<p>My grandfather went to Yale but neither of my parents did. My grandfather was pretty accomplished he got a JSD doctorate. With the overwhelming applicant pool this year, and my less-than-outstanding merit (thats right I'm NOT an A student im a B student), My chances are pretty much minimal. I do have an interview this Sunday but I'm sort of :/ about it because I dobut its going to matter.</p>
<p>How far do "hooks" like legacy and first generation student get you? :s</p>
<p>it can cure the (slightly) sick but it can't raise the dead. And it can cure sickness less and less. mostly today, the only thing RD legacy gets you at an Ivy is if there are two candidates who are equal and Yale can ony pick one, they take the legacy. </p>
<p>Of course legacies who apply ED to Ivies that have it have a leg up, as do LEGACY legacies (as in, hi my name is Jake Brown, my family founded Brown) but that doesn't seem like your case.</p>
<p>First generation is so overrated its not even funny... </p>
<p>Legacy on the other hand... I read from somewhere that the acceptance probability was almost double that of non-legacy.</p>
<p>Legacy doesnt help as much as you would think or that it traditionally did. Reach. The doubling of 5% is 10%, and the legacy applicant pool tends to be a self-selected strong pool anyways.</p>
<p>Not far enough.</p>
<p>(I kid!) I was deferred, though.</p>
<p>Well, you still have to be qualified, but it does help you stand out.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Legacy on the other hand... I read from somewhere that the acceptance probability was almost double that of non-legacy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If true, that doesn't establish favoritism. You would have to know the comparative characteristics of each pool. It could be that legacy applicants trend stronger than non-legacy applicants.</p>
<p>I applied ED to Dartmouth with stats in all of Dartmouth's range and some really strong ECs and my grandfather went and I was deferred. You also have to think that in the early pool, they are going to be far more likely to accept minorities and they take in about two-thirds of all their athletes, so the applicant pool can be just as competitive. </p>
<p>I think my situation best explains it, that it's a reason to not reject you, not necessarily a reason to accept you if that makes sense. Well, we'll see in April!</p>
<p>
[quote]
It could be that legacy applicants trend stronger than non-legacy applicants.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Possibly... the children of legacy will probably be better prepared in their apps than some kid applying just for the heck of it.</p>
<p>Right, and the children of legacies are probably more likely to be intelligent, wealthy, and, most importantly, grow up in homes with a strong focus on education. Anecdotally I've heard that legacies tend to be just as bright and academically successful as anyone else.</p>
<p>You still have to be qualified, as someone said, but my guess is that legacy mostly helps you with the intangibles, like if the adcoms just don't find you that interesting of if you have non-"compelling" EC's. Just a guess though.</p>
<p>You might want to search this forum for many other threads on the topic. Many of the adults/alumni on this board may be exhausted from having written their points of view on the subject many times over. Several legacy threads have pretty meaty discussions. Legacy will not help a B student without highly extraordinary ECs get in, unless legacy is compounded with development status. It certainly isn't a hook. At best it's a tip. Agree with all who say the legacy pool is a very strong pool and that to those who much has been given much is expected.</p>
<p>my c was deferred/rejected several years ago. C was an A student with national awards and leadership and excellent scores. C was double legacy (grad school though) so part of me thinks Yale likes to make an example of turning down some legacies too.</p>
<p>Legacy will not help an average student with unimpressive EC's get in. However, it could be the deciding factor between two high level students with impressive ECs. We just had a kid get in from our school with varsity football, clarinet, a 3.9 UW GPA. However, he also had 4 generations of legacy at Yale.</p>
<p>Yeah you have to take into account the degree of legacy - a grandparent isn't the same as both of your parents. An uncle may not even be legacy. And I'm not sure how it works if your parents just did grad school there. And of course there is donating legacy.</p>
<p>I'm an URM and a legacy, with pretty good grades and ECs, and I was deferred SCEA.... sigh. Being a legacy doesn't help you the way it used to. Like others said, its a tipping factor, I guess.</p>
<p>My family's been at Yale since the mid 1800s, but my parents attended Harvard and Princeton (Yale's biggest competitors), but I got in. I know of quite a few people more qualified than me, so I really do think it plays a role in admissions.</p>
<p>C's can get in....."W"</p>
<p>I think legacy is more potent when your father's a prominent state politician, as GHWB was at the time, and your grandfather was a US Senator.</p>
<p>Lol, when I got deferred, a friend who got in SCEA complained that instead of hanging out with me she'd wind up rooming with some "stuck-up Senator's daughter *****."</p>
<p>There's really one other factor, implied by earlier posts: money. How much has your family given to the University in the past?</p>
<p>If you don't believe me, read "The Price of Admission" by WSJ reporter Daniel Golden. The WSJ came to the conclusion that wealthy legacies (regardless of generational skipping) have about a 50% chance of getting in.</p>
<p>Those in the position of power (US Senate, Supreme Court, CEOs etc.) have almost 100% chance of getting their kids in. GWB has been cited as an example, quite accurately. The two men that ran against GWB--John Kerry and Albert Gore, Jr.--both have children that got in because of legacy (Yale and Harvard respectively).</p>
<p>The positions of power that jamescchen mentions are in no way guarantees of admission, although they certainly hlep. For instance, GWB's daughter who attended Yale was widely reported in the media to be valedictorian of her class and either student body or senior class president (forget which), in addition to other extracurricular accomplishments. It's not like she didn't have some independent merit. I am sure the same is true for the Kerry and Gore children. Kids with "famous" parents need to be within the range of realistic applicants or they won't be admitted. Many are in that range because they've got good genes, have been raised in households where education is paramount, and have had lots of opportunities that money can buy. They unquestionably get a boost because of famous parents, but these people aren't slackers. </p>
<p>BTW, when GWB, Kerry, Gore et al were admitted in the mid-1960s, the admissions scene was TOTALLY different. You can't compare their admission then to what would happen today.</p>