes. "
The answer: because these top-ranked D1 schools have a long-standing athletic tradition and are heavily invested into athletic infrastructure. They do know that their athletic programs benefit their universities and that the majority of their student-athletes are very successful post-graduation. As they put it in the Likely Letters - they do not just admit “Athletes” or “Chemists” or “Musicians” - they admit students of great promise.
However, if you think that their priorities are totally messed up then do not let your kids apply to top D1 universities.
The problem, @observer12, is when you talk about applicants who are “outstanding” or “superstars”, what do you mean? Generally, when you cut through it, people making these kinds of arguments are talking about kids who have the highest stats, and suggesting that they would get the slots in a just world.
But that’s not what these schools want. The tippy-top schools could fill their classes with perfect-stats kids many times over. They’d have a pretty boring, monochromatic student body, though, and the schools’ impact on and penetration into society would shrink, because all the kids with special attributes and achievements beyond stats would be thrown out. That’s a bad outcome for Harvard and its peers.
So then, you might say, let’s give priority to a group of fabulous kids with certain attributes, and cut them some slack on stats. Well, if you go down that road, you’re doing exactly what the universities are doing, just with your individual emphasis.
In the end, for the universities, it’s all about admitting the class that it’s in their best interests to admit. And most of those admits aren’t admitted because their primary attribute is being really, really smart, as evidenced by grades and scores (although many are).
Are there families here that have first hand experience with elite colleges in both the US and overseas?
For example, Oxbridge is much more pure-merit based admission than HYP. Does Oxbridge really have a much more monochromatic student body?
I’m not an expert, but it appears in the UK there are 1.75m undergraduates (2.7% of a population of some 66m, 87% of which is white, per the UK Office for National Statistics) studying at 164 “higher education providers” (of which 135 are universities) in the UK (http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/facts-and-stats/Pages/higher-education-data.aspx).
Contrast that with the US, which has some 4,600 degree-granting higher education institutions serving some 19m undergraduates (per NCES: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_105.20.asp), or about 5.8% of the population. College is much more of a “thing” in America.
Meanwhile, apparently about 20% of Oxford undergraduates are non-UK (https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures/full-version-facts-and-figures?wssl=1), but, from what I can tell, about 80% are white (https://public.tableau.com/views/UniversityofOxford-StudentStatistics/EqualityData?%3Aembed=y&%3Adisplay_count=yes&%3AshowTabs=y&%3AshowVizHome=no#3). Cambridge undergraduates appear to be 21% international and 74% white (https://www.equality.admin.cam.ac.uk/files/information_report_2015-16_draft_-_final.pdf).
Contrast this with, say, Harvard, where the latest incoming class is somewhat less international (12.4%) but majority nonwhite (https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics).
I think the UK has a more international orientation but is a much whiter country than the US, and the demographics of leading universities in both countries reflect that.
Now we’re talking the whole class, not legacies. Oxbridge, like many US publics, isn’t trying to build the same sort of broad community. Even UCB and UCLA are holistic, when wading through the tidal wave of top academic applicants. Holistic schools with fierce competition can cherry pick among them.
The attributes top holistics want, beyond stats/rigor standards, aren’t just a vegetable soup of extras, two of these, ten of those. You don’t get points for just being different, she’s into Lithuanian folk dance, he does standup comedy.
It’s more a type. Top performers who can see past their career interests, a few hs club opps, racking up hours just showing up for any old service, a couple of leader titles, etc. Top holistics can ask for the perspective, vision and energy to choose well and follow through, the right balances. The thinking.
Even assuming that the “merit” definition should be based on stats alone is self-defeating. It’s not the broader thinking, reaching, they ask for.
In general, not always, a smart legacy kid has an understanding. Their parents were the type. That’s more than wealth, power, expensive ECs or SAT tutoring.
Could they do without legacy indicators? Sure. But CC assumes this status is a huge, heavy adcom finger on the scale, that getting legacies is so important that they shovel in under qualified, boring kids. Not.
Have any of the studies looking at the impact of legacy connections ever separated out otherwise hooked vs. otherwise unhooked legacies?
Here’s what I’m thinking; two of the primary “hooks” in college admissions are preference for development admits and recruited athletes. It’s possible that both are disproportionately taken advantage of by legacy families. Not all legacies are created equal. At these schools far more legacies are denied than admitted. A legacy whose family has given considerable donations to the school may be admitted as a development admit rather than a straight legacy. Even in the absence of past donations, the chance of the family a kid whose dad or mom graduated from an elite school having the capacity to endow a faculty chair or build a new science wing is obviously greater than that of a first gen. kid.
A lot of families I know who are sending their kids to Ivies and other elite universities and LACs are sophisticated about the process because they went to these schools themselves. They gave targeted donations. They signed their kids up for fencing lessons or got them involved in rowing at a young age. They sent their kids to schools with exceptional sports programs and a reliable record of preparing kids, even kids with mediocre SAT’s, for the rigors of an elite school.
Neither UCB nor UCLA uses legacy (or race/ethnicity) in its holistic admissions readings.
But they are holistic, what I said. Their sense of community does play a role.
Whatever sense of community may be being built does not require legacy consideration.
But also, the goals and methods of UC holistic readings differ considerably from those at many other schools.
So once we get past the academic-merit-alone standard the field widens. Individual Universities can craft a class that matches the culture, history, and traditions of a school. Some may say these things don’t matter. I disagree. For universities with strong history of athletic programs, it makes sense that they provide some preference to athletes, some with academics that don’t mach some students who are not admitted. These athletic programs also deliver marketing “goodness” to universities and build thriving alumni groups. For other universities that don’t have athletic programs I’m not sure that any athletic preferences are given at all.
What other preferences a university uses to craft their student body is up to them and is an inherent part of how they build their mojo. Some say that students with celebrity parents or parents from big businesses should not be given preferences and the same for legacies, but from an admissions pov it makes perfect sense. They too help build their community and cachet.
Not sure either of us could comment on the differences, without knowing the specifics. But based on what I’ve read from those 2 UCs, there’s considerable overlap. Remember, there are even differences in some unique sought-after aspects between, say, Dartmouth and Columbia. Or Stanford and Chicago.
From my perspective, legacy isn’t the threat to unhooked kids that many think. Not by itself. The greater institutional hurdle is geo goals. The personal hurdle is this fixation on stats, titles, awards, and “passions” and the fact that what makes a kid Top Dawg in her one hs, isn’t all a highly selective college looks for, in the individual.
So, many kids can’t match themselves.
Legacy, at public universities, may seem like an arbitrary factor to include in building a class. However, unless public colleges admit by academic merit alone, you can always argue what purpose the other factors in holistic admissions serve.
Not so far as I know,@Sue22, and this is my main beef with the Hurwitz study that people here like to cite, which purported to show that that legacies were much more likely to be admitted to the legacy school than peer schools - it didn’t distinguish among different kinds of legacies, and had two major correlation-causation issues. As I said on another thread:
One could also note, as you allude to above, that a legacy who’s double-hooked in another way can be a compelling applicant. If they’re recruitable as an athlete (sometimes for “rich-kid sports”, but occasionally because they’re high-stats and pull up the Academic Index of the teameven if they ride the bench) or if they’re a URM (there are more and more legacy URMs nowadays) they’ll often get a very good look.
If I’m reading @lookingforward 's comments (I’ve bolded some of it) correctly, I agree. @lookingforward correct me if I’m mischaracterizing, but the whole way of thinking that comes with having attended a HYP informs how I nudged my kiddos to approach their academic and extracurricular choices. I’m not saying I gave them a list of “approved” activities - far from it. Rather, I have watched what they are interested in and tried to connect it to the greater good of their community. I urged them to think deeply about the world around them and, if they felt compelled, to involve themselves in things (both volunteer, paid work and ECs that are just plain fun with no higher purpose than enjoyment and exercise) that reflect both their strengths and interests and what they feel called to do.
It’s a child-rearing/parenting mindset that calls for careful exploration and deep thought on both the parent and the child’s part. The goal is to raise healthy, happy and engaged adults. Whether they attend a HYP or another 4 year school doesn’t matter as much as the end result of a solid citizen who contributes to her/his community.
The “top schools” are looking for impact kids and many legacy kids are the impact kids with great stats.
Hmmm, I always believed that the primary purpose of legacy admissions was all about the $$$.
- A large percentage of legacy admits will be full pay, providing the tuition dollars that allows the school to be generous with financial aid.
- Legacy admissions encourages donations among alumni.
And yes, there are ancillary benefits, such as higher yield and higher school spirit. But first, follow the money.
@GnocchiB Yes, it’s a mindset, a way we encourage them. And then how they grow, acquire experiences, morph, think. You don’t have to be a tippy top parent to do this. In the end, it’s about the kids who apply, how they self present, their thinking, the records they built.
Btw, many lower SES and first gen kids, the sorts who can thrive at a TT, are also getting solid mentoring, in various ways. They know how to stretch, self advocate, find opportunities, make a mark in their communities, and more. They can pull together a great app, including answering any Why Us.
@hebegebe, I wish CC could get off the notion it’s all about money. I have never heard a top tier adcom say, let’s take him, his parents will give us a nice donation. Or, this kid is/will be rich, someday, let’s admit him. Nor any mention of full pay. (Not for need blind.) The case of uber donors is a little different: there has been an obvious record of giving, already in place, very big bucks. But even then, there’s a vetting.
From the development perspective, it’s “overall satisfaction with their own college experience” that is a large factor in alum contributions. Sure, that’s both the campus years and after. And I have no doubt that seeing one’s kid get admitted is sweet.
My point, @hebegebe, is that the mere fact of being the child of someone who went to a top-tier school generally carries very little weight with that school. A legacy candidate’s interesting if they’ve got the stuff @lookingforward’s talking about, and family donations and involvement make them even more attractive (as I note in the last sentence of the paragraph you’re quoting).
Of course not. That is exactly the point of a policy-you don’t need to have conversations about individual cases when the policy will nudge it the right way at the aggregate level.
FYI, while I don’t know many admissions people, I do know endowment people, and particularly during the 2008 recession and aftermath they discussed the various funding sources for university budgets, including the importance of full pay students.