<p>“Harvards admit rate for legacies is 40 percent versus 11 percent for general applicants.”</p>
<h2>Read on for the information and the stats comes from the DOE (thats the US Department of Education). I just thought I would inform you of something I came across the other day.</h2>
<p>By Andrew Hendel
Opinions Editor
Wednesday, November 26, 2003</p>
<p>According to a newly published research paper by Thomas Loverro, Class of 2003, legacies are admitted to college at higher rates than other students even if they are somewhat less qualified.</p>
<p>In the paper, which was published in the Stanford Undergraduate Research Journal, Loverro cited a Department of Education report that found that legacy students at Harvard averaged 35 points less on the SAT than non-legacies. According to Loverro, Harvards admit rate for legacies is 40 percent versus 11 percent for general applicants.</p>
<p>I see nothing wrong with legacy admissions. To begin with, colleges are free to decide who they want to admit, so it's not our place to have a hissy-fit about it. The bottom line is that legacy admissions make up a small enough portion of the admitted applicants that it is not worth worrying about the subversion of meritocracy. </p>
<p>I think there is value in attended the same university your parent attended. There is value in having such a family tradition. Is it unfair? Yes. But so are many things in life. College admission does not dictate how much money you will make, or what rights you will have, it is just a decisions of what step you will take it your life, so this slight unfairness in not significant enough to make a fuss about.</p>
<p>If you are wondering, I do not have any legacy at any school I am applying. I am speaking in principles.</p>
<p>I think that a student's individual reasons for wanting to attend a particular college should be valued over another student's wanting to attend the same college just because his or her parents did.
Individual thinking, research and personal goals >>> tradition</p>
<p>It is shameful that the children of college graduates--people already at a competitive advantage when it comes to competitive college admissions--should get more help because of legacy admissions. I'm glad this paper was written so that affirmative action detractors can finally hear about admission procedures that are actually unfair. One serves to close gaps, the other only serves to make them larger. Legacy benefits university endowments and those that can afford to donate to them--that's it.</p>
<p>Without legacies the endowments of all the big private universities would be significantly smaller, and that in turn means less financial aid/research/etc...</p>
<p>1/3 of Harvard's annual budget comes from money generated from its huge endowment for example...</p>
<p>I read this somewhere, perhaps even on this board: Would you rather have a slightly sub-par legacy admit whose dad donated a library, or no legacy student and no library?</p>
<p>One of my good friends was a legacy many times over, and his dad donated 10 mil for a new library wing at harvard. He was rejected EA last year. His scores were dismal, but still... just my $.02.</p>
<p>Another thing schools like about legacy admits: the yield rate is very high,</p>
<p>At one of the few places where they report the stats - Princeton - the overall yield rate last year was 68%, but the yield rate for legacy admits was 88%.</p>
<p>As someone who went to Harvard receiving full financial aid, much in the form of scholarships sponsored by alum, I marvel at the ignorance of those who think legacy admissions are unfair. None of us who benefit from the largess of alum would do so if the school's did not provide them some thanks. These are private Universities that could still be for the use of only the rich and famous if they so chose. Please, understand the full picture.</p>
<p>legacy is fine with me, so long as they keep AA and other programs to ensure low-income and disadvantaged kids a shot at a harvard education. Those rich legacies fund those poor kids' educations, so its all gravy.</p>
<p>college admissions has just been such a disillusioning process as a while. maybe it's part of the growing up, recognizing life sucks/is not fair phase between hs and college. aa, legacies, urms, orms, hooks, the kids who don't fit into any category, etc. everyone's bitter or stereotyped. everyone believes they are right and who's to really say. for every action there is an equal reaction. though i'm sad that there are inequalities, i respect a private institution's right to make its own choices, no matter how stupid i think those choices are. after all, if one of us ends up rejected and then making billions later, who's loss is it really?</p>
<p>sunglasses, I did not mean all of those for me personally. "everyone's bitter or stereotyped" over those issues. there is no 100% consensus that any of those are fair, thus, there will always be someone screaming that life is not fair and someone screaming back that that's life. </p>
<p>regarding a hook, some people have used their race or location as a hook, thus I merely used the term hook to loosely represent everything that's ever been attributed to an extra advantage. if you scan many posts, you will see that people use hook both as something they couldn't control or something they worked hard for. of course i did not imply hook as, say, being an exceptionally gifted musician. still, knowing today's world, someone would still complain...lol</p>
<p>Here's how I look at it. Most people that apply to these colleges fit into one of these catagories: Legacy, URM, first generation, special talent.</p>
<p>So either way (although legacy does help more) - there is usually some extra "bump" in the process for applicants</p>
<p>True, legacy does help...but I don't know if I would go as far as saying it helps MORE than some other factor. I have several friends who are children of legacies and have been deferred or rejected from Harvard.</p>